Jan 7, 2010, 8:57 AM EDT
Stellar Hall of Fame reasoning from Rick Morrissey of the Sun-Times:
Dawson, who played 11 years with Montreal and six with the Cubs, was
wiry strong his entire career. He looks very much the same today–the
same ridiculously skinny waist holding up the same solid upper body. He
had one season that popped out–49 home runs and 137 runs batted in to
win the 1987 most valuable player award while a Cub–but never put
together a string of seasons with outrageous power numbers.
I love this. With some players — usually players the writer doesn’t like all that much — we’re told we’re supposed to be skeptical of fluke seasons. Big spike in his home run total? ‘Roider!! Now,
however, when there’s a player the writer likes, we’re supposed to be skeptical
only of sustained power numbers and let the flukes lie. This is nonsense.
Look, I’m not accusing Andre Dawson of taking steroids. I don’t get
in the business of accusing anyone of doing steroids unless and until
there is actual evidence out there. So even if there were whispers about Dawson — which there are not, and to be honest, I highly doubt he ever touched the stuff — I’d ignore them unless and until someone actually put some evidence on the table.
But the point is, Morrissey doesn’t know that Andre Dawson didn’t do steroids, just like he doesn’t know all of the players who have taken PEDs. There could be a steroid user in the Hall of Fame as we speak. We could elect one next year. We have, and always will have, imperfect information on the subject, and in my mind, that renders the “well, he never did steroids” argument to support someone’s Hall of Fame candidacy ridiculous. Don’t presume guilt. Don’t presume innocence. Don’t presume at all. Punish the confirmed users if you wish, and stop speculating one way or the other about the personal use (or not) for those for whom we do not have the information. How hard is that?
Not that Morrisey cares about reason or fairness, as evidenced by the sense of dictatorial entitlement with which he views his Hall of Fame vote:
The civil libertarians might argue that without hard proof of
steroid abuse, those players should be allowed into the Hall of Fame.
But that’s the great thing about the Hall: You vote your conscience,
not the preponderance of evidence. And in the public square, we all get to be judge, jury and unfeeling despot. Somebody hand me my riding crop.
If you think this “I know better than the evidence” attitude is limited to steroids, you’re dreaming. Morrissey and like-minded voters simply know a Hall of Famer when they see one. QED.
- And That Happened: Tuesday’s scores and highlights 13
- Astros “making a strong effort” for Phillies ace Cole Hamels 22
- Angels acquire outfielders David Murphy and David DeJesus 22
- Jenrry Mejia gets 162-game ban for second failed PED test 43
- Nationals, Phillies agree to Jonathan Papelbon trade 63
- The Hall of Fame just made a MAJOR change to the Hall of Fame voting process 76
- Royals make another big move, get Ben Zobrist from A’s 92
- And That Happened: Monday’s scores and highlights 49
- The MLBPA is considering withholding cooperation with ESPN, Fox over Colin Cowherd’s comments (157)
- The Cubs are in discussions with the Phillies on Cole Hamels (146)
- Colin Cowherd wonders how baseball can be considered “complicated” if Dominicans can understand it (129)
- Major League Baseball rips Colin Cowherd in an official statement (123)
- Settling the Scores: Wednesday’s results (106)