Let's Start the Hall Debate. Dils & Ari Lay Out the Debate...

The Baseball Hall of Fame ballots have been sent out to a panel of National writers who will ultimately decide who gets a ticket for induction to Cooperstown. On a side note, I am not at all sure why I am not yet included in this group of writers. In case Bud Selig is reading this, please get me some ballots next year. But I digress.

This year is important year for Hall of Fame consideration because the big cheater, Mark McGwire, is on the ballot. I do not know what all the fuss is about, because this was a one tool player to start with. He could hit for power. That’s it. He did not hit for average (.263 career hitter), had no speed (12 SBs), was an average fielder (one gold glove at the easiest position to field), and who knows if he could throw or not. Now we found out from his embarrassing testimony to Congress that his power numbers were inflated by something called “no comment.” I was jumping for joy when this happened, as it will likely keep him out of the Hall at least for a while, and he would have been a first ballot guy, and personally, I did not think he was a Hall of Famer even if he weren’t cheating. Now Bonds is another story, but we will leave that discussion for another day.

By the way, if I did have a ballot, I would mark off four names and four names only: Cal Ripken, Jr., Tony Gwynn, Rich Gossage, and Jim Rice. Period. End of story. The Hall should be for the best of the best, and not guys that were pretty good for a long time, or great for a short time.

My friend Ari started the debate on the Hall, and here is what he had to say on the topic:
With the 2007 list of nominees now available - including, of course, Big Mac - what do you think about the "Boys of Steroids" being in the Hall?

Essentially we are speaking of six guys:

Bonds, Sosa, Palmeiro, McGwire, Sheffield and Giambi.

Yes, by the time the latter two end their careers, their stats will likely merit (non-steroid era) induction.

Personally, and you can start here, I believe you either let them all in or none. Most writers and talk show hosts agree, and most think all should be inducted at this point.

You can't pick and choose based upon varying degrees of suspicion or playing favorites. Personally, I like three of these guys and dislike the other three, so that doesn't ethically fly.

There are too may variables like who tested when, who testified before congress and who did not, who was injured then came back "clean," who can't recall how to speak English, who used non-detectable supplements and so on. It's too hard, and I cannot fathom how writers can deny these guys the HOF based upon such ambiguities, though I don't deny none of these players are fully kosher.

But again, voting "no" would open up potential investigations up the proverbial wazoo, and perhaps "no" votes in the future for the likes of Pujols, Ortiz, ManRam, Thomas, Thome, Clemens, Gagne, Belle, Bonilla, Caminiti, Jim Rice, Mo Vaughn (just kidding), and even Griffey and A-rod. After all, Raffy never exactly looked "jacked up."

So, share your thoughts. I need to go prep for college football's final four playoff between Florida, Michigan, USC and Ohio State. Oh wait, that isn't occurring. Well, there's always one sport cheating the fans WAY more than baseball.