My old friend...

...is back, spouting off on a subject where he couldn't be more wrong. He could try, but he would not be successful. I speak of, of course, Mr. Ken Rosenthal writer at The Sporting News and the senior baseball writer at FOXSports.com. Mr. Rosenthal, who has a vote for the baseball Hall of Fame, has written another article about how he won't vote for Mark McGwire. What follows is the spirited e-mail exchange I had with him today. Though I still think he is so wrong, he should be wearing a tin-foil hat, I didn't convince him. Perhaps I'll convince the next writer who doesn't believe McGwire should be in the Hall. I've attached a link to Ken's article. You'll probably want to read that first if the rest is to make any sense to you...

Ken's Article

Brent First E-Mail

Date:Tue, 28 Nov 2006 05:29:38 -0800 (PST)
From: Brent A. Nelson
Subject: Back at it, eh?
To: Ken Rosenthal

Come on man. Your reasoning on the McGwire HOF vote is so horrible, it would be laughable...if you weren't serious...which you are. You've been spouting off on the same crap since early 2005.

Your big new moral standard is US law? You won't vote for McGwire because he broke US law? Is that right? Has anyone in the HOF ever gotten a speeding ticket? Correct me if I'm wrong, but that is also breaking US law. Why don't you get up on your high horse for that one? Millions of people die in car crashes caused by speeding. That could be your chance to make a moral stand. You could also look into parking tickets, since the new HOF criteria includes US law. Good times.

You've decided not to vote people in on the first ballot because they played in the Steroid Era, which I think is mildly retarded, but let's say that's a valid argument. Then why would you vote for Maddux, Glavine, Gwynn and Ripken? Why not stick to your guns? Why would you say you're not going to vote for Steroid Era players and then do a one-eighty and vote for Steroid Era players?

Why don't you just come out with an article that says you don't like McGwire, you don't think he should be in the HOF, you're disappointed he didn't talk to Congress and your reasons for not voting for him are completely personal? At least you wouldn't be lying, like you're currently doing in these articles. I would disagree, but at least we would get the charade over of McGwire having a fair shot at the HOF; it's a personal vote that has nothing to do with the numbers.

Brent Nelson

Ken First E-Mail

From: Ken Rosenthal
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 11:29:51 EST
Subject: Re: Back at it, eh?
To: Brent A. Nelson

You know what I love about bloggers? You guys - and yes, I'm generalizing - can't just disagree with an opinion, you've got to call people names, tell 'em they're liars, etc.

I happen to respect your opinion and everyone else's on the subject; it's a very difficult issue. In fact, some of the holes you point out in my argument are perfectly valid points. But I would suggest that there are holes in virtually every opinion on this topic.

By the way, I would hardly equate steroid use with speeding.

Thanks,
Ken

Brent Second E-Mail

Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 08:39:26 -0800 (PST)
From: Brent A. Nelson
Subject: Re: Back at it, eh?
To: Ken Rosenthal

Ken -

And that's just my point. You take a side of an argument (breaking US law) and then straddle the fence when another US law is broken. I was just using your argument to make a point. I guess I didn't realize that you were only talking about US laws that help prove your point, and were disregarding US laws that don't help with your "argument".

And I love that you try to disrespect me as a "blogger", when that's how I argue with my friends; it has nothing to do with you. We call eachother names when we don't agree; that's just part of my culture. Sticks and stones, I guess. Apparently words hurt. My bad.

I do agree that there are holes in every argument. However, I will continue to point out holes in every writer's McGwire arguments due to one key fact that no one seems to be addressing: It wasn't against the rules to use steroids!! That's where every argument should end.

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I wish I could change your mind on the whole McGwire issue, because as a HOF voter, your opinion matters more than mine.

Brent Nelson

Ken Second E-Mail

From: Ken Rosenthal
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 12:52:38 EST
Subject: Re: Back at it, eh?
To: Brent Nelson

Last point - possession of anabolic steroids is a felony. Speeding is not.

There is a significant difference between those two laws.

Take care,
Ken

Brent Third E-Mail

Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 10:01:47 -0800 (PST)
From: Brent A. Nelson
Subject: Re: Back at it, eh?
To: Ken Rosenthal

Ken -

I know that, and you know that, but you did not make that point in your article. But again, I think you're just playing semantics; it wouldn't matter if they were both felonies, you don't like McGwire and you won't vote for him. That's fine, but don't hide behind US law.

Now...let me throw a hypothetical at you. This argument will throw the whole legal/illegal argument out the window (this applies more towards Sammy Sosa, but, in theory, could apply to McGwrie). What would you say if McGwire went into Mexico once a week to shoot up with steroids? They are legal there and can be bought at pharmacies (same in the Dominican Republic). So, it's no longer a felony. He is doing something that is perfectly legal where he is at. Since we don't know for sure if McGwire even used illegal steroids, we also don't know if he went into Mexico to make the use legal. This line of thinking threatens your whole "felony" issue. So...assuming McGwire did that, would you now vote for him?

Brent

Ken Third E-Mail

From: Ken Rosenthal
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 13:40:04 EST
Subject: Re: Back at it, eh?
To: Brent Nelson

No, I would not.

Brent Fourth E-Mail

Date:Tue, 28 Nov 2006 10:48:52 -0800 (PST)
From: Brent A. Nelson
Subject: Re: Back at it, eh?
To: Ken Rosenthal

So, then, essentially your argument is: I don't think his numbers are good enough to be Hall-worthy. Which is fine (I couldn't disagree more), but why won't you put that in your articles, instead of all this mumbo-jumbo, illegal, straw-man, speak-out-against-steroids stuff? Why can't you just say the real reason? Is it because, in reality, his numbers are more than good enough, but you've backed yourself into a corner and don't want to admit you're wrong?

Ken Fourth E-Mail

From: Ken Rosenthal
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 19:26:56 EST
Subject: Re: Back at it, eh?
To: Brent Nelson

You're wearing me out. Let's just say you're smarter than I am and call it a day. I mean, that's what this is about, right?

Take care,
Ken

Brent Fifth E-Mail

Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 16:47:29 -0800 (PST)
From: Brent A. Nelson
Subject: Re: Back at it, eh?
To: Ken Rosenthal

Ken -

Pretty funny. Talk about bloggers needing to call names. Hi there kettle...you're black. I guess you can't take a difference of opinion either. I'm just firmly in Mark McGwire's camp, and believe in innocence until proven guilty. You don't. It's okay. No one said anyone was smarter than anyone else. Don't take yourself so seriously.

Brent


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Overall, I think I stated my cases pretty well and Ken did a poor job defending his position. When you really look at it, there are only three reasons you could really not vote for McGwire
1) You just don't like him (fine, but the Hall should not be a popularity contest)
2) You don't like steroids (fine, but there is no proof he ever used them, so he's guilty until proven innocnet...very American)
3) You don't think his stats warrant it (fine, but this is just a reach. 583 career homers, rookie homerun record, brought people back to baseball, 3 World Series teams...the numbers don't lie)

I look forward to the next writer I can chat with about this subject. I hope to be able to break out my Stampy Theorem again, if someone makes the wrong argument. Good times...