Fountain of Youth

ASSOCIATED PRESS PHOTO

Julio Franco, the Mets’ 48-year-old veteran, may be baseball’s elder statesman, but four 40-something pitchers not named Randy Johnson (slowed by injury) or David Wells (struggling) — and one 39-year-old kid — are excelling.

They are:

Jamie Moyer, 44, who is 3-1 with a 2.65 ERA.

Today, Moyer tied the free-swinging Florida Marlins in knots, carrying a no-hitter into the seventh inning of the Phillies' 6-1 victory. Moyer went on to pitch 7/13 innings, allowing two hits and no runs.

Tom Glavine, 41, 3-1. ERA: 2.80.

In his last outing - a no-decision at Washington, Saturday, the Mets' polished lefthander pitched 6 innings and allowed 3 hits and 1 run.

Greg Maddux, 41, 2-2. ERA: 3.86.

Last outing was a win vs. L.A. Dodgers Saturday in which the San Diego Padres veteran pitched 7 innings and gave up just 5 hits and 2 runs.

Curt Schilling, 40, 3-1. ERA: 3.27.

The Red Sox righty's last outing produced a win in Baltimore on Wednesday. He pitched 7 innings and gave up 5 hits and 1 run.

John Smoltz, 39, 3-1. ERA: 3.96.

Last outing? A win at Colorado Saturday for the Braves' stalwart. He lasted 7 innings, yielded 9 hits but just 2 runs.

Junior No. 1 Among Many in No. 42 Salute

Associated Press Photo/Nam Y. Huh

Cincinnati Reds all-star outfielder Ken Griffey Jr., pictured above with the Cubs' Derek Lee on Jackie Robinson Day, wear their salutes to the late, great Hall of Fame Brooklyn Dodger on their backs. Griffey, wanting to make April 15 - the 60th anniversary of Robinson's breaking of the color barrier, was the architect of the salute.

For Griffey sent a request to commissioner Bud Selig seeking permission to wear the number that was retired throughout the game on 10 years ago and when Selig said yes, an avalanche of such requests followed. The result: over 200 Major League players, managers and coaches donned Robinson's number in games played Sunday.

There would have been many more, for at least two teams that fell victim of the poor weather on the East Coast - the Phillies and Astros - planned to a man to wear No. 42. The Dodgers were joined by the Cardinals and Seattle Mariners as teams on which every person in uniform wore the number.

Associated Press Photo,
Five Seattle Mariners wearing
No. 42 on Jackie Robinson Day

Only one Major League player wears No. 42 every day. Mariano Rivera, the veteran stopper for the New York Yankees, was one of a handful of players who wore the number when Selig retired it during the 50th anniversary celebrations a decade ago. Selig "grandfathered" in those players who wished to keep the number. Rivera and Mo Vaughn chose to do so as their own personal tribute to Robinson. Rivera is the only player who made that decision still active.

For one day, No. 42 of the Yankees had lots of company as an entire game joined in his ongoing salute.

Thanks, Jackie And All His Fellow Pioneers

The great Yogi Berra once said upon receiving an honor, "Thanks for making this necessary."

Today, Jackie Robinson was honored by Major League Baseball as it said thank-you. Not just to a brave pioneer, but to all those who 60 years ago combined like minds and an uncommon courage to help expunge Jim Crow from their playing fields.

Jackie and Rachel Robinson and an equally magnificent supporting cast gave this nation a peek at what was possible and helped start another, more transcendent, revolution called the Civil Rights era.

So, thank you, Branch Rickey for making today a necessary occasion in which major-league players wore No.42 just as Jackie Robinson did on April 15, 1947, when he debuted with your Brooklyn Dodgers. The Phillies and Astros, to a man, would have been among them were it not for the rains that washed away their game.

Not only did you defy many of your fellow club owners by bringing a black man to the majors, Mr. Rickey, you defied an era.

"Our country, our culture, sadly, was way back in the dark ages in 1947," reminded Branch Rickey III, president of the Pacific Coast League and grandson of the late Dodgers owner.

"Our cultural misunderstandings and our prejudices were so much more extreme then, and civil rights was not even a phrase," he continued. "The idea of a black breaking into baseball was going to be opposed broadly.

"It was going to be a question of whether my grandfather could survive with his reputation intact."

Branch Rickey, history shows, did survive. It also strongly suggests that neither Rickey nor Robinson could have done so alone.

Fortunately, they did not have to.

So, thank-you, too, Happy Chandler, because when some players threatened a boycott if Robinson played, you, then the commissioner of baseball, threatened to show the conspirators the door. Even more ominously, you vowed to close it to them forever.

Boycott, dead on arrival.

Archive photo of Jackie Robinson. Philadelphia Inquirer Staff Photos by Charles Fox

Stan Musial? As the centerpiece of the 1947 St. Louis Cardinals, you let one of the game's more rebellious clubs know that you would play because integration was not something that you - Stan the Man - would stoop to try to stop.

Then there was you, Bill Veeck, the Cleveland Indians owner who integrated the American League on July 5, 1947, by purchasing the contract of the talented Larry Doby from the Newark Eagles.

Like Branch Rickey, you proved time and again that your brilliant baseball mind was not limited to marketing and promotion advances - though the exploding scoreboard does remain a marvel.
Your plot to buy the Phillies in 1942 and fill the roster with the Negro Leagues all-stars may have been foiled by then-commissioner Kenesaw Mountain Landis years before. But no one could stop you from closely following Rickey's lead.

Once done, you, Bill Veeck, knew that the less-heralded Doby was, in many ways, in an even more thankless position than Robinson. For the junior circuit was far more reluctant to integrate than its National League counterpart. And often the only commiseration Larry Doby could find came from family, his friend Jackie Robinson - and you.

You sensed when Doby was at his loneliest and you swooped in, sharing your love of jazz, your enthusiasm - and your vision of what could be.
Other gestures, no matter how small, were also like nectar to the pioneers.

Dodgers shortstop and unquestioned team leader Pee Wee Reese (right, with Jackie Robinson and Preacher Roe, following Game 3 victory over the Yankees in the 1952 World Series _ Associated Press), you quelled palpable unrest in Cincinnati when Robinson made his first appearance there.


The Queen City, after all, considered you, a son of neighboring Kentucky, one of its own, and your presence counted in that gateway to the South. So when you walked over to Robinson during pregame practice and draped an arm around the hectored and shaken rookie's shoulders, you quieted a crowd that bordered on a mob. And the photos of your doing so - transmitted around the world - were etched indelibly in sports history.

Joe Gordon? With one sentence - "Hey kid, want to have a catch?" - you let Larry Doby, your new Indians teammate, know that the daily rituals of a game not only might include him, but would.

Decades later, Doby would get emotional recalling the relief he felt when he heard this one simple, universal baseball paean come from your lips. For, until it did, Larry Doby said he honestly did not know if he'd ever be able to play if he were not even permitted to warm up.

And you, Ted Williams? Your gift in 1947 was a welcoming handshake extended to Doby the first time your Red Sox met his Indians.

Larry Doby, of course, knew of your fame. Who in baseball did not know The Splendid Splinter? But to know that you knew of him - and appreciated his presence - and welcomed him to your league meant the world to Larry Doby.

At that moment, a fellow major-leaguer felt like a peer. And that peer eventually went on to
become your fellow Hall of Famer - just as did Stan Musial, Pee Wee Reese, Mr. Rickey, Bill Veeck - and Jackie Robinson.

This was the confluence of talent, goodwill and generosity that made April 15, 1947, and what it launched vital. As vital as today's nationwide celebrations - and thank-yous - were necessary.

Baseball Aims for the Mountaintop

MEMPHIS - It is not often that a sport can transcend mere statistics and games won or lost.

Major League Baseball can, and did on March 31 as it celebrated its unique role in the U.S. civil rights movement by way of its first-ever Civil Rights Game. So it was that a game and a movement came together in one of the most storied outposts of the civil rights revolution.

Baseball reminded us that on April 15, the game will celebrate the 60th anniversary of Jackie Robinson's breaking of baseball's color barrier. And commissioner Bud Selig proudly reminded us that the achievement predated by 17 years the Civil Rights Act ending segregation in the United States.

The game, between the Cleveland Indians and St. Louis Cardinals in the home park of the Cards' triple-A affiliate, the Memphis Redbirds, concluded a weekend in which this shared history was lauded.

Vera Clemente, Spike Lee and the late Buck O'Neil were honored. Dave Chase, the Redbirds' president and general manager, and Jimmie Lee Solomon, MLB's executive vice president of baseball operations, were applauded for their inspiration in bringing about the celebration.

Selig's and Solomon's oft-stated commitment is to ensure that the diversity Robinson brought to the field remains as fewer African Americans play in the major leagues.

How appropriate that these messages emanated from this neatly kept Mississippi River city.

All sides of the American saga sing out to you here, at this confluence of blues and country, historical heartache, pain and gain.

Memphis is where the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. fought his last fight, at the side of striking sanitation workers. It is where the civil rights champion spoke of the mountaintop he longed to see the nation reach as one.

That was back in the horrific, convulsive days of the 1960s, when the last shots of America's extended Civil War were still being fired. One of the most significant shots claimed King, right here in then-segregated Memphis.

The town's first-class hotel - the Peabody - was, of course, for whites only. King, like visiting black ball players, stayed at the Lorraine, a motel-like structure generously called a hotel. The Lorraine is where King was felled by an assassin's bullet in 1968.

This weekend, a Memphis that King could only dare dream of welcomed both the Indians and the Cardinals. Both teams stayed at the Peabody.

The Lorraine?

Parts of the building that blacks shunned into bankruptcy after the assassination are now incorporated into the National Civil Rights Museum.

There, visitors need only turn a corner to be yanked back in history.

Hall of Famer Dave Winfield paused often while following the museum's poignant, often searing time line and its relentless tale of sacrifice, fear, upheaval and courage.

"It was a war," Winfield said. "It really was a war." Like all wars, it had too, too many victims, many not much older than the young, privileged athletes of today.

"It," said Indians pitcher C.C. Sabathia, "humbles you."

Especially when you turn the last corner. There you see the hotel room last occupied by King, and the balcony where he was shot down. It more than takes your breath away. It takes you back.

There, the Rev. Billy Kyles, along with the Rev. Ralph Abernathy, sat, talked, joked and laughed with King for the hour before he died.

Kyles brought many at a pregame luncheon to tears as he recounted that horrible day in vivid detail. He brought them to their feet as he reminded in a thunderous voice: "You can kill the dreamer, but you cannot kill the dream."

Kenneth Shropshire, a professor at Penn's Wharton School, like many struggled with emotions thought buried in 1968.

A prolific author of The Business of Sports and In Black and White: Race and Sports in America, Shropshire, a participant in events here this weekend, said: "I was thinking, my father was exactly the same age as Dr. King. When I think of what that generation accomplished. My father passed away 15 years ago.

"Dr. King was just 39 years old. His life was cut so short. What if it had not happened? What else might he have accomplished?"

"This is something that everybody in this country needs to see," Sabathia said. "And the thing that got me was the dates. It really wasn't that long ago."

Sabathia spoke while sitting in a modern-day ballpark where Robinson certainly would have enjoyed playing, a mere mile from that relic of a balcony. It was yet another reminder that two eras that seem light-years apart are forever linked.

A Great Voice Silenced

The first sounds of the 2007 baseball season should have been the national anthem followed by the cry of "play ball" and the crack of the bat.

Sunday, though, the more appropriate sound was silence, as in a moment of silence for the Hall of Fame announcer Herb Carneal, the voice of the Twins for the past 45 years.

Mr. Carneal, 83 at time of death, was felled by congestive heart failure, taken on the very morning of baseball's opening game between the Cardinals and New York Mets in St. Louis.

When the Twins join the rest of baseball in taking the field Monday, it will mark only the second season the team has started without Mr. Carneal behind the microphone. The first he did not call was the Washington Senators-turned Minnesota Twins' inaugural season, in 1961.

From 1962 on, the names of Harmon Killebrew, Bob Allison, Zoilo Versalles, Tony Oliva, Camilo Pascual, Jim Kaat, Jim Perry, "Mudcat" Grant, Rod Carew, Kent Hrbek and Kirby Puckett, rolled across the land of 10,000 lakes, melliflously, delivered with a beauty and precision only a master could produce.

Now another great voice is silenced. When baseball returns that silence as a sign of respect today and through the season, we all should be reminded that some of the game's brightest stars - Vin Scully. Harry Kalas, Jaime Jarrin, Hall of Famers, all - are as much a part of basebally royalty as the players, and are to be cherished.

Treasure them while you can. And say a quiet prayer for Mr. Carneal.

The hurdle Pete Rose refuses to leap

Pete Rose created a stir today by taking another stab at framing his gambling on baseball in such a way that misty-eyed higherups couldn't help but reinstate the banned all-time hits leader.

Appearing on the Dan Patrick Show on ESPN Radio, the all-time hits leader not only restated that he bet on baseball - the one violation that carries the sport's version of the death penalty. Rose said he did so every day when he managed the Cincinnati Reds, betting on his own team.

This revelation was Rose's way of doing his part to christen the Reds' new Pete Rose exhibit on display at the Great American Ballpark, the home of the NL team's Hall of Fame. But when he said:

"I bet on my team every night. I didn't bet on my team four nights a week. I was wrong [referring to his previous mea culpa in a book he authored a while back]. ... I bet on my team to win every night because I love my team, I believe in my team," Rose told Dan Patrick as well as on-air questioner Keith Ohlbermann. "I did everything in my power every night to win that game."

By failing to mix in the slightest bit of contrition with the always present self-importance, Rose did little more than illuminate just how much he violated the public trust.

So, nice try, Pete, but no cigar. Because you still don't get it. And apparently you never will as long as your ego prevents you from uttering two little words:

"I'm sorry."

So a return to the game's good graces remains improbable. It can never be less than that if Rose refuses to show remorse. Thus far, he hasn't come close, something that continues to be the underlying tragedy of this flawed, flawed man.

No one understands that flaw better than Fay Vincent, the man who led the investigation into Rose and the one violation that carries baseball's version of the death penalty. Vincent, who gathered the evidence of Rose's betting on baseball when deputy to then-commissioner Bart Giamatti, yesterday reiterated the obvious.

"The beginning of contrition is to feel that you regret your actions, and he does not have it in him to do so," said Vincent. "It's the meaning of it that he does not get.

"Bill Clinton figured it out. Richard Nixon figured it out. The American public is very forgiving if you say you're sorry. Pete cannot bring himself to utter the words."

Citing Rose's penchant for chiding baseball's lack of a ban on abuser's of illegal or performance-enhancing drugs, Vincent added "It's always about other people's problems, never his own."

So Rose sits on the outside, looking in, wondering, why not Barry Bonds when it comes to bans, and likely more to the point, why Joe Torre and not him when it comes to multimillion manager's salaries.

Rose may be an adroit gambler, but he has a lousy poker face. That much was evident when he revealed his obvious motive when he told the ESPN audience that individual team owners should be allowed to decide if they want him to manage their major league clubs.

"[It's] all about dollars, Dan and Keith," he said, before going on to suggest no owner even bother to call him if they didn't want their team to win.

Reread the first part that thought, friends. Because that may be the most honest thing Pete Rose has ever said.

The Spoils of an MVP Season

Ryan Howard poses with
The Kenesaw Mountain Landis
National League Most Valuable Player plaque presented him by the Baseball Writers Association of America at the New York chapter's 84th annual dinner Jan. 28.

Ryan Howard with father, Ronald. The New York writers also honored Howard with the Sid Mercer Player of the Year Award, an honor not won by a Philadelphia Phillies player since Mike Schmidt in 1981.

The Mets' ageless Julio Franco (left), winner of the New York chapter's Milton Richman You've Got To Have Heart Award, poses with Howard.

MVP Trophy completes Howard's Haul

NEW YORK - The Ryan Howard off-season awards tour is all but complete - as is the Phillies first baseman's haul from his MVP season.

On the night of Jan. 28, Howard rounded out his collection of hardware in style, officially receiving the Kenesaw Mountain Landis National League Most Valuable Player trophy, the award voted him by the Baseball Writers Association of America after his breakout 58-home run, 149-RBI campaign in 2006.

Surrounded by family, manager Charlie Manuel and a large contingent of Phillies front-office personnel, Howard was presented the plaque at the New York chapter of the Baseball Writers Association of America's 84th annual dinner by no less than Tony Gwynn, an outfielder who is scheduled for induction into the Hall of Fame this summer.

The youthful Phillies first baseman - flanked on the dais by the likes of Hall of Famers Frank Robinson, Reggie Jackson and the soon-to-be inducted Cal Ripken - was joined by his fellow 2006 BBWAA national award winners.

That group included managers of the year Jim Leyland of Detroit and Joe Girardi, formerly of the Florida Marlins; American League MVP Justin Morneau of the Minnesota Twins, rookies of the year Hanley Ramirez (Florida) and Justin Verlander (Detroit), and Cy Young Award winners Brandon Webb (Arizona) and Johan Santana (Minnesota).

"Truly an honor to be here," said Howard. "Last year, I never would have thought it. The company here - Tony Gwynn, Cal Ripken, Reggie Jackson - I've got to admit it, I'm still a fan and I am in awe."

The New York writers reserved a special place for Howard, making him the next-to-last recipient, followed only by Toast of the Town co-recipients Jose Reyes and David Wright.

Howard, previously honored this winter by writers in St. Louis and Boston, was afforded the best-supporting role by the New York writers thanks to his having won two awards. He was also given the New York chapter's Sid Mercer Award as player of the year. The latter is the second such honor for Howard in less than a week. Last Monday, he was feted as the Philadelphia Sports Writers Association's player of the year.

"I don't know if he'll get 58 home runs, again, but I tell what - I watched him practice, I watched him prepare," said Gwynn, who recalled Howard's work ethic when Howard traveled to California to practice with Gwynn's college baseball team at San Diego State University.

"For two days my guys sat there with their mouths open, not watching Ryan Howard hit with power, but watching Ryan Howard hit off a T. We were dumbfounded, the things he did with a baseball bat were truly amazing."

Scenes From An Exhibition - Of Baseball Greats

Ryan Howard and father, Ronald, with Howard's Kenesaw Mountain Landis National League Most Valuable Player trophy presented to the Phillies first baseman at the New York chapter of the Baseball Writers Association of America's 84th annual dinner Jan. 28.

Left to right, Mets manager Willie Randolph; Arlene Howard, wife of the late Elston Howard; Rachel Robinson, wife of the late Jackie Robinson; and Hall of Famer Frank Robinson, who was awarded the William J. Slocum Award for Long and Meritorious Service by the New York writers. The chapter also saluted Jackie Robinson's legacy, marking the 60th anniversary of the fall of the color barrier in Major League Baseball.

Mets pitcher Tom Glavine, winner of the New York Writers' Ben Epstein "Good Guy" award (left), stands with Mets manager Willie Randolph and Mets team owner Fred Wilpon.

Marty Noble, veteran baseball columnist and the editor of the New York chapter's dinner magazine (left), presents the St. L0uis Post Dispatch's Rick Hummel with a framed compilation of the salutes to "The Commish's" pending enshrinement into Cooperstown. Hummel will enter the Hall of Fame as the 2006 J.G. Taylor Spink Award winner.

The Mets' ageless Julio Franco (left), winner of the New York chapter's Milton Richman You've Got To Have Heart Award, poses with Howard.

Howard Patiently Awaiting Windfall

Ryan Howard last night accepted the Outstanding Professional Athlete Award from the Philadelphia Sports Writers Association, knowing full well that the monster numbers from 2006 that secured the honor will take a backseat to the numbers he will command at the bargaining table.

That much was assured when Howard awoke Sunday, the day after attending Chase Utley's California wedding, and learned his Phillies teammate had signed a seven-year, $85 million contract extension through 2013.

"I was happy for him," Howard told a news conference audience before the writers' 103d annual dinner last night at the Crowne Plaza Hotel in Cherry Hill. "That was a pretty good wedding gift. "
If Utley's good fortune or that of free agent Alfonso Soriano (who signed for eight years and $136 million with the Cubs) whetted Howard's appetite for a long-term deal, the National League MVP refused to let on.

Speculation? "I kind of leave that up to you guys," said the 27-year-old Howard, who set a franchise record with 58 home runs to go with 149 RBIs. "There's nothing that I can do about salaries or who's on the team. I don't make the decisions in the front office. What I can do is control what I do on the field. Until it happens, nothing's happened, so I don't worry about it. "

The Phillies have said that Howard's contract talks will not begin until their remaining arbitration-eligible players, pitchers Brett Myers and Geoff Geary, are signed.

When negotiations do begin with the first baseman, the Phillies have the leverage and could even stipulate a salary if the two sides do not agree. Howard is one season away from arbitration eligibility and will not be in line for free agency until 2011.

Even if the Phillies unilaterally renew his deal, Howard insists it will not knock the smile from his face. "I'm playing major-league baseball," he said, beaming. "I'm happy every day. "

He has noticed, however, that there is no such thing as a small development in the increasing limelight. Howard saw that when his recent change of agents caused a buzz. "It was just some differences, but it was handled," he said. "It's resolved. You just move on and go from there. "

As for honors such as last night's, Howard liberally applied grace, humor and humility. "You guys are the greatest," he told the sportswriters, laughing. Besides, said the onetime mass communications major at Southwest Missouri State, "I'm partly one of you guys. "

Truth Will Set Big Mac Free

As one of the 77 percent of the Baseball Writers Association voters who did not put Mark McGwire's name on my Hall of Fame ballot, I offer this open letter to the man who must feel his fall from grace is now complete, and irreversible:

Dear Mark:

I know you were routed in your initial battle to win inclusion in Baseball's Hall of Fame. That was bound to be the fate of the first big-name batter up for consideration from the steroid era.

Received only 23 percent of the necessary 75 percent of the votes needed for election had to be a stinging slap. But as much as it may have hurt, understand this, and understand it quickly: even though that battle was lost, you can still win the war, but only if you use the time left to you wisely, with the best interest of the game in mind.

You have 14 years to do so. That is the number of years of eligibility you still have left on the writers' ballots.

That decade and a half will seem like an interminable amount of time, but only if you view it as a painful period in which you are destined to twist slowly, endlessly on the outside of Cooperstown looking in.

But what if you go on the offensive, Mark?

Come clean about the steroid era, including any involvement you may have had in it. Then invite baseball to join in its version of a truth and reconciliation initiative of the sort that made a lasting peace possible in South Africa.

Nelson Mandela confirmed his genius and strengthened a nation. Can you help save a game?

Baseball, the national pastime, is worth saving. And it can only benefit from the kind of healing and cleansing that the truth about what drugs did to it and its records can bring.

Lives may not be at stake, just reputations such as yours are; that was brought home with brutal force Monday when your bid for immortality was rebuked, and infamy was offered, instead.

Now you know: Baseball is a game that depends on reputations - and heroes - unlike any other. Yet your one saving grace could be that if there's anything baseball fans, and people in the country as a whole, love more than a hero it is a repentant hero.

Pete Rose has never understood that. He's yet to accept the fact that three simple words - "I am sorry" would not only bring forgiveness for his gambling indiscretions. They would bring down the walls that keep him barred from the game, from the Hall to this day.

So be smarter, and less self-destructive than Rose, Mark. Be the first to show him the way. Don't continue to relegate steroids to a past you refuse to speak on. Blow the lid off the era and let the air, and light in.

Then dare others, from Barry Bonds to the other countless number of players who also know the truth to follow your lead.

Do that and you will prove that not only were your home runs powerful, but so, too, is your desire to heal the game. Then, and only then, will you have a chance to be judged truly Hall-worthy.

Roids Rage On And On And On...

Barry Bonds may enter the 2007 season second only to Henry Aaron on the all-time home run list, but in the story line that should matter the most, Bonds is still pleading the Fifth.

The Fifth, as in no comment to any question regarding the federal government’s ongoing attempt to nail him with steroid-use/related perjury charges.

Bonds’ thus-far successful dodge of criminal charges has accomplished two things. It assured that any and all on-field accomplishments emanating from his bat, from his era, will continue to enrage rather than elate.

It also assures that Bonds, in particular, and the issue of illegal performance-enhancing drugs in general will continue to present massive dilemmas for baseball. Commissioner Bud Selig & Co. can’t help but be at a loss as to how the game should honor Bonds should the man standing on 734 home runs approach Aaron’s record of 755.

Arguments will be made that no honors should be conveyed should Bonds catch Aaron.

Honor Bonds, don’t honor Bonds — either way, baseball’s approach is guaranteed to polarize and inflame.

Poor Bud. He won’t have enough fingers and toes to count the kinds of charges and countercharges any decision will generate, from racism, generational bias and flat-out hypocrisy, to name but a few of the high, hard ones sure to come the commissioner’s way.

Some would argue that baseball earned this thankless mess on merit. Club owners, players, sponsors — and, alas, even reporters — allowed themselves to be mesmerized by what is commonly referred to in bitter terms as the steroid era.

That does not mean that the anguish of the powers-that-be won’t be as real as the certain embarrassment. Because you’re talking about a scenario in which the game possibly not only has to ignore its greatest hitter for all eternity (the banned-for-life Pete Rose) but also its home-run king.

Unbelievable, but true.

Still, any anguish Selig is about to feel, any anger even a slightly snubbed Bonds is bound to harbor can’t possibly compare to what will course through Aaron come crunch time.

A proud man, Aaron knows in his heart that his march past Babe Ruth’s one-time hallowed record of 714 homers was not only noble and heroic.

Aaron also knows his milestone was built with an integrity that is beyond question.Now he might be asked to honor Bonds, and therefore the era that made it possible for his record to be wrenched from him in highly suspicious fashion.

How insulting.

And, unless Bonds pulls up short, how unavoidable. While there remains so much we do not know about this tawdry era, one thing we do know is that should the record fall, there won’t be a greater victim in this sorry saga than Hammerin’ Hank.

As for that era, while it is said to be mercifully receding into the past, it is still spreading its stench. That much became clear this week when the federal government, on the hunt for Bonds and others, won a court appeal guaranteed to send shudders through the ranks of every major-league clubhouse.

A federal appeals court this week cleared the way for prosecutors to access the names and test samples of 100 players who reportedly tested positive for steroids in a voluntary scientific survey conducted by Major League Baseball in 2003.

The Major League Baseball Players Association will fight the decision, all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary. That is Donald Fehr’s job, to protect these knuckleheads — and the head of the players union does his job very well.

Still, should the union lawyers fail in their attempt to keep those records sealed, the fallout could devastate no only the ballplayers but baseball.

You do the math: What’s in those vials might not only contain the proof needed to convict Bonds of lying about having never knowingly used steroids.Those urine samples could at last legitimize what has been long-thought to be baseball’s ugliest secret of all: This isn’t just about Bar-roid. It’s about Bonds Times hundreds!

The wide net the public clamored for is about to be hauled in. And it might contain results the public isn’t braced to receive. It’s been easy to demonize Bonds — made so by the sheer force of his often surly personality. Is the public really prepared to wrap arms around the fall of players once thought so pure and pristine?

Baseball and its fans might have to embrace a new, ugly reality in which the playing field was not as skewed in favor of power hitters as once thought, because starting pitchers, relievers, Punch-and-Judy infielders, etc., all may have benefited from the shady times when ’roids were all the rage.

Ah, the steroid era: the gift that keeps on giving — black eyes, likely more than baseball ever imagined.

Ouch! Junior Injured, Again

One of the sadder developments of Major League Baseball in the 2000s is how the ascent of Ken Griffey Jr. to the ranks of the true greats has slowed to worse than a crawl.

Once the presumptive heir to Henry Aaron's home-run record, Griffey - "Junior," "The Kid" - was the player once thought the most likely to carry the game into this century on the magnificent twin forces of his talent and his personality.

Yet as we approach 2007, Griffey is in danger of once again receding to the backwaters of baseball's consciousness by yet another confounding injury.

Memories of Griffey's on-field brilliance as well as those of his luminous personality are now being bulldozed under by one numbing physical calamity after another, the latest a broken left hand suffered at his home Friday.

As if The Kid needed another reminder that he is no longer The Man.

Was he ever once, though.

Junior was Ryan Howard, David Wright and Jose Reyes rolled into one.

He could out-Bonds Barry, outbash Big Mac, outslug - and outsmile - Slammin' Sammy Sosa.

But the teen sensation turned 20-something all-star marvel is now an old 37.

A very old 37.

And that 37-year-old with a wounded body has now drifted so far off baseball's primary radar, some wouldn't be blamed for thinking Junior had already retired and was working on his Hall of Fame eligibility.

That might be a mercy at this point. Especially after the news broke Friday that fate had kicked Junior in the teeth again.

The Cincinnati Reds reported that the one-time perennial all-star will have his broken hand in a hard cast for three weeks. Only after that can he start another in a long line of inexorable rehabilitations.

At this point, Griffey couldn't be faulted if he felt his career is in a hard cast from which he will never escape.

How could he not after landing on the disabled list eight times since 2001?

Yes, he enjoyed something of a revival just two years ago, winning the award no player ever really wants - comeback player of the year - thanks to a 35-homer campaign.

Last season marked a return to a crueler reality. The Reds were robbed of Junior's bat down the stretch, when Griffey suffered a dislocated toe trying to make a leaping catch of a Bonds home run on Sept. 5.

Griffey appeared in only two games after the toe injury - limiting him to a total of 109 games - his fade from the pennant race preceding that of the snakebitten Reds.

Fans don't want to remember Ken Griffey Jr. this way, a broken shadow of his former self, running into walls in an attempt to escape disabled-list all-star status.

And I've known Junior too long for that to be my lasting image; I've known him since he was a precocious teen hanging out with his all-star father.

I saw life in that face then, as well as a mix of mischief and physical makeup that suggested the approach of something both fun and fantastic.

I remember watching in wonder as Junior tweaked his famous dad as only he could when comparing respective days on the diamond.

"How was your day, Dad? I had a pretty good day, too," Junior would inform Senior, usually after Senior had just done some pretty impressive things playing left field for the New York Yankees.

That now seems so long ago, just like when Junior enjoyed some pretty good days with the Seattle Mariners, those prime-time nights he won home-run contests.

Junior still possesses the face of that teen who strutted without apology into the Yankee Stadium clubhouse of the mid-1980s.

Last summer, though, the eyes betrayed him as he hobbled around the visiting clubhouse at Citizens Bank Park on an old man's legs.

He knew his durability, speed and another run of pretty good days had been robbed by too many tears, sprains, breaks.

These injuries have cost the Reds millions of dollars, but the loss to baseball is immeasurable.

Though often guarded in private, Griffey instinctively understood and accepted his public role. And he used a boundless puppy-dog energy to sell the game, as at home on a Wheaties box as in the batter's box when marketing the game.

The result: He proved to be the perfect - and most welcome - counter balance to sourpusses like Bonds and Albert Belle, and dour faces like Mark McGwire's.

Then came the era in which 50 home runs a year became mere footnotes, as did the man who has 563 home runs, now "pedestrian" and well short of the 600 Club that became the exclusive haunt of the nouveau-Herculean slugger.

Now injuries continue to force Junior's retreat. These days, the only headlines he seems capable of garnering involve calamity.


Fragile Star

p>Ken Griffey Jr. has been on the disabled list eight times since joining the Reds in 2000. He's also missed significant playing time at the end of the last two seasons without going on the DL. Griffey has played 699 games in seven seasons with the Reds. Here are his year-by-year totals:

2000 - 145 games

2001 - 111

2002 - 70

2003 - 53

2004 - 83

2005 - 128

2006 - 109

Jim Rice: Hall of a Candidate

A good friend, Dick Bresciani, the Vice President of Publications & Archives with the Boston Red Sox, recently mailed out his arguments for the inclusion of Jim Rice in the Baseball Hall of Fame (an argument with which I agree, by the way).

Bresc's many points were very compelling. Here are but a few:

CAREER (1974-1989)

Led A.L. with 382 HR and 1451 RBI in his 16-year career, all with Boston.

Rare Power & Average: Seventeen players with 300+ HR and a career AVG as high as Rice have been on the HOF ballot. All but Rice are HOF:

Aaron, Brett, DiMaggio, Foxx, Gehrig, Greenberg, Hornsby, Klein, Mantle, Mays, Mize, Musial, Ott, Rice, Ruth, A. Simmons, T. Williams.

8-time All-Star
8-time 100 RBI
7-time .300 hitter
6-time Top 5 in A.L. MVP – more than anyone else during Rice’s career (Murray 5)
4-time A.L. TB leader
3-time A.L. HR leader

1978 A.L. MVP (.315 AVG, 46 HR, 139 RBI, 406 TB, .600 SLG, 213 H, 15 3B)
Only M.L. player to lead either league outright in 3B, HR, and RBI
Only A.L. player with 400+ TB since 1937 (Joe DiMaggio)
A.L. record for biggest margin in TB (113 over Murray)
Only A.L. player with 46+ HR between ’69 (Killebrew) and ’87 (McGwire)

3-YEAR STRETCH (1977-1979)

Only player in M.L. history with 3 straight seasons of 35+ HR and 200+ hits
Tied A.L. record of 3 consecutive years as TB leader (Williams, Cobb)
Ruth and Foxx are the others in A.L. with 3+ straight 39+ HR, .315 seasons.

A DOZEN YEARS OF DOMINANCE (1975-1986)

Twenty M.L. players have hit .300+ with 350+ HR over a 12-season stretch (Babe Ruth was the first, from 1915-1926), but Jim Rice stands alone in his dozen years (1975-86).

He is the only M.L. player of his generation who accomplished the feat (linking 1974, when Hank Aaron became the career HR leader, to 2001, when Barry Bonds became the single-season HR leader). All players on the following list who have been on the Hall of Fame ballot have been elected – except for Jim Rice.

The list: .300+ with 350+ HR over a 12-season stretch
(Date listed indicates final year of stretch)

1926 Ruth
1927 Ruth 1967 Aaron, Mantle, Mays, F. Robinson
1928 Ruth 1968 Aaron, Mays, F. Robinson
1929 Ruth 1969 Aaron, Mays, F. Robinson
1930 Ruth 1970 Aaron, Mays, F. Robinson
1931 Ruth 1971 Aaron, F. Robinson
1932 Ruth 1972 Aaron, F. Robinson
1933 Ruth 1973 Aaron
1934 Gehrig, Ruth 1974 Aaron
1935 Gehrig, Ruth 1975
1936 Gehrig 1976
1937 Foxx, Gehrig 1977
1938 Foxx, Gehrig 1978
1939 Foxx, Gehrig, Ott 1979
1940 Foxx, Ott 1980
1941 Foxx, Ott 1981
1942 Foxx, Ott 1982
1943 Foxx 1983
1944 Foxx 1984
1945 Foxx 1985
1946 1986 Rice
1947 1987
1948 1988
1949 1989
1950 1990
1951 1991
1952 1992
1953 1993
1954 Williams 1994
1955 Williams 1995
1956 Williams 1996
1957 Williams 1997
1958 Williams 1998
1959 Snider, Williams 1999
1960 Snider 2000
1961 Snider 2001 Bonds
1962 Mantle 2002 Bagwell, Bonds, Thomas
1963 Mantle, Mays 2003 Bagwell, Bonds, Gonzalez, Piazza, Sheffield, Thomas
1964 Mantle, Mays 2004 Bagwell, Bonds, Gonzalez, Piazza, Ramirez, Sheffield, Thomas
1965 Aaron, Mantle, Mays 2005 Bonds, Piazza, Ramirez, Rodriguez, Sheffield
1966 Aaron, Mantle, Mays 2006 Bonds, C. Jones, Piazza, Ramirez, Rodriguez, Sheffield

(Does not count military service against anyone in World War II and/or Korea)

From 1975 to 1986 Jim Rice was the most dominant player in the American League. During that 12-year stretch he led the league in 12 categories and ranked among the top five in two others. His numbers are indicative of a player who was dangerous in nearly every situation.

He led the league over that period with 350 home runs but unlike most sluggers of his day, he ranked fourth with a .304 batting average. He collected the most hits over that time period and also ranked first with a .520 slugging percentage. He legged-out 73 triples, including 15 in 1977 and 1978, and he was the most dangerous outfielder to run on in the American League. In every category he ranks above or among existing Hall of Famers.

Why Barry, Not Big Mac Belongs

Barry Bonds hasn't retired, yet, but that doesn't mean he's not the elephant in the middle of the Hall of Fame controversy swirling around Mark McGwire.

If Bonds' name were on the ballot he would get my vote. McGwire would not (don't think his numbers are worthy, period).

Bonds, on the other hand, stands up, numbers-wise, even discounting what he accomplished in the steroid era.

My reasoning: when he looked like Derek Jeter, played like Jeter (doubles, triples, and more than the occasional big fly), he won three Mvps. So even prior to the suspected steroid years, he accomplished things some players already in the Hall did not.

Big Mac never had an Mvp season, not even in that magical summer of '98, suggesting an immensely impressive feat that was, none-the-less a singular one _ kind of like Roger Maris' summer of '61. That, too, was not considered enough to get Roger into the Hall.

Pleeease ... Say It Ain't So, Mac

A lot of those who are responding to the Mark McGwire/Hall of Fame vote contend that McGwire had yet to be found guilty of using banned substances (remember, Andro was not illegal when McGwire admitted using the over-the-counter substance).

Still, none of this convinces me that McGwire went through the steroid era cleanly, mostly because he still refuses to adamantly say that he did!

Big Mac has yet to deny Jose Canseco’s claim that they shot each other up with steroids during their Bash Brother days.

Why not call him a liar, or sue for libel to clear his name?

I know I would – if I knew I was clean and there couldn’t possibly be a smoking gun. I’m still waiting for Mac to come to his own defense.

Thus far, his silence continues to speak volumes.

'Roid Rage and The Hall of Fame

Universal rejection vs. unanimous choice.Both intriguing possibilities were conjured up yesterday when, as expected, Mark McGwire, Cal Ripken Jr. and Tony Gwynn made their inaugural appearances on the baseball’s annual Hall of Fame ballot.

The voting members of the Baseball Writers Association of America — those with 10 years or more experience covering the sport — are expected to wrestle with McGwire’s candidacy, and only in part because of his overall numbers.Despite exceeding a time-honored Hall threshold (500 homers) with his 583 home runs, McGwire is very much on the bubble because of the steroid era in which he both thrived and was tainted.

Though McGwire never admitted to or was caught using illegal performance enhancers, he was famously accused of doing so by fellow first-time Hall nominee Jose Canseco.

McGwire has never denied the accusation. His not doing so, most notably before a congressional committee examining illegal steroid use in baseball, could cost him when the results of the BBWAA vote is announced Jan. 9.

Veteran Boston Herald columnist Steve Buckley perhaps illustrated some of the simmering condemnation when he told The Inquirer why he won’t write McGwire’s name on the ballot, now or ever.

“I thought his performance before Congress was a disgrace,” Buckley said. “Whenever anyone asks me about his home run numbers, I simply say I am not here to talk about the past.”

But, Jayson Stark of ESPN.com will reluctantly vote for McGwire in part, he said, “because baseball allowed all this to happen.“We know he gave some horrible answers to some members of Congress. But in truth, we hardly know anything about what anyone in the sport may or may not have done.

“So to me, just as baseball allowed [spitball pitcher] Gaylord Perry to go out and win his 300 games — which got him to the Hall of Fame — it allowed McGwire and all of these players to compile their stats and break their records and earn their money and accolades based on those feats.

So I think I’m stuck with evaluating what the sport allowed to happen on the field. Either the ’90s happened or they didn’t.”

The approximately 575 writers aren’t expected to struggle as much, if at all, on the Hall merits of Gwynn or Ripken.

Gwynn, the eight-time National League batting champion, and Ripken, the man who surpassed Lou Gehrig’s legendary Iron Man streak by playing in 2,632 consecutive games, should easily gain the required 75 percent of the vote needed for induction. But will Ripken or Gwynn be named on every ballot?

No player has yet gained 100 percent of the vote. Not Babe Ruth. Not Gehrig, Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Ty Cobb or Ted Williams.

Tom Seaver, elected in 1992, came the closest to perfection when he was named on 425 of 430 ballots in 1992, for 98.84 percent of the votes.

Seaver is joined in the top 10 in terms of percentage by: Nolan Ryan (491 of 497, 98.7), Ty Cobb (222-2226,baseball hall of fame website 98.23), George Brett (488-497, 98.19), Aaron (406-415, 97.83), Mike Schmidt (444-460, 96.52), Johnny Bench (431-447, 96.42), Steve Carlton (436-455, 95.82), Ruth (215-226, 95.13) and Honus Wagner (215-226, 95.13).

Rice and Rich “Goose” Gossage return to the ballot as the top candidates not elected a year ago. Rice, the former Boston Red Sox slugger, fell 53 votes shy in his most recent attempt at election. Gossage, one of a host of stoppers hoping to follow Bruce Sutter into Cooperstown, fell 54 votes shy on the last ballot. Cherry Hill East graduate Orel Hershiser is also among the holdovers.

This is the 15th and final time on the ballot for Steve Garvey, who was on 26 percent of the ballots cast last year. His best finish was 43 percent in 1995, his third year. This is the 14th year for Dave Concepcion (13 percent last year) and the 13th year for Rice (65 percent) and Tommy John (30).

Big Mac No Sure Hall of Famer

On Friday, Hall of Fame ballots will be mailed to the approximately 575 voting members of the Baseball Writers Association of America.
Though there are few certainties in life, it's guaranteed that all Cal Ripken Jr. and Tony Gwynn have to worry about is not if not whether they get in but by how much of a margin more than the 75 percent votes required for election to the Hall they will surpass the requirement that they be named on at least 75 percent of ballots cast .

Mark McGwire should be so lucky. For he is about to jump into the steroid-era cauldron as the first bona fide Hall candidate from that time.

McGwire's name will sit there in close uncomfortable proximity to noted juicers Jose Canseco and the late Ken Caminiti. There, he will be judged by writers with 10 years' experience covering the game, this writer included.
Finally, McGwire's full body of work, from the 583 career home runs to the famous stonewalling of Congress, will be judge Forget being elected on the first shot. McGwire has to worry about getting the five percent of the vote needed to remain on the ballot.

Here is a sample of his tough road as seen through the eyes of some of the nation's leading writers who recently answered said how they will wrestle with the McGwire issue. Players are judged by the writers for their first 15 years of eligibility:

Jayson Stark
ESPN.com
I'm going to vote for him. I can't say I feel good about voting for him. But here's why I'm going to cast that vote:

People have oversimplified this issue, to the point where, if you listened to the way most people talk about it, you'd think there were only 10 players taking any kind of performance-enhancing drugs in the '90s. But we know that, in truth, there were hundreds. So should I only cast votes against players who happened to get mentioned in Jose Canseco's book, or who got subpoenaed by Congress?

What about all the other players who I might suspect were doing something but have never come up in this conversation?

Should I vote only against players who hit home runs, or broke home run records, or challenged home run records? What about all the pitchers we know were taking something? Do we care about them or not? Should I vote against them if I just THINK they might have done something?

I don't see how I can start picking and choosing when, in fact, baseball allowed all of this to happen. So that was the culture inside the game at the time, just as amphetamines were part of the culture in the '60s and '70s and '80s (and beyond). Because baseball allowed all this to happen, we hardly know anything about what McGwire may or may not have done.

We know he gave some horrible answers to some members of Congress. But in truth, we hardly know anything about what anyone in the sport may or may not have done.

So to me, just as baseball allowed Gaylord Perry to go out and win his 300 games -- which got him to the Hall of Fame -- it allowed McGwire and all of these players to compile their stats and break their records and earn their money and accolades based on those feats. So I think I'm stuck with evaluating what the sport allowed to happen on the field. Either the '90s happened or they didn't.

Since they happened, and the hundreds of players using something leveled the playing field to some extent, I feel more comfortable voting for players like McGwire than I do trying to pick and choose who did what, and when, and why.

If more evidence emerges, I always reserve the right to change my mind. But for now, I'm going to cast a very uncomfortable vote for McGwire and, for the most part, every great player of an obviously tainted generation.

I know this was probably way more than you wanted on either guy. But I'm nothing if not exhaustive. Or is that exhausting?)

Bob Nightengale
USA Today

I won't vote for him on this ballot. I don't believe he's a first-ballot Hall of Famer. He had a fine career, but he hit about half of his home runs in a five-year period when he was allegedly on steroids. He had too many off-years to be considered on the same ballot as Ripken and Gwynn.

And yes, I will vote for players I suspect or have been caught using steroids. Barry Bonds and Rafael Palmeiro will be on my first ballot.

Phil Rogers
Chicago Tribune

I'm not wrestling with the McGwire decision. He wouldn't be a strong candidate without his home run totals, which have been tainted by his unwillingness to declare himself steroid-free. Unless something changes drastically in how he presents himself, I can't imagine ever voting for him.

Pat Borzi
New York Times

I'm seriously considering not voting for McGwire at all this year. He admitted using andro, and if he doesn't use it, he doesn't stay healthy enough to hit 70 or go over 500. Doesn't matter to me that baseball hadn't banned it yet. It was already banned in the Olympic movement.

If I had a ballot in front of me today, I wouldn't vote for Bonds or any of the other implicated juicers either.

And even if I decided not to hold that stuff against then, there's another issue here: Stat inflation. The 'roids influence devalues 50-homer season and 500-homer careers. I usually vote for anyone with 500 homers, but in the modern game, 600 might be the fairer benchmark in judging players from this era.


Bob Elliott
Toronto Sun

McGwire ... 1,626 hits in 16 seasons. That total is not enough for me to vote for McGwire - clean or dirty which to my mind have not been proven - when ballots come out in a few months.

Can you justify voting for a guy with almost half as many hits?

A McGwire backer will ask about his single-season home run record of 70 homers. Very impressive. Those nights in St. Louis were magical. We saw homers No. 60, 61 and 62 at Busch Stadium. Roger Maris broke Babe Ruth's mark in 1961 with 61 home runs and that was pretty impressive, too, breaking a 37-year-old record.

And we saw Maris hit No. 57 at Briggs Stadium in Detroit. Paul Henderson scored the greatest goal in Canadian history with seconds left against the
Russians in '72 but he is not in the Hockey Hall of Fame.
Maris with his mark - and 1,325 hits - was on the ballot 15 years and never got more than 43.09% of the vote, far short of the required 75%.

There are only three Hall of Famers (position players) with fewer hits than McGwire's 1,626. They are:

- Infielder Jackie Robinson, who had 1,518 hits in 10 seasons with the Brooklyn Dodgers. He started at age 28, having previously played with the Kansas City Monarchs of the Negro Leagues.

For the good he did for the game, for the man he was and for the abuse he took as the first black player in the majors, Robinson belongs even if he had averaged 15 hits a year. If Robinson had not opened the doors would we have ever have had the pleasure to watch the likes of Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Billy Williams and Reggie Jackson to mention a few stars? Robinson was named on 77.5 percent of the ballots by Baseball Writers Association of America voters in 1962.

- Outfielder Ralph Kiner had 1,451 hits in 10 seasons with the Pittsburgh Pirates, Chicago Cubs and Cleveland Indians. His career was cut short by a back ailment. He won or shared the NL home run title his first seven seasons in Pittsburgh.

McGwire led his league four times -- 1987 and 1996 with the Oakland A's, along with 1998 and 1999 with the Cards. With a ratio of 7.1 homers per 100 at-bats, he trails only Ruth and McGwire among retired players. Kiner had more than 50 homers twice, 51 in 1947 and 54 in 1949. He received 75.51% of the vote in 1975.

- Roy Campanella had 1,161 hits during his 10-year career with Brooklyn. He was a three-time National League most valuable player (1951, 1953, 1955). McGwire's best MVP finish was second in 1998. Campanella broke into the majors in 1948 at age 26 after playing seven season with the Baltimore Elite Giants in the Negro National League. The catcher's career came to an end after an auto crash prior to the 1958 season confined him to a wheelchair. He was named on 79.41% of the ballots in 1969.

Jeff Blair
Toronto Globe and Mail

As for my Hall of Fame vote? I will, without question, vote for Mark McGwire along with Tony Gwynn and Cal Ripken, Jr. First, I'm not interested in moral arguments; I'm not electing a prime minister, mayor or Pope.

I would not vote for Pete Rose, because I believe that any manager or player tempted enough to bet on a game might be equally tempted to do something that would knowingly affect the outcome of a game. That's different than taking a performance enhancer, which is for 'enhancing' performance.

Generally, fans don't feel cheated by people who are 'enhancing' their performances. Second, I believe that at least as many pitchers used/use performance enhancers as hitters.

I think the playing field was a lot more level - is a lot more level, if we're talking about HGH - than we know or knew. Third, who cares if McGwire stonewalled Congress. Isn't that what cabinet members do in committee hearings? Better to break down and be thought of as being fraud than wag your finger at cameras, say you never took steroids, and end up failing a steroid test.

Mark Whicker
Orange County Register

The McGwire vote is easy. The man had 1,600-odd hits. The only category in which he excelled was home runs. Vince Coleman had only one standout category (steals) and he isn't in. Mark Belanger had one standout category (defense) and he isn't in. McGwire's uneven career, to me, takes steroidsout of the equation. That's not to say he shouldn't make the Hall of Fame eventually. Just not on the first ballot.

Ray Ratto
San Francisco Chronicle

McGwire, he doesn't have to do anything.

My vote will be based on what he did as a player, and whether that is enough on its face to get into the Hall. My feeling is that the HOF isn't church, that it is the history of baseball, bad and good, and that if we're making behavior an issue, then the people who defend Ty Cobb and Cap Anson have some serious explaining to do.

Ken Davidoff
Newsday

As for McGwire, while I reserve the right to change my mind, I don't anticipate ever voting for him. His conduct during the House Government Reform Hearing, on March 17, 2006, as well as the revelations of his backroom dealings prior to the hearing, are all the evidence I need to believe that he was a steroid user.

Murray Chass
New York Times

On McGwire: A more difficult deliberation. Although the Times does not allow us to vote, I would probably not vote for McGwire.If I were voting,I'd do far more serious thinking about it than I have, but I would probably not vote for him.

He never tested positive and he has never said "I used steroids," but his Congressional refrain -- "I'm not here to talk about the past" -- made him look guilty as hell.

The home run achievements in the steroids era by McGwire, [Sammy] Sosa and Bonds were too far out there to think something underhanded didn't have an effect on their numbers. If they were in the Hall of Fame, they would unfairly skew the measurement of players in future years as well as dwarf the accomplishments of Hall of Famers from the past.

Jack Curry
New York Times

As you know, The Times doesn't let us vote for these awards. I am eligible for the H of F vote. If you're just looking for "numbers" to show how people are leaning, I would vote "no" on McGwire if I was permitted to vote.

I did a piece back in July or August where I polled 50 writers on McGwire. I forget the exact totals, but a very small percentage said they would definitely vote for him.

Bill Madden
New York Daily News

I'm on record as being a hard-liner on all the alleged steroids cheats. I'm not voting for any of them, but if 75% of my colleagues deem them Hall-worthy, I have no problem with that. They're just not getting in with my vote.

In McGwire's case, I'm not sure if I would have voted for him anyway. He was essentially a one-dimensional player, below average defensively, who had 4-5 big home run seasons. I put him in the Harmon Killebrew (who I also didn't vote for) mode.

Hal McCoy
Dayton Daily News

As for Mr. McGwire, he will not be on my ballot, probably not ever. Using performance-enhancing substances certainly aided everything he did. Then his non-performance during the congressional hearings wiped him out of my consideration under the character clause on the ballot.

Bob Dutton
Kansas City Star

The HOF is a tougher call. Intellectually, I feel if a player is on the ballot, then his numbers/contributions should be viewed dispassionately and on merit. Realistically, I know that's tough to do. I don't know how I'd vote on McGwire.

Rick Hummel
St. Louis Post-Dispatch

McGwire has no chance to get into the Hall this year, not just because of his link to the steroids issue but the appearance of two clearly better candidates in Gwynn and Ripken. There is nothing McGwire needs to do - at least not now.

He doesn't have a chance anyway this year although that is not to say I wouldn't vote for him because I probably will. Next year, however, is different with no standout candidate ahead of McGwire and we'll have a better barometer of how much the steroids thing has hurt him.

Steve Buckley
Boston Herald

I have no intention of voting for Mark McGwire. I thought his performance before Congress was a disgrace. Whenever anyone asks me about his home run numbers, I simply say I am not here to talk about the past.

Jerry Crasnick
ESPN.com

I'm probably going to vote no on McGwire - primarily because we're still trying to assess exactly what happened during the steroid era, and I'm afraid he might go into the Hall and some startling new revelation might come out. And once a guy is in Cooperstown, you can't vote him out.
I'd rather be cautious and wait on this one.

Marty Noble
MLB.com

I'm all but certain McGwire won't need my support to be elected - in some year. I still am unsure how to evaluate him because of the performance enhancers - legal or illegal. That uncertainty, that he had nine seasons that fell short of HOF standards, and that he played his entire career in a time of offensive glut will make me withhold my vote until I have a better sense of how his candidacy compares with what I think and HOF player is.


Joel Sherman
New York Post

As for McGwire, I think I know which way I am leaning (not to vote for him). But I really have decided to wait until the ballot arrives and think fully about what I think on this issue. I think time is the only ally we have to assess these matters and I am going to use all of it.

Paul Hagen
Philadelphia Daily News

My standard answer still holds, which is: Why make a decision before you have to? This is an evolving story. We learn more all the time. The three questions I think a voter has to ask himself/herself are:

1. Can you vote for anybody in what we now have to consider the steroid era or do we just measure players against their peers in that era and ignore the external factors?

2. Did the player have Hall of Fame credentials before he was suspected of using steroids?

3. Can you take into account something that, no matter how strong your suspicions, are at this point just allegations?

Claire Smith
Philadelphia Inquirer

The qauge I will use is, would such a player have been considered a Hall of Famer before steroids sullied his era and/or name? To my mind, only Bonds gets a firm yes here. McGwire, one-dimensional and both a beneficiary and victim of his times, does not, and therefore will not get my vote now, perhaps even ever.

Philly's M(ost) V(aluable) P(ick-me-up)

To baseball writers across the land, it is now official: The Phillies’ Ryan Howard was the most valuable player in the National League in 2006.

In Philadelphia, a city sport-scape increasingly marked by dreariness and despair, the Bunyanesque first baseman with the powerful personality and home-run swing to go with it, continued to be the most valuable pick-me-up.

As Howard so perfectly summed up with one word yesterday, Philadelphia is “starving” for a winner. He is doing more than his part to win something for Philadelphia and the fans he applauded yesterday. And, as his win yesterday showed, he is doing so in both rapid and impressive fashion.

One year removed from being named the rookie of the year, Howard easily outdistanced the Cardinals’ Albert Pujols to win the MVP in his first full major-league season.He is the first Phillie to be named MVP in 20 years and the first pro athlete in Philadelphia to capture such an honor since Allen Iverson won the NBA’s MVP in 2001.

“I never would have thought it would happen this fast — rookie of the year, home-run derby [crown], and now the MVP,” a humble Howard said as he addressed a news conference and crowd of family, teammates, and Phillies officials at Citizens Bank Park yesterday afternoon.

Even before Howard spoke, his growing import on the Philly sports scene could be measured in the well-wishes sent his way. Not only did the usual suspects — Mike Schmidt, Darren Daulton, Gov. Rendell — weigh in via video messages, but Iverson, like the Flyers’ Mike Knuble and the Eagles’ Donovan McNabb, took time from a troubled season to wish Howard well.

Iverson, who taped his message yesterday morning at Sixers practice, issued a “God bless.”

Knuble thanked Howard for “putting baseball back on the map in Philadelphia.”

McNabb? In a taping that predated the quarterback’s season-ending knee injury Sunday, implored Howard to “continue on with everything that you have done.”

To do that, the man who turned just 27 on Sunday will have to top two seasons that have been both historic and impressive. For Howard is the only player other than Cal Ripken Jr. to follow up rookie-of-the-year honors with an MVP.

He shattered Mike Schmidt’s single-season club home-run record by hitting 58. That total and his 149 RBIs were major-league bests.The homers were the most ever by a second-year big-leaguer. The RBIs were a record for a second-year National Leaguer.

Howard’s numbers — so dominant during the season — were equally impressive when the balloting by the 32 voting members of the Baseball Writers Association of America was announced.

He received a total of 388 points to Pujols’ 347, based on tabulations that reward 14 points for first place, nine for second, eight for third, and on down to one for 10th.

Howard won 20 votes for first place to Pujols’ 12. His only other votes were for second (12), while Pujols settled for 19 second-place marks and one for third. Chase Utley tied for seventh.

Howard, who joins Chuck Klein (1932), Jim Konstanty (1950) and Mike Schmidt (1980, 81 and 86) as the only Phillies to win the MVP, didn’t pretend to know what caused the writers to separate him from Pujols. “That’s up to you guys,” he joked during an early-afternoon conference call with members of the BBWAA.

What Howard does know is how much he appreciates finishing ahead of a player who’d never finished lower than fourth in the balloting in any of his six seasons.

“That definitely means something,” Howard said of Pujols, who led the NL in batting with runners in scoring position (.397) and slugging (.671), and finished second to Howard in home runs (49) and RBIs (137).

“Just to be able to compete against a guy like Albert is a feat in itself,” he said.

Howard’s ability to shrug off the competition mirrors his ability to defy labels, such as those that suggested he would be vulnerable to the sophomore jinx, to lefthanded hitting, and to the weight of replacing the tremendously popular Jim Thome.

Phillies manager Charlie Manuel wasn’t surprised that Howard shred each issue. “It just tells you the kind of person he is,” Manuel said. “He’s just a man. I’ve never had to reassure him, even back in the spring [when Thome was still a Phillie], because the only thing he wanted to do is go out and play, try hard. He did, and he determined who’d get the job.”

What he did with it — well, that was a lesson in itself, said Phillies pitcher Geoff Geary, who likened Howard’s growth as a hitter to no less than Barry Bonds. "I’ve been with Ryan for a couple years now, and what’s neat is to see how he’s adjusted,” the reliever said. “He makes the adjustments more quickly now than he did in the minor leagues. He’d developed patience.”

Indeed, Howard conceded that the growth that made him most proud in 2006 was with walks — the ones he drew rather than the intentional sort. They totaled 108 and, he said, fit in with his game plan of continuing to learn and grow.

The walks, of course, did not drive the writers’ votes. What did, in part, was the Phillies’ near-miss playoff run with a strong second half of the season, something Howard fondly, succinctly called “the run.”

“Ryan Howard played in only one meaningless game all season — the last one,” said Jayson Stark of ESPN.com, explaining, in part, his vote for Howard. “So that was the context his numbers needed to be placed in — the same as Pujols’. Every hit, homer, RBI, etc., meant something.”

To the Phillies, to the fans, to the voters and, in the end, to the MVP.

And the winner is ... Vet Writers Weigh In

Ryan Howard or Albert Pujols?
Mirror images of each other, these two players present a tantalizing dilemma as to which was the National League's Most Valuable Player in 2006.
"If I had to vote in this election, I would have had a very hard time deciding between Howard and Pujols," said Phil Rogers, baseball columnist of the Chicago Tribune.

Who walks away with the honor bestowed by the Baseball Writers of America will be revealed today.

As Howard and Pujols await the 3 p.m. announcement, we take a look at what how 17 esteemed writers - whose experience covering the game combines for over 420 years - wrestle with what constitutes an Mvp.

Here are the full transcripts of the BBWAA members' responses:

Don Burke, Newark Star Ledger: I had an MVP vote and cast it for Ryan Howard. I just thought he meant more to his team this season than any other player in the National League this season. While Albert Pujols was extraordinary, the Cardinals kept on going when he missed time with injuries. But I thought Howard carried the Phillies as they made their late-season push that ultimately fell short, a push they couldn't possibly have made without him.
Bob Nightengale, USA Today: "I think Ryan Howard epitomizes the MVP award. He carried the Phillies on his back, put up monster numbers in the middle of a playoff race, and was a first-class citizen. He is my MVP, narrowly ahead of Albert Pujols. To me, an MVP has to come from either a playoff team or a team in playoff contention.

If the Phillies weren't a factor in the race, the nod would go to Pujols, but since they stayed alive until the final weekend, the vote swings to Howard. I also believe he might be the classiest young player in the game today and should be baseball's next great role model.

Jayson Stark, ESPN.com: I was an NL MVP voter this year, and I've never taken longer or thought harder on any award ballot I've ever filled out in my life. First, I make a list of every conceivable candidate, not just for the first spot on the ballot but for all 10. Then I narrow down the choices. I looked really carefully at six candidates -- Howard, Albert Pujols, Lance Berkman, Miguel Cabrera, Jose Reyes and Carlos Beltran.

Then, when I got down to just Howard and Pujols, I spent way too much time over three days trying to separate the two. I even broke down the score before and after every one of their homers. I looked at every conceivable number. I weighed intangibles. And I still wasn't sure. It got to be so late in the afternoon on Monday, the day after the season ended, that Jack O'Connell of the BBWAA even emailed me to say, essentially, It's time to vote!

I decided, in the end, that the biggest argument people were going to use to vote for Pujols over Howard, besides the fact that there were compelling cases to be made for each of them, boiled down to these two factors: 1) Howard didn't hit 60 homers, and 2) Pujols' team made the playoffs and Howard's didn't.

On item 2, though, my standard is different than many voters' standard. If a player's team doesn't get eliminated until the next-to-last day of the season, that's very different than, say, what happened to Derrek Lee last year, or to Travis Hafner this year. Their teams didn't play a meaningful game in September.

Ryan Howard played in only one "meaningless" game all season -- the last one. So that was the context his numbers needed to be placed in -- the same as Pujols'. Every hit, homer, RBI, etc. meant something. So argument No. 2 didn't wash.

That left argument No. 1, which I felt wasn't just about the magic number of 60, but more revolved around the fact that Howard didn't hit a home run in the last nine games of the season, when, theoretically, his team needed him most. Pujols, on the other hand, hit a couple of huge homers in that time.

So I looked at each player in those final nine games to see if the theory that Howard had somehow let the Phillies down was true. What I found was that Howard reached base in every game and, even though he was obviously being intentionally walked and pitched around so he WOULDN'T hit any more big homers, he still drove in a run in five of those nine games.

But over the Cardinals' last nine games, Pujols drove in a run in only one of the games in which he didn't homer. So that wasn't as big an edge as most people perceived.If you want me to tell you how I voted in the end, I will. I voted for Howard. But even now, I'm still not convinced I was right. I can't ever remember a time when the case for two candidates was that close -- and that good. And I've filled out a lot of ballots in my life.

Pat Borzi, New York Times contributor: I've never had an MVP vote. But if I did I'd lean toward a guy on a contending or championship team unless someone had numbers off the charts (Andre Dawson 1987, for instance).

The Phillies were in it long enough at the end for me to consider them contenders, but Howard's year was so big it doesn't matter. I got to see Pujols more than Howard this year, though, and I'd probably vote for Pujols because of some of the big hits he had down the stretch that saved the Cards from total collapse.

Bob Elliott, Toronto Sun baseball columnist: Don't think I qualify as venerable but I am old.

1. Have not voted for MVP in a few years, but I always voted for people in the post-season. The award is not like the Cy Young award for the most outstanding pitcher ... it's for the most outstanding player.

You know the way you admire Don Baylor ... well my admiration for Andre Dawson, who I used to see getting helped off the plane and off the buses (when we flew the charters) and still was able to play - despite his bad knees.
Yet I did not agree he should have been the MVP with the Cubs in '87 when they finished last.

How valuable was he? Without him would they have finished in American Association. Same with [[Cal] Ripken when he won and the O's were 81-81.

I would have voted for Pujols, by the way.

Jeff Blair, Toronto Globe and Mail columnist: I didn't have an MVP vote in our chapter this year, but I voted in the past and I have a fairly liberal interpretation of things.

On one MVP ballot, when I was in Montreal, I voted for Greg Maddux simply because I felt he was the most dominant performer, in terms of helping his team win, in that particular season. To me, the player who is judged most valuable to his team must almost out of necessity play on a team that contends for a post-season spot, unless the weight of his statistics are so overwhelming.

Mark Whicker, Orange County Register columnist: I don't have an MVP ballot but in writing about the MVP Award, I hardly ever give a first-place vote for a player who isn't in the playoffs. It would have to be an extreme case with no other standout candidates, because the word "valuable" to me connotes value to a winner.

Andre Dawson won it when the Cubs finished sixth and they would have finished sixth with an average player in that position.

In that light, Pujols beat out Howard for me. In a year when the Cardinals were savaged by pitching injuries, lineup injuries and general inconsistency, Pujols basically took them to the NL Central title. The fact that he has made himself a Gold Glove first baseman cannot be diminished either.

Howard's numbers speak for themselves and he would be the Player of the Year if such an award existed. But the Phillies didn't get the deal done.

Ray Ratto, San Francisco Chronicle columnist: I don't have an MVP vote, but I think you do it a bit by feel. I find it hard to imagine that Ryan Howard was more important to the Phillies than Albert Pujols was to the Cardinals, but it is close enough that I would be willing to break down some numbers as a tiebreaker. It also helps to be on a winner, because you can more easily point to value on a winning team.

Murray Chass, New York Times columnist: When I was allowed to vote for the award once upon a time I tried to decide who the player was without whom his team could not have done what it did (usually finish first or contend seriously for first). I have always felt that the less help a player has had in helping his team get where it finished the more valuable he was. The opposite of that - is the more good players a team has the less valuable each is.

Bill Madden, New York Daily News: My MVP selection process is to first look at the teams that made the postseason for candidates that in my opinion had the most impact. After that, I look at players (such as Howard) who had the most impact in getting their teams to the brink of the postseason.

If a guy leads the league in both homers and RBI he would get top consideration from me unless it was for a team that went nowhere (such as A-Rod with Texas a couple of years ago.) I put the heaviest emphasis on winning or contending for the postseason.

Hal McCoy, Dayton Daily News: I'm fairly wide-open on my MVP considerations. First I consider the stats, of course, and mix in the value of his contributions to his team. Ryan Howard qualifies mightily on both counts, although his late fade and the Phillies late fade in the face of the Albert Pujols and what he did for the Cardinals weighs heavily.

Rick Hummel, St. Louis Post-Dispatch: I generally vote for the best player on the best team, if at all possible. The Cardinals weren't the best team on Oct. 1, but they were in the playoffs. Howard's team wasn't in the playoffs.
Pujols' average with men in scoring position was startingly higher than Howard's and he is also a Gold Glove first baseman, compared to Howard's sub-standard play at first base.

I'm not caught up by who hits the most home runs although this is not to discredit Howard as a legitimate candidate.

Phil Rogers, Chicago Tribune: For me, playing on a playoff team is not an absolute for MVP worthiness, but it comes pretty close. With four post-season teams in both leagues, it's hard to ignore players who helped a team get to October to honor someone whose team fell short.

With that said, a player with Ryan Howard's performance - particularly as he pushed a team toward the playoffs, albeit eventually falling short - challenges me to defend that position. If I had to vote in this election, I would have had a very hard time deciding between Howard and Albert Pujols.

Tom Verducci, Sports Illustrated: The MVP is about assigning a personal value to the production of a player in the context of his team and the league. Statistics are enormously helpful, especially as the foundation to each player's case, but they are the not the be-all and end-all. If they were, we could just run the numbers through a computer and hand the trophy to the name the machine spits out on top.

I lean toward players on teams that contended and, with slightly more emphasis, those that reached the playoffs. I lean toward position players, and taking into account the value of their position on the defensive spectrum and how well they play it, but do not rule out pitchers. I have only one iron-clad rule: there are no iron-clad rules.

Marty Noble, MLB.com: One factor makes me question Howard's credentials for the MVP award - Chase Utley. No question Howard was the Phillies' most valuable player, and Utley was the team's second most valuable commodity. Here's the snag.

The MVP ballot awards 14 points to the player for each first-place vote. The second-through-10th places are awarded 9-8-7 etc. To me, that five-point difference means No. 1 has to be a clear-cut choice over No. 2, and really, more clear cut choice than any other entry on the ballot. And I cam make a better case for Howard being a clear cut choice than I can any other candidate.
But Utley is one of the leading candidates, too, along with Pujols, Reyes, Beltran, [David] Wright and [Carlos] Delgado (in that order among the Mets).

My question becomes this: Is Howard's relative value within the league worth five more points than the next candidate -- Pujols, in my mind -- and six more than Reyes when when he had a teammate providing as much as Utley did and his team didn't win either of the two postseason berths available?

What saves Howard is that the Cardinals faded and had two fewer victories than the Phillies, that Pujols played in fewer games - 143 to Howard's 159 and the ballot says number of games played is to be considered - and that Reyes, the best defensive player on the ballot, had more help from Beltran, Wright and Delgado that Utley provided.

And all that aside, 58 home runs and 149 RBI, are remarkable totals for an era and in any ballpark, even Citizen Bandbox. And, without precise measurement and comparison, what Howard did felt like an MVP performance.

Bob Dutton, Kansas City Star: I am a frequent voter for MVP because, well, it's a small chapter in Kansas City. My overriding priotity in voting is pretty simple: Based on this year alone, if I was picking up sides, whom would I pick first and so on.

I rarely penalize a player for playing for a poor team because, as Bill James contends, why should a player be penalized because he has lousy teammates?
The only exception is if players are virtually even in my eyes, then I'll tend toward the player on the better team -- assuming he performed down the stretch.

Similarly, I don't penalize a DH unless it's a dead heat, and then only if the other player is a superior defensive player.

I'm not opposed to voting for a pitcher for MVP, but his numbers would have to be overwhelming.

Jerry Crasnick, ESPN.com: I haven't actually had an MVP vote for at least 10 years, but I'm like most writers, I'm sure. I try to assess a player's impact through statistics and intangibles, and determine who was the most indispensible to his club.

All things being equal, I'm going to favor the guy who played for a winner. But I wouldn't penalize someone like Howard, whose team fell just short of the playoffs for reasons entirely unrelated to him. For what it's worth, I would have taken Howard over Pujols, even though Pujols was far superior in some important categories (like batting with runners in scoring position).