McGwire, like Gossage, Hall-worthy

The 543 current and former newspaper persons who vote for baseball's Hall of Fame should be made responsible for electing the next president of the United States.

Sure, you might wind up with Ron Paul running against Lee Smith … wait, that might not be a bad thing.

Anyway, at least baseball writers try to think before filling out their Hall ballots. They think too much sometimes, but rarely not enough.

Take me, please. My ballot arrived in mid-December. I filled it out, stuck it in an envelope, and prepared to mail it the next morning.

Then I held it.

That happened to be the day baseball's Mitchell Report results were to be released. I wanted to hear whether Mark McGwire was cited in the steroids probe and whether that would alter my vote.

Yes, I already placed an "X" in the box next to McGwire's name for the second time in his two years of eligibility.

It turned out McGwire wasn't on the Mitchell Report's list of those who allegedly used banned substances. Probably didn't matter anyway.

I'll vote for a suspected steroids guy, an alleged steroids guy or even a proven steroids guy if his production was Hall-worthy.

This year I voted for McGwire (who wasn't elected) and Rich Gossage (who was), and Smith, Andre Dawson, Jack Morris and Jim Rice (who weren't).

Unless something cataclysmic occurs between now and then, I'll vote for Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens and Sammy Sosa when they're eligible.

Rafael Palmeiro? No, but not because he tested positive. His numbers qualify, but he didn't pass the eye test that makes you say, "That guy belongs in the Hall."

Nobody ever squandered my vote by using steroids or human growth hormones. Or even Raisinettes if they're among baseball's banned substances.

The process simply would be too complicated for me if steroids were a deal-breaker. My head would implode if I had to sort out all the "dids" from the "didn'ts" who played the game.

It would be easier to figure out what Hillary's tears meant.

Seriously, I could be the smartest person among this year's 543 Hall voters and still not be smart enough to sort out this whole steroids mess.

Like, nobody has been able to tell me how many players used steroids, which ones they were and how much their performances were enhanced.

I voted for Rice and Dawson, but not because their numbers presumably were compiled without performance enhancers. I did because when I watched them play, they lived up to my personal Hall standard.

My vote went to McGwire not because of his 583 home runs or 70 in one season. It did because he passed the eye test often enough during his erratic career.

The criteria I go by don't include how a player from one decade compares to a player from another decade, say, Rice vs. McGwire.

More important is how a player compares to his contemporaries -- like Dawson vs. Ivan Calderon and McGwire vs. Jeff Blauser.

Some guys from the past struck me as being Hall of Famers. Meanwhile, some guys from the Steroids Era did, too.

That's what I'm going by -- what I saw on the field and what I see in the record book -- not what the Mitchell Report said.

If only the presidential election could be that uncomplicated.

mimrem@dailyherald.com