OT Sunday: The Hall Of Fame
by Jim McLennan on Jan 8, 2012 2:00 PM EST
in Randomness
Email
PrintSlightly-less off-topic today than usual: if not a Diamondbacks-related query [and it won't be until Randy Johnson shows up on the 2015 ballot!], it is at least about baseball. The results for the 2012 class in the Hall of Fame will be announced tomorrow. For your consideration, here are this year's candidates, along with their career numbers.
- Who would you vote for this year?
- What currently active players do you think most likely to be inducted?
- What do you see as the purpose of the Hall of Fame?
- Have you been to Cooperstown? If so, what was it like? If not, would you want to go?
- Attendance at the HoF has dropped almost 25% since 2007. Is it still relevant?
- Should steroid users be inducted?
- If yes, should any factors outside performance be used for inclusion?
- If no, what standard of proof is needed?
More thoughts on this tricky subject after the jump...
Unlijke the MVP awards, the Baseball Hall of Fame are entirely silent on the matter of what criteria should constitute a suitable candidate. It's thus left entirely up to the eclectic group who make up the college of the BBWAA - and, unlike the actual BBWAA awards, it's not a case of two from each city, with some voters no longer actively covering the sport. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing. After all, we're dealing with players who are no longer actively playing the game. But it does mean there is absolutely no consistency with regard to standards.
Nowhere is this more apparent than when it comes to the matters of PEDs. It's something which has already seen the first ripples reaching the ballot, with the likes of Mark McGwire becoming eligible. And it's only going to get a lot worse. As Grant Brisbee recently pointed out, next year's ballot will include the likes of Sammy Sosa, Roger Clements and the tsar bomba of PED users, Mr. Barry Lamar Bonds (did you know he went to ASU?). Right now, the prospects don't look good for them, going by the numbers received by those predecessors - or even those, like Jeff Bagwell, for whom no solid evidence has emerged.
Personally - and I stress that, since I make absolutely no claim to having "the" answer for what is basically a question or your own moraliry - I am comfortable with that, as I tend to think the Hall of Fame should be a celebration of what's good about the game (hence the question above about its purpose). Certainly, it should acknowledge baseball's darker side, but this does not include enshrining those most directly responsible for it This is especially while there is no mechanism to remove players from Cooperstown - if you think we know the truth about the extent of PED use in the majors, you're more trusting than I.
A common counter-argument is that this relies on a notion that somehow a previous era was pure and unsullied. Obviously, that isn't the case: before there were steroids, there were amphetamines - according to infamous D-back Jason Grimsley, placed in clubhouse coffeepots labeled "leaded" and "unleaded." Various Hall of Famers have admitted to using these. However, as always with a voting award, winners are a product of their time. If the 1941 Oscar was picked now, I suspect Citizen Kane might just beat out How Green Was My Valley. So it is with Cooperstown: amphetamines weren't part of the discussion then.
To me, that doesn't mean PEDs should not be part of the discussion now. We evolve, hopefully in ways that improve our ability to assess players. Players are judged on contemporary standards not those present when Ralph Kiner (an admitted speed user) was elected, in the same way that WAR or UZR are now part of the debate, replacing pitcher wins and ribbies. To me, part of the criteria is whether or not a player cheated. Otherwise, to quote Joe Torre, "It's like letting some guys use metal bats and other guys have to use wood." But this causes another problem: extending Torre's simile, how do we tell who was using metal bats?
It would be a lot easier if, as mentioned above, there were a method to remove inappropriate members. There are plenty of those in there already, mostly from the relatively early days of the Hall, e.g. Ray Schalk or Rabbit Maranville. Instead, the current situation means that, as a result, I am inclined to err on the side of doubt. I'd rather keep honest players out of the Hall of Fame than let cheaters in, so don't need a positive test or an admission, because I don't think it needs criminal levels of "beyond all reasonable doubt." I'm prepared to settle for it being sufficient if the balance of probability is that the player in question took steroids.
Which brings me to Jeff Bagwell, a man for whom there is no direct evidence of steroid abuse. There is, however, an awful lot of circumstantial evidence, starting with his raw numbers These days, I tend to think forty home-runs in a season is about the most any but the very best hitter can legitimately produce on a consistent basis. The last is important, because there are plenty of fluke seasons, even well before the steroid era. For instance, Roger Maris's 1961, where he hit 61 homers - he never had another 40-homer season in his career. The same goes with Hack Wilson's 56 home-runs in 1930. Indeed, Bagwell's 1994 MVP season is another example: before and after, he had 20 HR/.903 OPS and 21/.894. But in the middle, it was 39 HR and a 1.201 OPS.
But averaging 40+ homers over an extended period is very, very hard these days. Over the past three seasons, Albert Pujols is the only player to have done so, hitting 126 home-ruins That's ten more than the second-placed guy, Prince Fielder [incidentally, third is our old friend, former Diamondback Mark Reynolds, on 113. Who knew...] From 1999-2001, Bagwell hit 128 home-runs. So, if you think he was clean, you're basically saying Bagwell was a better power hitter than anyone currently playing in the major-leagues. He was good, sure. But better than Pujols? That, I'm afraid, I just don't credit.
Actually, Pujols' tally - remember, easily more than anyone else over the past three years - was matched or bettered by no less than seven players in the 1999-2001 period when Bagwell was at his peak. One was Todd Helton, who should perhaps get a pass - he didn't need steroids, because he was playing in pre-humidor Denver. [In the first year of the period covered here, 38% more home runs were hit in Coors than at the second-ranked park in the NL] But along with Bagwell, the others are Sammy Sosa, Barry Bonds, Alex Rodriguez, Rafael Palmeiro and Mark McGwire. And Manny Ramirez, at 123, just missed out.
That's pretty much a rogues' gallery of PED abusers. While there may be no 'smoking gun' for Bagwell in terms of a positive drug test, Mitchell report name-check or even tell-all memoir by a former team-mate, when your numbers are generally consistent with those of more or less proven cheats, it's a huge red-flag to me. That's what I'm seeing here. numbers consistent with those produced at the same time by those for whom there certainly is strong evidence of PED abuse. Yes, this is guilt by association, but my mother had a good Scottish saying: if you fly with the crows, you'll be shot with the crows.
 |
|
| Jeff Bagwell, 1991 (age 23) |
Jeff Bagwell, 2000 (age 32) |
I'd be more inclined to give Bagwell the benefit of the doubt if he had shown power tendencies over the bulk of his career, but that isn't the case. In all of his 210 minor-league games, Bagwell had six home-runs - or "a good week," as Paul Goldschmidt calls it. He did better in the majors, but through his age 30 season - which should cover the best hitting years of his life on just about any aging curve, and did include his MVP campaign - he averaged 28 homers. While good, not exactly Hall of Fame-worthy. But then, from age 31-35, at an age when your production should decline, Bagwell suddenly averaged 40 homers per year - seems like he was growing old disgracefully...
Individually, these points of data wouldn't each mean much, but when considered together, I (again, personally) reckon the balance of probability is that Bagwell did use some illegal means to improve his power numbers in the later stages of his career, and as such, should not be considered for the Hall of Fame. However, I fully accept there are valid counter-points to this position, and I'd love to hear them,
140 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
HOF
Who would you vote for this year? Jack Morris
What currently active players do you think most likely to be inducted? Don’t know yet.
What do you see as the purpose of the Hall of Fame? To encourage the highest levels of achievement and personal character.
Have you been to Cooperstown? If so, what was it like? If not, would you want to go? Yeah, I’d like to see it, but it’s kind of out of the way.
Attendance at the HoF has dropped almost 25% since 2007. Is it still relevant? Everything has declined due to the economy. It will again do well when the economy does well.
Should steroid users be inducted? No.
If yes, should any factors outside performance be used for inclusion? Personal character, contributions to the positive image of the game and the profession, and contributions to American society at large.
sententia Platonis semper in ore illius fuit, florere civitates si aut philosophi imperarent aut imperantes philosopharentur
Looks like the question has changed since I posted
Should steroid users be inducted? Again, absolutely not. Superior performance should be the result of superior genetic talent, as well as fairly acquired skills, training, and superior game tactics and strategy.
If no, what standard of proof is needed? Prima facie physical evidence, including solid objective testing results rather than just the testimony of self-serving former player nutjobs with axes to grind and books to sell.
sententia Platonis semper in ore illius fuit, florere civitates si aut philosophi imperarent aut imperantes philosopharentur
by NASCARbernet on Jan 9, 2012 11:26 AM EST up reply actions
I think Bagwell should definitely get into the Hall.
He might not get voted in this year, but he will eventually. I’m biased, however, since the Astros are my first love and I grew up watching Bagwell hit home runs in the cavernous Astrodome.
I suppose there is a certain ammount of circumstantial evidence regarding Bagwell and PEDs. But since he’s never been linked to them, I don’t see why it should be held against him. Why should he be punished for playing during the steroid era?
The bird is struggling out of the egg. The egg is the world. Whoever wants to be born, must first destroy a world.
by Stupendous Man on Jan 8, 2012 3:19 PM EST via mobile reply actions
Okay,
right off the bat, I am completely unqualified to answer most of these questions. I really wasn’t all that aware of baseball during most of their careers, so I won’t bother. However, I do have opinions on who should go in that is playing now, and also the problem of steroids.
Easy question first. I think that Derek Jeter should make the HOF, along with, Lincecum, provided that he doesn’t pull a Webby. I hope that Bauer, Goldschmidt, Skaggs, and Upton make it as well
Steroids. Ugh. Personally, I don’t think those who have been shown with evidence to have used them, or have admitted to it should not be in the Hall. They did not get their stats honestly, and Torre was correct, steroids really are just a subtle way to use the equivalent of a metal bat when everyone else was using wood. It was sneaky, underhanded, and should not be rewarded with a shrine in Cooperstown. If Pete Rose and Shoe-less Joe Jackson aren’t there, why should Bonds, Clemens and the rest?
Cases like Bagwell are different, though. They have never actually been solidly connected to steroids, but the circumstantial evidence is there. Should we let them in? I say no, for now. Until there is a way to remove someone from the Hall, I could not in good conscience vote for someone who has so much evidence, albeit circumstantial, to be inducted.
Despite all this, there is still a question that we as a fan base need to answer. Is the Hall of Fame a shrine to the best of baseball, or is it a museum to the history of baseball? If it’s a shrine, then even the suspected users and other morally questionable people should not be in, but that would leave very few to be eligible. If it is a museum, then, yes, they and others who have been banned should become eligible. This is the question that needs to be answered, and this problem will never go away until it is.
isitspringtrainingyet.com
how about this-
Let them in, provided the Letter E (for enhanced performance) were used after the name of those who are known to have used PEDs. If a player who was alive at time of induction was found to be user later, the letter would be added to his name. If deceased at the time of selection his survivors could decline selection to avoid the PED label.
"At times I think there are no words
But these to tell me what's true
There are no truths outside The Gates of Eden." B. Dylan
That is a pretty good idea
and if they do get in, it does need to be put somewhere that they did use steroids. Very interesting
isitspringtrainingyet.com
by imstillhungry95 on Jan 8, 2012 5:52 PM EST up reply actions
The scarlet
E. (or whatever, as long as it’s red.)
The interesting thing would be if any of them would have enough pride to opt out, rather than be branded as a cheater in perpetuity.
"At times I think there are no words
But these to tell me what's true
There are no truths outside The Gates of Eden." B. Dylan
Who would you vote for this year? Definitely Trammell and Raines…probably Larkin.
Hall of Fame purpose? Preserving a sort of lowbrow, masculine mythology. Getting to Cooperstown is half the fun; driving up the Hudson Valley from the south, or tracing the Erie Canal from the west, transports one back in time, like any good pilgrammage.
Should steroid users be inducted? I dont think drug boosting should be morally exclusionary, since the Hall has a cheerful history of enshrinees gaining untoward advantage on the field, as well as some immoral characters off it. But in terms of slotting modern candidates versus contemporaries, and even moreso versus past greats, I think recent contextual ‘advantages’ like PEDs present daunting practical (ie statistical) considerations.
If yes, should any factors outside performance be used for inclusion? Fame, goodness.
Reporters asked the Phillies' skipper how his pitcher had managed to injure himself in his sleep. "I don’t know," Manuel said. "I didn’t sleep with him."
Active players most likely to be inducted?
Jeter
Rivera
Ichiro
I dont feel anyone else is a lock at this point.
Reporters asked the Phillies' skipper how his pitcher had managed to injure himself in his sleep. "I don’t know," Manuel said. "I didn’t sleep with him."
Halladay?
A-Rod? Pujols? Really?
Founder and Chairman of the Send Dan Some Pizzeria Bianco Commission (SDSPBC). SDSPBC is a totally, definitely for-profit organization.
by Dan Strittmatter on Jan 9, 2012 3:22 AM EST up reply actions
At this point
they’re all more likely to get in than not, eventually. But the question was “most” likely, and I suspect Jeter, Rivera and Ichiro transcend the steroid era – in the minds of BBWAA voters – in a way that Arod and Pujols do not.
Halladay is obviously great, but he’s got 188 winz. The BBWAA hasnt elected any starter who began his career since 1970 (Blyleven) – and it took them forever to do it.
Reporters asked the Phillies' skipper how his pitcher had managed to injure himself in his sleep. "I don’t know," Manuel said. "I didn’t sleep with him."
I guess what puzzled me
Was Ichiro. For the SABR-inclined, Ichiro certainly has not had a Hall of Fame career, in spite of his legendary hit totals. The hit totals will probably get him in, but in terms of pure value, there’s an argument to leave him out if he doesn’t rebound and have a few more solid seasons.
Founder and Chairman of the Send Dan Some Pizzeria Bianco Commission (SDSPBC). SDSPBC is a totally, definitely for-profit organization.
by Dan Strittmatter on Jan 9, 2012 2:42 PM EST up reply actions
For the SABR-inclinedconfused, Ichiro certainly has not had a Hall of Fame career…
Not that it has much to do with the real question at hand – whether he’s among the ‘most likely’ to enjoy strong BBWAA support – which I think he does for several reasons, but Ichiro’s put up 53 fWAR in ten seasons since he’s been on American soil; more than all but five players, two of whom are directly PED implicated. It’s more WAR (since 2001) than ‘shoo-in’ Jeter and serious candidates Chipper, Helton et al.
To say that he “certainly” has not had a HOF career, even on purely statistical grounds, I think mischaracterizes both that statistical performance and the greater ‘sabr-inclined’ community.
Reporters asked the Phillies' skipper how his pitcher had managed to injure himself in his sleep. "I don’t know," Manuel said. "I didn’t sleep with him."
I believe
Dan was suggesting that Ichiro has a better chance of not making it if a rebound doesn’t occur. Despite what he’s done in the last ten seasons, if he continues to have 700+ AB, 160+ game seasons with a negative rWAR (0.2 fWAR) he might be left off a few ballots.
Jeter and Jones have never had a season with less than 2 WAR.
Wear your own fur.
by Marc Fournier on Jan 9, 2012 6:08 PM EST up reply actions
I dont doubt
that Ichiro’ll be “left off a few ballots” one way or another. Some moron will decide that he didnt have enough RBIs to qualify. Another imbecile will figure his career WAR doesnt really justify mlb’s highest honor. A third dude just wont vote for any modern player on the first ballot, a fourth voter will forget Suzuki was ‘imprisoned’ in Japan until age 27, and another BBWAA member is still seeking revenge over Pearl Harbor.
I just dont think there are enough of those voters to seriously jeopardize his first ballot induction. Maybe I’m getting ahead of myself, since Ichiro’s eligibility is quite a ways off, and a lot can change in 5-8 years, including that late career WAR degradation you and Dan pointed out.
But as long as Ichiro isnt implicated with PEDs, I’ll bet you he does better than A-Rod with the BBWAA, even if his last few seasons fizzle out. I also think there’s a better than even chance he does better than Pujols, although that’s a closer call.
Reporters asked the Phillies' skipper how his pitcher had managed to injure himself in his sleep. "I don’t know," Manuel said. "I didn’t sleep with him."
Do you really think
that there is only ONE old geezer in the BBWAA who still harbors (couldn’’t resist) a grudge against the Japanese?
Yeah, what NASCARbernet said... that Latin stuff.
Ha
you may be right. Jackie Robinson, who in several respects, makes an interesting HOF comp for Ichiro, barely got in his first year, with 77.5%. But I’m pretty sure today’s BBWAA geezers are both more educated and enlightened than their predecessors in 1962.
Reporters asked the Phillies' skipper how his pitcher had managed to injure himself in his sleep. "I don’t know," Manuel said. "I didn’t sleep with him."
Hopefully
By the time Ichiro gets on the ballot, they’ll be dead.
(too harsh?)
Founder of the 'Foundation for the Advancement of Clefoing' a 501C3
Will (with less harshness)
retired or incapacitated work?
"At times I think there are no words
But these to tell me what's true
There are no truths outside The Gates of Eden." B. Dylan
There will be
New BBWAA geezers to replace them, unfortunately.
Ian, Daniel, Josh, and two Trevors: It's not a Christian rock group.
by Zavada's Moustache on Jan 9, 2012 11:36 PM EST up reply actions
Does part of the BBWAA initiation
involve having Statler and or Waldorf’s personality infused into you?
Founder of the 'Foundation for the Advancement of Clefoing' a 501C3
I was under the impression
That old age did that. Stereotypes are fun!
Ian, Daniel, Josh, and two Trevors: It's not a Christian rock group.
by Zavada's Moustache on Jan 11, 2012 12:13 AM EST up reply actions
Let's not start a new age battle,
not all codgers are geezerized.
"At times I think there are no words
But these to tell me what's true
There are no truths outside The Gates of Eden." B. Dylan
Ehhh
You quote his 53 fWAR like it’s an exhilarating total. 70 is about where I put the Hall of Fame threshold, so if you go by overall value, I would certainly argue that Ichiro has fallen short. It’s 12th among active position players – behind A-Rod, Pujols, Chipper, Jeter, Rolen, Thome, Abreu, Beltran, Helton, Berkman, and Beltre. Sure, he’s had less career to do it in than most, but has that ever been a sufficient excuse for the BBWAA?
Again, he’ll get his votes and he’ll probably get in based on his hit records, and that’s great and defensible – heck, I’d support it – but SABR-wise, hit totals don’t mean a ton and Ichiro doesn’t exactly measure up. You’d have a massive Hall of Fame if every guy with 53 career fWAR got in. Putting Ichiro ahead of Rodriguez, Pujols, Chipper Jones, and Halladay confuses me.
Founder and Chairman of the Send Dan Some Pizzeria Bianco Commission (SDSPBC). SDSPBC is a totally, definitely for-profit organization.
by Dan Strittmatter on Jan 10, 2012 3:59 AM EST up reply actions
And I say "overall value"
As purely WAR-based. Which is obviously flawed. Important caveat.
Founder and Chairman of the Send Dan Some Pizzeria Bianco Commission (SDSPBC). SDSPBC is a totally, definitely for-profit organization.
by Dan Strittmatter on Jan 10, 2012 4:01 AM EST up reply actions
okay
I certainly agree 53 fWAR is a low career total for a hof outfielder. I dont agree that there’s a HOF ‘WAR threshold’ anywhere near 70 (Rice, Dawson and of greater relevance, Puckett, are just recent OF examples), or that there’s this small army of narrow minded, sabr-inclined BBWAA voters who’ll refuse to acknowledge the special truncated circumstances of Ichiro’s career.
Dave Cameron’s in the BBWAA. I forget if he has a Hall vote. Maybe not. But do you think someone like Cameron, or Rob Neyer, would leave Ichiro off their first balllot? They’re as sabr-inclined as one can be, but I doubt it. They understand Ichiro’s contributions to, and standing in, the game far exceed career WAR.
Even if they snubbed Ichiro, they’ll be overwhelmed by more traditional voters who dont give a crap about WAR, and who’ll be relieved to vote for a unique, multi-dimensional superstar, who scrupulously avoided the most dangerous activity to a Hall of Fame candidate in the steroid era – hitting the ball over the fence.
Reporters asked the Phillies' skipper how his pitcher had managed to injure himself in his sleep. "I don’t know," Manuel said. "I didn’t sleep with him."
by Diamondhacks on Jan 10, 2012 1:21 PM EST up reply actions
Again
Never said he’s not going to get in. I think he is going to get in. Never said there is that SABR-heavy BBWAA contingent. Just said his resume of overall value has more holes than Pujols’, A-Rod’s, and Halladay’s. Those guys are every bit as much of locks as Ichiro.
Founder and Chairman of the Send Dan Some Pizzeria Bianco Commission (SDSPBC). SDSPBC is a totally, definitely for-profit organization.
by Dan Strittmatter on Jan 10, 2012 4:55 PM EST up reply actions
Ichiro's
“resume of overall value” may have more holes than some of those guys, but imo he has fewer potentially “fatal” holes, in terms of HOF support. People dont think he cheated. That’s incredibly important right now. Frankly, it trumps whether he arrived from Japan at age 27 or 23 (ie career WAR).
Look at who the BBWAA has elected recently. The last “slugger-type” to get in on the first ballot was Eddie Murray – way back in 2003!
Since then they’ve rapidly spirited in a bunch of middle infielders (Larkin, Alomar, Ripken, Sandberg), speedster (Henderson), consummate singles hitters (Gwynn, Boggs), a doubles hitter (Molitor) and Eck.
Contrast that with BBWAA treatment of eligible sluggers. Not only McGwire, but McGriff, Bagwell, and a number of burly but lesser names. Heck, muscley Edgar Martinez has identical career WAR to Alomar and Larkin. But he’s getting prejudged. Voters are increasingly wary of these gaudy power totals (see A-Rod, Pujols for future trending) , and are not waiting around for admissions of guilt or positive drug tests to act on their suspicions.
Reporters asked the Phillies' skipper how his pitcher had managed to injure himself in his sleep. "I don’t know," Manuel said. "I didn’t sleep with him."
by Diamondhacks on Jan 10, 2012 9:19 PM EST up reply actions
Pujols is a post-steroid-era guy, by all accounts
Testing is everywhere, and he’s the best hitter of his generation. Thinking Ichiro’s odds are greater than Pujols’ is incredibly confusing to me. That’s all I’m trying to say. Pujols’ first ballot will be somewhere between 90 and 100 percent of the votes, and it should. Ichiro’s? Not so sure.
Founder and Chairman of the Send Dan Some Pizzeria Bianco Commission (SDSPBC). SDSPBC is a totally, definitely for-profit organization.
by Dan Strittmatter on Jan 10, 2012 11:31 PM EST up reply actions
It's an awfully long way off
and there’s all sorts of unknowns that need to shake out. we’re discovering new things all the time. let’s see what happens.
Reporters asked the Phillies' skipper how his pitcher had managed to injure himself in his sleep. "I don’t know," Manuel said. "I didn’t sleep with him."
by Diamondhacks on Jan 11, 2012 10:08 PM EST up reply actions
Fair enough.
Founder and Chairman of the Send Dan Some Pizzeria Bianco Commission (SDSPBC). SDSPBC is a totally, definitely for-profit organization.
by Dan Strittmatter on Jan 11, 2012 10:30 PM EST up reply actions
Albert is a stone cold lock
Just as much as the other guys. Unless of course he gets popped for PED
The worst major leaguer is better at baseball than I'll ever be at anything I ever do in my life.
Exactly
He’s a conditional, cold stone lock…not unlike Roger Clemens prior to the Mitchell Report.
Reporters asked the Phillies' skipper how his pitcher had managed to injure himself in his sleep. "I don’t know," Manuel said. "I didn’t sleep with him."
by Diamondhacks on Jan 14, 2012 11:57 AM EST up reply actions
HOF attendance has dropped. Is it still relevant?
The institution’s losing relevance, prestige and authority, as issues like steroids, sabermetrics and technology steadily convince fans that their personal evaluations are just as valid as those of the BBWAA. Alternate, virtual ‘Halls" are sprouting up left and right, because the institution is increasingly defined by what fans perceive it’s doing inadequately.
Reporters asked the Phillies' skipper how his pitcher had managed to injure himself in his sleep. "I don’t know," Manuel said. "I didn’t sleep with him."
I'll go
Who would you vote for? Larkin, since he’s one of the few I saw play. I’d probably also vote for Raines and Trammell, based on their numbers.
Currently playing future hall of famers? Pujols, Halladay, and Jeter are probably pretty close to shoe-ins. I have high hopes for guys like Felix Hernandez, Matt Kemp, Evan Longoria, and possibly JUp if they can keep up their production.
Purpose of the Hall of Fame? To preserve the history of Major League Baseball by honoring the best players, pure and simple.
Have you been? No, but I hope to sometime in my life.
Still relevant? I think the Hall of Fame will always have relevance as an idea, even if the museum itself loses appeal. It’s the same idea as being an all-star: the title still matters for individual players even if fewer and fewer people pay attention to the All Star Game.
Should steroid users be inducted? I think players who made a dramatic impact on the game (Clemens, Bonds, McGwire et al) should and eventually will make it into the hall. Put an asterisk by their numbers if you need to, or make a plaque to denote the “Steroid Era,” but I think their impact on the game is too great to ignore.
Ian, Daniel, Josh, and two Trevors: It's not a Christian rock group.
by Zavada's Moustache on Jan 8, 2012 6:27 PM EST reply actions
I knew I was forgetting a couple people
How could I forget Pujols!
isitspringtrainingyet.com
by imstillhungry95 on Jan 8, 2012 9:22 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah, I forgot some obvious ones as well.
Like literally everyone that Dan mentioned.
Ian, Daniel, Josh, and two Trevors: It's not a Christian rock group.
by Zavada's Moustache on Jan 9, 2012 2:14 AM EST up reply actions
•Who would you vote for this year?Jeff Bagwell
Barry Larkin
Edgar Martinez
Mark McGwire
Rafael Palmeiro
Tim Raines
Alan Trammell
Larry Walker
•What currently active players do you think most likely to be inducted?
Albert, Chipper, Thome, Jeter, I-Rod, Guerrero , Ichrio !, Cabrera, among the hitters. (Remember this is likely…not who I THINK). Among pitchers: Halladay and Rivera the only locks….CC on the way….needs a couple more ace seasons to cement his case. On the Horizon, Maybe Felix…but talk to me in 4 years.
•What do you see as the purpose of the Hall of Fame?
It’s a museum, dedicated to the history of the game, and to celebrate the achievements of it’s greatest players
•Have you been to Cooperstown? If so, what was it like? If not, would you want to go?
I was born there. (Really). Haven’t been back since about 1988 though.
•Attendance at the HoF has dropped almost 25% since 2007. Is it still relevant?
Yes. The economy is making it hard for people to travel there.
•Should steroid users be inducted?
Yes
•If yes, should any factors outside performance be used for inclusion?
If they are going to enforce the “character” aspect of enshrinement, they have a lot of guys they need to kick out first before we start excluding guys on character.
•If no, what standard of proof is needed?
If there were a rule stating Steroid users must be excluded, then it must be a failed test or public admission, nothing less than those two. But then they should include users of amphetamines too. (You know….like Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle and such)
The worst major leaguer is better at baseball than I'll ever be at anything I ever do in my life.
oops
Among pitchers who might get there someday, along with Felix I should have included Verlander.
The worst major leaguer is better at baseball than I'll ever be at anything I ever do in my life.
Have you been to Cooperstown?
I was born there. (Really).
Ooooooohhhh. That’s verrrrry interesting.
Reporters asked the Phillies' skipper how his pitcher had managed to injure himself in his sleep. "I don’t know," Manuel said. "I didn’t sleep with him."
Fate....Destiny........
Or just coincidence ?
The worst major leaguer is better at baseball than I'll ever be at anything I ever do in my life.
This sounds like the start
of a fantastical novel. Is there even a hospital in Cooperstown? Or were you turned away at the Baseball Town Motel and plopped down in a manger;-)
Reporters asked the Phillies' skipper how his pitcher had managed to injure himself in his sleep. "I don’t know," Manuel said. "I didn’t sleep with him."
by Diamondhacks on Jan 9, 2012 2:04 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Ya gotta admit
it’s a pretty biblical site for a baseball fan to be born.
The. Fake. Birthplace. Of. Base. Ball.
Even if tiny Cooperstown had a regional hospital fifty years ago, less than one of every ten thousand Americans was born there. It’s like being born at the North Pole or Xanadu.
Reporters asked the Phillies' skipper how his pitcher had managed to injure himself in his sleep. "I don’t know," Manuel said. "I didn’t sleep with him."
I guess...
but still
isitspringtrainingyet.com
by imstillhungry95 on Jan 9, 2012 10:05 PM EST up reply actions
what do you mean "even if" ?
Do you have to be so damn predictable ?. I knew you were going there.
Sorry, due to identity theft, privacy concerns, I won’t be posting a picture of my birth certificate here
For the record, my grandparents owned a farm 15 miles away, my mom was staying with them at the time, and thats where the nearest hospital was. It’s not THAT big a deal…..just a funny little footnote.
However I have won money proving this, as there is always a dooshbag out there that calls me a liar over it. So if you think I’m lying, I’ll bet you a thousand bucks, and next time I am in Phoenix, (This summer) I will present my birth certificate to you in person.
If you are game, pony up….., we can find a neutral third party to hold the cash, otherwise……this line of discussion is pretty much over. (I know it won’t be…you’ll have to have the last word……..but I’m pretty sure that last word won’t result in you taking up the bet)
The worst major leaguer is better at baseball than I'll ever be at anything I ever do in my life.
oops
I totally believe you and think it’s pretty awesome, actually. Here I was, bragging about being from Brooklyn, across the way from Gil Hodges (yawn), and you’re wrapped in swaddling clothes in the pastoral shadows of the Hall of Fame.
I appreciate why you think it, or want it to be, a footnote, so I’ll stop. I was having fun with it because you’re a fanatic and Cooperstown is such a tiny, out of the way place. I do believe it’s a delicious and amazing coincidence…awesome footnote or whatever…but I never doubted its veracity. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Reporters asked the Phillies' skipper how his pitcher had managed to injure himself in his sleep. "I don’t know," Manuel said. "I didn’t sleep with him."
by Diamondhacks on Jan 10, 2012 2:30 AM EST up reply actions
well noted and accepted
Maybe I’m hyper sensitive . Me ? Nah ……
Lol
The worst major leaguer is better at baseball than I'll ever be at anything I ever do in my life.
by shoewizard on Jan 10, 2012 2:59 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
Rereading the thread
I understand your reaction. I definitely implied your story was ‘fictional’, statistically unlikely, etc..I just meant it in a magical, storybook way – not in a “you’re full of crap” sense.
Much like some ‘unbelievable’ baseball stats, that ignite the imagination yet are undeniably true.
Reporters asked the Phillies' skipper how his pitcher had managed to injure himself in his sleep. "I don’t know," Manuel said. "I didn’t sleep with him."
by Diamondhacks on Jan 10, 2012 12:31 PM EST up reply actions
By the way.....
http://www.bassett.org/bassett-medical-center/about-us/history/
The worst major leaguer is better at baseball than I'll ever be at anything I ever do in my life.
Larkin, Martinez, Raines, Trammell, and I guess Morris,
the HOF is a vehicle for the MLB to make cash on it’s history.
I hope to go some day.
There has to be a rule before someone can break it.
None of the current candidates inspire my support
although I guess I wouldn’t mind Larkin being chosen.
Yeah, what NASCARbernet said...
Going all
Jay Mariotti on us, huh?
Wear your own fur.
by Marc Fournier on Jan 9, 2012 6:38 PM EST up reply actions
Hmmmm
Who would you vote for this year?
Larkin
Raines
McGwire
Bagwell
Palmeiro
Martinez
Trammell
For the love of all that is holy, NOT Jack Morris.
What currently active players do you think most likely to be inducted?
Obvious guys: Halladay, Pujols, A-Rod, Chipper, Jeter, Thome, Mariano (don’t know if Mariano would be for me, but he will be for the BBWAA).
Younger guys with a chance: Felix, Longoria, JUpton, Tulowitzki, Stanton, Pedroia, Braun, Heyward, Strasburg.
Fringe guys: Rolen, Helton, Ichiro.
Guys who could get to obvious territory in the next couple years: Beltre, Miguel Cabrera, Sabathia, Beltran, Berkman, Santana (would require something of a health miracle).
Dark horse: Jose Bautista. It’s so hard to know how he’ll age. If he has an extremely long, prolific career, who knows? Massive long-shot, but that’s what a dark horse is supposed to be.
What do you see as the purpose of the Hall of Fame?
Despite being a game in which a star on a bad team means nothing, baseball is somewhat defined by its stars, like all sports really (not to the extent, of course, of the NBA, but to a huge extent nonetheless). Thus, the Hall of Fame serves as a synopsis of the game’s history by looking at the history of its elite players.
Have you been to Cooperstown? If so, what was it like? If not, would you want to go?
Haven’t been, feel like I certainly should.
Attendance at the HoF has dropped almost 25% since 2007. Is it still relevant?
Sure, the economy and all. People still talk about it plenty, so it’s hardly some backwoods operation that is held in secret and not presented to an indifferent public.
Should steroid users be inducted?
Yes. MLB turns its cheek and profits off of steroids for a decade, then turns its back and shames every player who broke a rule that didn’t exist? Absolutely stupid and shameful. Especially since the effects of steroids on performance are hardly conclusive at this point (does strength = bat speed? I’d be inclined to say no), keeping someone out for steroid use is hypocritical and unfounded. People who wail on MLB for keeping Pete Rose out of the hall while simultaneously denouncing all steroid users need to get a grip on reality. Rose broke a rule he knew existed, and for which the punishment was a clearly laid-out lifetime ban. Steroid users of the early 2000’s didn’t break any MLB rules. The logic doesn’t follow for me.
If yes, should any factors outside performance be used for inclusion?
Ehh, the character clause irks me. Provided someone isn’t an egregious felon or something of the like, at what point can we all just realize that not everyone has a bubbly, effervescent personality, even if we want them to have one because they’re an exceptional baseball player? Will a voter leave Randy Johnson off their HOF ballot because he wasn’t warm and friendly? Did anybody give a crap about this stuff when they were voting fifty years ago? It seems like the character clause is a back-handed way for people to dismiss steroids users when it was really just intended to keep criminals out of the Hall of Fame.
Founder and Chairman of the Send Dan Some Pizzeria Bianco Commission (SDSPBC). SDSPBC is a totally, definitely for-profit organization.
by Dan Strittmatter on Jan 9, 2012 12:38 AM EST reply actions
When viewed on the continium of player behavior
PEDs shouldn’t matter. I really don’t care whether someone had a career worthy of HOF consideration because they doped up, or because they lived a clean, industrious life while others of equal natural ability never reached that level because they wasted their bodies (and careers) partying. But the ones who partied AND excelled- they should have their own Hall!
Yeah, what NASCARbernet said...
Who would you vote for this year?
Larkin lee Smith Edgar martinez
What currently active players do you think most likely to be inducted?
Jeeter Rivera pujos ichiro
What do you see as the purpose of the Hall of Fame?
To showcase history of the game and its best players
Have you been to Cooperstown? If so, what was it like?
Yes in 2008 and I cant wait to go back it was awesome
Attendance at the HoF has dropped almost 25% since 2007. Is it still relevant
yes it is a great way to learn
? Should steroid users be inducted? If yes, should any factors outside performance be used for inclusion? If no, what standard of proof is needed?
never, it is a disgrace to the game and its like bonds or adorn are going to be forgotton about. I think suspicion is enough to not be elected
So, as a hypothetical situation
If tomorrow it were decided by your high school that expensive graphing calculators weren’t allowed in math class because they give students at poorer schools who can afford them an unfair advantage, should the school retroactively disregard the achievements of all students who had previously passed those math classes with the use of those calculators? Would those students be a disgrace to the educational system?
There’s no such thing as a perfect metaphor, but this is a good one for those who call steroid users “a disgrace” to anything.
Founder and Chairman of the Send Dan Some Pizzeria Bianco Commission (SDSPBC). SDSPBC is a totally, definitely for-profit organization.
by Dan Strittmatter on Jan 9, 2012 4:10 AM EST up reply actions
It's a good metaphor
for those who used drugs openly. Otherwise…
"At times I think there are no words
But these to tell me what's true
There are no truths outside The Gates of Eden." B. Dylan
Calculators
don’t cause cancer, impotence or violence.
sententia Platonis semper in ore illius fuit, florere civitates si aut philosophi imperarent aut imperantes philosopharentur
by NASCARbernet on Jan 9, 2012 10:36 AM EST up reply actions
Depends
On how you use them…
Ian, Daniel, Josh, and two Trevors: It's not a Christian rock group.
by Zavada's Moustache on Jan 9, 2012 2:53 PM EST up reply actions
"Use" is a different modal operator
but remember this, I don’t think most people taking steroids use them with the intention of developing cancer, impotence or violence.
sententia Platonis semper in ore illius fuit, florere civitates si aut philosophi imperarent aut imperantes philosopharentur
But I've always
wanted a good bout of cancer!
isitspringtrainingyet.com
by imstillhungry95 on Jan 9, 2012 3:46 PM EST up reply actions
I was joking.
But in all seriousness, most drugs have negative side effects when misused. Steroids have well-documented health concerns associated with them, but so do amphetamines, and there’s no outcry to excommunicate players that used greenies, so it seems weird to draw a line in sand at steroids.
Also, I’m not sure why the negative side effects of drugs mean that players that took them shouldn’t be in the Hall. If you think the numbers are tainted because of the steroids, that’s one thing. Or if you have some high-minded rhetoric about how they “cheated the game” by doing drugs, I could at least understand it. But I’d like to see an explanation of why the health risks associated with steroids should keep users out of the Hall.
Ian, Daniel, Josh, and two Trevors: It's not a Christian rock group.
by Zavada's Moustache on Jan 9, 2012 4:23 PM EST up reply actions
I would object to players who had used amphetamines
to enhance their performance, so my view is consistent. The problem is, there has little in the way of scandal, and little in the way of detection for that problem.
sententia Platonis semper in ore illius fuit, florere civitates si aut philosophi imperarent aut imperantes philosopharentur
Should the school retroactively disregard the achievements of all students who had previously passed those math classes with the use of those calculators?
You do realize steroids, etc. have been explicitly banned in baseball since 1991?
The possession, sale, or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance by major league players and personnel is strictly prohibited. Those involved in the possession, sale, or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance are subject to discipline by the commissioner and risk permanent expulsion from the game.
In addition to any discipline this office may impose, a club may also take action under applicable provisions of and special covenants to the uniform player’s contract. This prohibition applies to all illegal drugs and controlled substances, including steroids or prescription drugs for which the individual in possession of the drug does not have a prescription.
"There's one rule by which I generally run my life:
What would Mothra do?"
by Jim McLennan on Jan 9, 2012 11:47 AM EST up reply actions
Agreed
Dan’s analogy would be more apt if the high school’s external customers (ie parents, colleges, etc) trusted that calculators werent allowed, yet many students were sneaking them in anyway.
Reporters asked the Phillies' skipper how his pitcher had managed to injure himself in his sleep. "I don’t know," Manuel said. "I didn’t sleep with him."
You actually highlighted the key words here
All illegal drugs for which someone doesn’t have a prescription. By this wording, if a doctor would prescribe the drugs, they were acting in perfect compliance with the rules. Baseball players in need could find such a doctor easily through former teammates of teammates, et al, and if the doctor prescribes it, where’s their fault? Sure, those doctors are currently being prosecuted, but that means nothing for the strict legality of the players’ actions under the rules. There was also a lagging restriction placed on HGH, and while its effects may be minimal or negligible (studies aren’t sure), it’s also being lumped into the same category.
Founder and Chairman of the Send Dan Some Pizzeria Bianco Commission (SDSPBC). SDSPBC is a totally, definitely for-profit organization.
by Dan Strittmatter on Jan 9, 2012 2:55 PM EST up reply actions
In short,
It hardly seems like an “explicit ban” when there’s an easy, obvious loophole that most of the league can utilize.
No metaphors are perfect, but if you really think MLB’s ban on steroids was more than a sponge holding back a river, I’ve got a nice beachfront timeshare to sell you.
Founder and Chairman of the Send Dan Some Pizzeria Bianco Commission (SDSPBC). SDSPBC is a totally, definitely for-profit organization.
by Dan Strittmatter on Jan 9, 2012 2:56 PM EST up reply actions
Effectiveness wasn't the issue
Your metaphor claimed the use of steroids (or other prescription drugs, which would include HGH) were not prohibited. It very clearly was. A more correct metaphor would be to discount the achievements of students who continued to use graphing calculators, in secret, after their use was prohibited. Which seems perfectly fine to me.
"There's one rule by which I generally run my life:
What would Mothra do?"
This.
sententia Platonis semper in ore illius fuit, florere civitates si aut philosophi imperarent aut imperantes philosopharentur
So, show me these prescriptions
And additionally, note that having a prescription is not enough:
The steroid laws of the United States are very specific and extremely clear; you must have a valid medical prescription to possess anabolic androgenic steroids and you must have a valid medical purpose to obtain such a prescription; performance enhancement does not meet this requirement.Without a legitimate illness to justify their use, possession remains illegal, prescription or not.
"There's one rule by which I generally run my life:
What would Mothra do?"
Thanks
what people don’t realize is that while there are legitimate uses for anabolic steroids, like all such substances, illegitimate uses takes away precious medicine from those who need it, and scarcity may drive up the price making these medicines less available to those with legitimate need. I have no idea how expensive these meds are to make and how much they cost, but illegitimate use of any drug has across the board the effect of driving up costs.
sententia Platonis semper in ore illius fuit, florere civitates si aut philosophi imperarent aut imperantes philosopharentur
Yeah,
From what I’ve read, I’m pretty sure the majority of players didn’t receive, or try to receive, steroids from doctors. Or if they did, they supplemented it with more from other sources.
by Frank Squishy on Jan 10, 2012 1:17 AM EST up reply actions
Show me that they don't have the prescriptions
Rather silly rhetoric here, no? Should we really be requiring Hall of Fame inductees to sort through their past medical files and dig up prescriptions that would probably have been thrown away by now even if they did exist? C’mon, the burden of proof is supposed to be on the prosecution in this country, not the accused.
When it came to Rose’s gambling, MLB had its rules and punishment in place and acted upon the rules immediately, and with the history of previous betting scandals being punished accordingly – i.e. the Black Sox Scandal’s nine banned ballplayers, et al. There was no ifs, ands, or buts about it.
However, in the case of PEDs, MLB turned a blind eye on the rampant use of the drugs for nearly a decade. If you didn’t use them, someone else was going to, and it could cost you a lot of money or your job. It was painfully clear that there wouldn’t be any of these so-called repercussions that had been outlined. By not acting on the punishments that had been outlined, MLB created its PED problem. If you really think MLB had no idea, I don’t know what to say other than that you have an awfully naive outlook from MLB’s standpoint. If these stars were the only ones possibly using steroids at the time and managed to avoid punishment that was being doled out to whoever was caught, then yes, they don’t deserve Hall of Fame consideration. But MLB allowed PEDs to invade clubhouses, and is now trying to retroactively shame the activity they permitted. That’s bottom-of-the-barrel hypocritical to me.
Founder and Chairman of the Send Dan Some Pizzeria Bianco Commission (SDSPBC). SDSPBC is a totally, definitely for-profit organization.
by Dan Strittmatter on Jan 10, 2012 4:20 AM EST up reply actions
In the professions
principles of proof that govern the courts do not apply as the professions are guided by principles of greater ethical standards. Yes, if baseball players are professionals, they should be held to a higher standard than the population at large.
sententia Platonis semper in ore illius fuit, florere civitates si aut philosophi imperarent aut imperantes philosopharentur
by NASCARbernet on Jan 10, 2012 9:43 AM EST up reply actions
Even completely absurd ones
Like “show me the prescriptions”?
Founder and Chairman of the Send Dan Some Pizzeria Bianco Commission (SDSPBC). SDSPBC is a totally, definitely for-profit organization.
by Dan Strittmatter on Jan 10, 2012 4:57 PM EST up reply actions
Never said that "MLB had no idea"
Or that they don’t share blame for resulting events. But one of the most common claims among steroid “apologists” is that in some way, it wasn’t breaking the rules, which is an absolutely fictitious claim. They were illegal, both in federal law [the Anabolic Steroids Control Act of 1990] and in baseball, by explicit instruction of the commissioner’s office.
And if you want to blame MLB, you need to look into the player’s union, who fought tooth-and-nail against any meaningful testing that would have allowed the commissioner’s office to enforce policy. Before 2003, there was no testing at all because, "the union had declined to collectively bargain [steroid testing], citing privacy issues, while stipulating that drug testing was an abuse of human rights."
No, the players are the ones I hold far more responsible, both on a personal level and for their union’s action. And it doesn’t concern me in the slightest whether Bonds, Clemens, etc" were “the only ones” using or if everyone was doing it. That’s an incredibly high-school defense for those involved. If the results are that no-one from the steroid era makes it into Cooperstown, I’d rather that than it be populated with cheaters.
"There's one rule by which I generally run my life:
What would Mothra do?"
by Jim McLennan on Jan 10, 2012 12:50 PM EST up reply actions
At the end of the day, here's my reasoning
A) These players didn’t create a rampant drug problem, they were initiated into it by being introduced into the game at a time where drug use was everywhere.
B) MLB did nothing about the drug problem. Sure, the MLBPA could have whined about it all they wanted, but if MLB really gave a damn, as they’re trying to claim that they did/do right now retroactively, they could have gotten it done. Instead, the owners group sat back and allowed the PED-fueled home run display to stuff their coffers as fans flooded to games to watch the excitement of home-run-laden baseball. In collective bargaining, there really is no such thing as an outright refusal to discuss something. MLB didn’t think it was enough of a problem to deal with it, so it didn’t get discussed when the MLBPA didn’t want it discussed. After all, how did it get enacted in ’03, right at the peak of the steroid era?
C) The Hall of Fame is supposed to be a shrine to the great players of the game. These players were truly great. Sure, if you’d like, you can era-adjust their numbers and simply have a higher measuring stick for all players of that time period in order to get into the Hall of Fame because of the overall presence of better offensive output, but at the end of the day, if anabolic steroids didn’t exist, Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire probably would have been two of the best players of their time. Muscle mass aside, it takes a damn good and knowledgeable hitter to be a Hitting Coach for a World Series Champion ballclub.
D) If the baseball world had shown even a smidge of dissatisfaction during the steroid era, I’d be more apt to this wide-spread dismissal of all steroid era achievements. However, I saw nobody in the media whining “gee, we’ve got just too many home runs, something must be wrong!!!” No cries of "man, Arizona won their World Series in 2001, right in the heart of the steroid era, perhaps we should take away that championship trophy from the D-backs and pretend it never happened, make sure Arizona never has a ten-year-anniversary celebration of that team, and treat it the same way as we’re treating all individual achievements of that era.
Seriously, why is the only thing we all want to dismiss from the steroid era a collection of individual achievements? If you want nobody from the steroid era in the Hall of Fame, why should Arizona’s World Series trophy still stand? Shouldn’t baseball retroactively eradicate that because some of the players in Arizona’s clubhouse took steroids and all steroid era achievements should be ignored? “What would Bonds’ career numbers have looked like without PEDs?,” you might argue, but without PEDs, would Arizona have won their World Series? Neither question can be answered with certainty.
You either have to completely ignore all achievements of the steroid era, not just individual ones, or you acknowledge that it was a part of the past that was looked upon with blind eyes and still realize that there was greatness achieved during that era. I’ll be in the latter camp.
Founder and Chairman of the Send Dan Some Pizzeria Bianco Commission (SDSPBC). SDSPBC is a totally, definitely for-profit organization.
by Dan Strittmatter on Jan 10, 2012 5:24 PM EST up reply actions
Not a shrine to the players
The Hall of Fame is a SHRINE TO THE GAME OF BASEBALL, of which players are a part. But there are plenty of others in the Hall who weren’t players, from umpires through executives and even writers. I agree with Jim, if there are no players from the steroid era inducted, I would have no problem with that.
sententia Platonis semper in ore illius fuit, florere civitates si aut philosophi imperarent aut imperantes philosopharentur
by NASCARbernet on Jan 10, 2012 5:56 PM EST up reply actions
Sure
But the players put in for their performance are in there because they’re some of the greatest players to play the game. My point still stands.
Founder and Chairman of the Send Dan Some Pizzeria Bianco Commission (SDSPBC). SDSPBC is a totally, definitely for-profit organization.
by Dan Strittmatter on Jan 10, 2012 11:40 PM EST up reply actions
But how much of their greatness can be
attributed to illegal PEDs?
"At times I think there are no words
But these to tell me what's true
There are no truths outside The Gates of Eden." B. Dylan
The entire era was laced with them
Great players still stand out for being great – it’s not like they were doing anything differently than the rest of the league. Their skill made them great players in an era full of players like them.
Founder and Chairman of the Send Dan Some Pizzeria Bianco Commission (SDSPBC). SDSPBC is a totally, definitely for-profit organization.
by Dan Strittmatter on Jan 11, 2012 9:24 PM EST up reply actions
Doesn't answer the question, which was
But how much of their greatness can be attributed to illegal PEDs?
Unless all the great ones were users, it couldn’t have been a level playing field. And how many almost greats became great for the same reason.
Wrong is wrong, it can’t be made right just because it is common.
"At times I think there are no words
But these to tell me what's true
There are no truths outside The Gates of Eden." B. Dylan
It did answer it, actually
If you set a higher standard for greatness in that era because of the higher offensive output of the era, then you, in essence, adjust for it. It’s the best way we have to adjust for PED use.
Founder and Chairman of the Send Dan Some Pizzeria Bianco Commission (SDSPBC). SDSPBC is a totally, definitely for-profit organization.
by Dan Strittmatter on Jan 11, 2012 10:31 PM EST up reply actions
Wouldn't an adjustment penalize
those who didn’t cheat?
If there’s a magic formula that answers the question, please share it, my ancient computer can’t use higher and adjust to calculate how much.
"At times I think there are no words
But these to tell me what's true
There are no truths outside The Gates of Eden." B. Dylan
And again
“Wrong is wrong” is easy for you to say when your livelihood isn’t based on being good at a sport in an era full of drug use. This isn’t some moral dilemma, this is a person’s financial security.
Founder and Chairman of the Send Dan Some Pizzeria Bianco Commission (SDSPBC). SDSPBC is a totally, definitely for-profit organization.
by Dan Strittmatter on Jan 11, 2012 10:33 PM EST up reply actions
A classic
“Gee dad, all the other kids are doing it. Why can’t we?”
sententia Platonis semper in ore illius fuit, florere civitates si aut philosophi imperarent aut imperantes philosopharentur
by NASCARbernet on Jan 12, 2012 1:41 AM EST up reply actions
I wonder how an ethics professor
would respond to a student saying cheating is OK if ones livelihood and/or financial security seemed to depend on it?
"At times I think there are no words
But these to tell me what's true
There are no truths outside The Gates of Eden." B. Dylan
Financial security?
As if anyone mentioned above would be begging on a street corner if they didn’t juice. We’re not looking at the marginal players — this is a hall of fame discussion. Every one of them made more in a few years in the bigs than I will in my lifetime. And I’m living very comfortably.
No, it’s not financial security. It’s greed.
Per baseball-reference.com
Jeff Bagwell = $128,134,019 in earnings.
"There's one rule by which I generally run my life:
What would Mothra do?"
by Jim McLennan on Jan 12, 2012 9:20 PM EST up reply actions
No, your point falls flat
and I am a bit disturbed by the equivocal at best attitude regarding PED’s here among some people.
sententia Platonis semper in ore illius fuit, florere civitates si aut philosophi imperarent aut imperantes philosopharentur
by NASCARbernet on Jan 11, 2012 11:14 AM EST up reply actions
Steroid fatigue
I think a lot of baseball fans (and I include myself in this) are simply sick of the entire issue, and don’t want to go through another witch hunt regarding Hall of Fame candidates who were never implicated but played during the “Steroid Era.”
And speaking personally, I don’t hold athletes to the same ethical standards as you (and plenty of others, in fairness) seem to. Professional sports have always been home to cheating and unsavory characters, and many of these characters and their accomplishments have already been enshrined. It’s never simply black and white.
Ian, Daniel, Josh, and two Trevors: It's not a Christian rock group.
by Zavada's Moustache on Jan 11, 2012 6:45 PM EST up reply actions
You'd be amazed
how often things really are quite classifiable in terms of black and white.
sententia Platonis semper in ore illius fuit, florere civitates si aut philosophi imperarent aut imperantes philosopharentur
by NASCARbernet on Jan 11, 2012 7:09 PM EST up reply actions
If that's the case,
Then I really would be amazed.
Ian, Daniel, Josh, and two Trevors: It's not a Christian rock group.
by Zavada's Moustache on Jan 11, 2012 9:02 PM EST up reply actions
Couldn't disagree more.
Founder and Chairman of the Send Dan Some Pizzeria Bianco Commission (SDSPBC). SDSPBC is a totally, definitely for-profit organization.
by Dan Strittmatter on Jan 11, 2012 9:27 PM EST up reply actions
Check back with me
in about 30 years.
sententia Platonis semper in ore illius fuit, florere civitates si aut philosophi imperarent aut imperantes philosopharentur
by NASCARbernet on Jan 11, 2012 10:27 PM EST up reply actions
Okie dokie.
Founder and Chairman of the Send Dan Some Pizzeria Bianco Commission (SDSPBC). SDSPBC is a totally, definitely for-profit organization.
by Dan Strittmatter on Jan 11, 2012 10:33 PM EST up reply actions
It's a bit like a mixture of oil and water,
shaken or stirred it’s much different than after it settles.
Gray is a mixture of black and white, making both hard, but not impossible to find with proper analysis.
"At times I think there are no words
But these to tell me what's true
There are no truths outside The Gates of Eden." B. Dylan
You mistake my perspective
I wouldn’t want PEDs to re-invade the game, but it’s part of the league’s past whether we like it or not, and the efforts by all to act as if the PED Era was this black hole of player rebellion and secrecy is somewhat sickening and hypocritical.
Founder and Chairman of the Send Dan Some Pizzeria Bianco Commission (SDSPBC). SDSPBC is a totally, definitely for-profit organization.
by Dan Strittmatter on Jan 11, 2012 9:27 PM EST up reply actions
I agree with A & B
and your general rif on mlb’s hypocrisy and culpability. The owners, union and a host of individual players essentially conspired in activity that was likely illegal, and more importantly I think, especially in terms of HOF discussion, secretive and unfair.
In terms of laying blame, I generally ask what were the different constituents’ responsibilities, broadly defined. The union’s “job” was to advocate for player wages and working conditions – to represent their members. I think they basically did that.
The players “responsibility” isnt to the best interests of the sport – their job is to push the envelope and win, within the “rules” of the game, which in the steroid era became disgracefully ambiguous. Maybe not ambiguous in terms of traditional sportsmanship, but terribly ambiguous in terms of practical acceptability, professional and team goals.
The actor explicitly (and traditionally) most responsible for upholding the integrity of the game is the owners, thru the commissioner. They own it, like any other business. They enforce their rules and ultimately decide what’s unacceptable. That’s why I hold them most responsible for this mess.
But I dont agree that absolves players and we should just pretend their PED use didnt matter or didnt happen, because it makes HOF adjudication “easier”. Neither do I support an “era-based” , one size fits all HOF ban or discount of accomplishments. I think we should continue to use the most current available information, in good faith, to adjudicate individual candidates as best we can, not so much asking, “Did they ever take PEDs?”, but triangulating whether PEDs elevated a particular individual to HOF caliber.
You’re damn right it’s messy. It’s an imperfect process, for sure. But no uncompromising legal principle is at stake here. Nobody’s rotting in jail, deprived of due process or inalienable rights. This is about membership in a freakin’ sports club. Let’s just try to be fair.
Reporters asked the Phillies' skipper how his pitcher had managed to injure himself in his sleep. "I don’t know," Manuel said. "I didn’t sleep with him."
by Diamondhacks on Jan 10, 2012 7:13 PM EST up reply actions
I agree with you on the point
That it’s not the players’ job to uphold the integrity of the game. It’s their careers, and in most of these players’ cases, it’s their best chance at making a good salary. If I knew that my primary career choice would only last until my 35th birthday, I’d do whatever the heck I could to make as much money as I could in that time. With the league in that condition, I’d have done it too if I were a pro baseball player, and I think most people would have, whether or not they’d like to admit it.
It’s not perfect, and I certainly hold the statistical qualifications to a higher standard, but someone like Bonds, whose numbers are some of the greatest ever put up, regardless of era, belongs in the Hall of Fame based on his performance in the game. The only reason I’d think to leave him out is if you’re caught up over his perjury trial, and that’s certainly fair. Someone without that concern, i.e. McGwire, undoubtedly belongs.
Founder and Chairman of the Send Dan Some Pizzeria Bianco Commission (SDSPBC). SDSPBC is a totally, definitely for-profit organization.
by Dan Strittmatter on Jan 10, 2012 11:39 PM EST up reply actions
Bonds/McGwire
Among the steroid behemoths, Bonds is unique in that he didnt have a Hall of Fame career. He built two – one skinny, one buff – pretty clearly demarcated in Game of Shadows and by visual observation (ie before and after 1998 or so). He won three MVPs “skinny” – and should’ve won five. No one with half those peak credentials has ever been denied induction, and I would vote for him, first ballot, on that basis.
McGwire, and the other PED beasts are tougher to gauge, I think. He set the rookie HR mark as a skinny kid, but also appears to have succumbed to steroids much earlier in his career, muddying the measure of ‘natural’ greatness, which is what I’m primarily after.
Reporters asked the Phillies' skipper how his pitcher had managed to injure himself in his sleep. "I don’t know," Manuel said. "I didn’t sleep with him."
by Diamondhacks on Jan 11, 2012 1:49 AM EST up reply actions
Nobody’s rotting in jail, deprived of due process or inalienable rights. This is about membership in a freakin’ sports club.
I think we would all do well to remember this once in a while. Well said.
Ian, Daniel, Josh, and two Trevors: It's not a Christian rock group.
by Zavada's Moustache on Jan 11, 2012 6:47 PM EST up reply actions
Its a "freakin' sports club"
with immense influence, especially with young, impressionable people. What kind of message is sent to a 9 year old Little Leaguer that his or her favorite ballplayer breaks the law and cheats to get that edge over others?
sententia Platonis semper in ore illius fuit, florere civitates si aut philosophi imperarent aut imperantes philosopharentur
by NASCARbernet on Jan 11, 2012 7:07 PM EST up reply actions
9 year old Little Leaguers
And “young, impressionable people” in general should get their messages from parents and other authority figures who actually play a role in their lives. They should not take their moral lessons from random 20-35 year-olds who they have never met. Just because a guy can hit a ball really far with a bat does not mean that he’s qualified to be a role model, and he shouldn’t be treated like one.
I was a nine-year-old Suns fan when Jason Kidd was arrested for domestic abuse charges. This did not magically set the precedent for me to start hitting people left and right.
Ian, Daniel, Josh, and two Trevors: It's not a Christian rock group.
by Zavada's Moustache on Jan 11, 2012 9:01 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Right...
but in the real world.
sententia Platonis semper in ore illius fuit, florere civitates si aut philosophi imperarent aut imperantes philosopharentur
by NASCARbernet on Jan 11, 2012 10:29 PM EST up reply actions
I think he addressed that with his last paragraph?
Founder and Chairman of the Send Dan Some Pizzeria Bianco Commission (SDSPBC). SDSPBC is a totally, definitely for-profit organization.
by Dan Strittmatter on Jan 11, 2012 10:33 PM EST up reply actions
Not really,
one example does not establish a universal truth. And the example was an obvious no no without financial reward, unlike the current discussion.
"At times I think there are no words
But these to tell me what's true
There are no truths outside The Gates of Eden." B. Dylan
Why is the only thing we all want to dismiss from the steroid era a collection of individual achievements? If you want nobody from the steroid era in the Hall of Fame, why should Arizona’s World Series trophy still stand?
A myriad of reasons, including that there’s little or no evidence Arizona was dirtier (or cleaner) than any other club, and you then truly would be punishing the innocent for the sins of the guilty (unless you reckon all the players on the roster were cheating?).
I think we have to separate “great hitter” (or pitcher) from “great player”. Bonds was a great hitter, but being a player encompasses more than raw numbers. It’s impossible for me to respect someone who cheats in this way; personally, I’d say there is a lot more to being a great player than just hitting homers or whatever. Character matters. YMMV.
"There's one rule by which I generally run my life:
What would Mothra do?"
by Jim McLennan on Jan 11, 2012 12:48 AM EST up reply actions
Yes, character matters
and as a side note, the Snake Pit is filled with characters.
sententia Platonis semper in ore illius fuit, florere civitates si aut philosophi imperarent aut imperantes philosopharentur
by NASCARbernet on Jan 11, 2012 1:11 AM EST up reply actions
Bringing us back to, say, Bagwell,
What makes him any dirtier than the average big-league player on Arizona’s ’01 roster? Why on earth are people being considered guilty by association? Why do players have to show you their prescriptions to be proven worthy of Hall of Fame consideration?
Additionally, if PEDs are so effective at improving player performance and they were so rampant in the game at that time, wouldn’t the best teams – i.e. those that win World Series trophies – logically be the ones most likely to be riddled with PEDs?
Founder and Chairman of the Send Dan Some Pizzeria Bianco Commission (SDSPBC). SDSPBC is a totally, definitely for-profit organization.
by Dan Strittmatter on Jan 11, 2012 1:30 AM EST up reply actions
Pardon me for butting in
What makes Bagwell any dirtier than the average big-league player on Arizona’s ’01 roster?
The average player? Well, a mountain of circumstantial evidence (geologic strata available upon request). But I agree w/ your underlying point – the WS team fielded key steroid users and was probably full of them.
Why on earth are people being considered guilty by association?
Because players not only “found themselves in” a corrupt, secretive network worthy of la cosa nostra. They profited from it in large numbers. The internal scandal was shielded for decades from meaningful public scrutiny, by a highly effective, moneyed network of corporate lawyers, kingpins and complicit players.
Finally, in this public phase, free from the tentacles of the union and mlb, the public (fans, BBWAA) can prosecute well earned suspicions about players. What’s wrong with that? I think it’s appropriate and overdue.
I appreciate your concern about ‘guilt by association’, but my larger concern is with legal arguments that effectively extend this corrupt cocoon around players into perpetuity. It’s not as if the BBWAA has subpoena power, to combat or balance the corrupt protectionism that ruled the sport in these athletes’ playing days. Talk about unlevel playing fields! Associations and extrapolations, about Bags or anyone else, are largely what the BBWAA has, to carry out their charter. Hopefully, with some common sense.
Reporters asked the Phillies' skipper how his pitcher had managed to injure himself in his sleep. "I don’t know," Manuel said. "I didn’t sleep with him."
by Diamondhacks on Jan 11, 2012 1:42 PM EST up reply actions
Question...
how do you know that the ‘world series team’ was “full” of steroid users? Do you have access to medical records? Test results? Or, are you relying on hearsay?
sententia Platonis semper in ore illius fuit, florere civitates si aut philosophi imperarent aut imperantes philosopharentur
by NASCARbernet on Jan 11, 2012 1:59 PM EST up reply actions
And you and Jim know Bagwell used, right?
Because you have the medical records? Oh, wait, you were asking for prescriptions in that direction, too!
Founder and Chairman of the Send Dan Some Pizzeria Bianco Commission (SDSPBC). SDSPBC is a totally, definitely for-profit organization.
by Dan Strittmatter on Jan 11, 2012 10:16 PM EST up reply actions
What's your point?
sententia Platonis semper in ore illius fuit, florere civitates si aut philosophi imperarent aut imperantes philosopharentur
by NASCARbernet on Jan 11, 2012 10:30 PM EST up reply actions
That there's hipocrisy
In letting hearsay and speculation condemn Bagwell, yet condemning the use of hearsay and speculation with regard to the D-backs’ ’01 team?
Founder and Chairman of the Send Dan Some Pizzeria Bianco Commission (SDSPBC). SDSPBC is a totally, definitely for-profit organization.
by Dan Strittmatter on Jan 11, 2012 10:34 PM EST up reply actions
I think I laid out my case for Bagwell being a user pretty clearly. The balance of probability, to me, is that he was a user.
If he had a legitimate medical condition for so doing, that might mitigate things, but you’d be the first person ever to make that claim, I think.
"There's one rule by which I generally run my life:
What would Mothra do?"
by Jim McLennan on Jan 12, 2012 4:55 PM EST up reply actions
Bringing us back to, say, Bagwell, What makes him any dirtier than the average big-league player on Arizona’s ’01 roster?
The fact that the average big-league player on Arizona’s ‘01 roster didn’t hit 40 home-runs? Only two men on the entire roster had more than 16. Or that Arizona didn’t jack their HR total by 25% from the previous year?
Why do players have to show you their prescriptions to be proven worthy of Hall of Fame consideration?
You’re the one who brought up this (fictitious) loophole, saying “if a doctor would prescribe the drugs, they were acting in perfect compliance with the rules.” I simply responded that way because I’ve yet to hear of a case where an active major-league player was legitimately prescribed steroids.
"There's one rule by which I generally run my life:
What would Mothra do?"
by Jim McLennan on Jan 11, 2012 3:52 PM EST up reply actions
Hmmmm....
So, basically, because he had 40 home runs, he’s a juicer?
2011: Jose Bautista and Curtis Granderson… JUICERS!!!
2010: Jose Bautista and Albert Pujols… JUICERS!!!
2009: Albert Pujols, Prince Fielder, Ryan Howard, Mark Reynolds, and Adrian Gonzalez… JUICERS!!!
Shoot, with Mark being in Arizona in ‘09, I’m surprised I didn’t hear you cry out over his rampant PED use more often…
Or is it the increase by 25%? Because Gerardo Parra increased his HR output by a staggering 167% from ’10 to ’11. JUICER!!!
You must think Jose Bautista has been on mad steroids the last two years, don’t you? After all, he increased his HR output by 315% from 2009 to 2010. Seems that no other explanation can be offered other than the fact he was on PEDs.
It’s like you’re looking for guys to call guilty. This is some kind of crazy witch hunt you’ve got going on. Players happen to improve at odd points of their careers all the time, and every now and then, players just happen to, y’know, be good. The fact that Bagwell his 40 home runs shouldn’t be suspicious on its own, it should be lauded. He’s never been linked to the drugs and the only reason there is to link him to them is the era in which he played. I’m dumbfounded by the suspicions of paranoid fans who think any ounce of success from that era has to be tainted for some unfathomable reason.
Founder and Chairman of the Send Dan Some Pizzeria Bianco Commission (SDSPBC). SDSPBC is a totally, definitely for-profit organization.
by Dan Strittmatter on Jan 11, 2012 10:26 PM EST up reply actions
Bagwell
was a fantastic, multi-dimensional player, but his formative power profile was very unusual (and therefore, suspicious) in terms of age progession performance. Find a player, before the steroid era, who hit four homers in double AA, and then broke a thirty year old seasonal HR record for his major league franchise four years later…in 110 games !
I hope you can, because I’d feel more comfortable about his candidacy. There’s a decent case to be made for Bagwell, who SI reported took andro and creatine, but to say he’s never been linked to drugs, or suspicions are “unfathomable”, seems more hopeful than accurate to me.
Reporters asked the Phillies' skipper how his pitcher had managed to injure himself in his sleep. "I don’t know," Manuel said. "I didn’t sleep with him."
by Diamondhacks on Jan 11, 2012 11:18 PM EST up reply actions
I feel even more uncomfortable
labeling players with circumstantial evidence surrounding them as steroid users. As far as andro and creatine, I don’t know if they are banned now (they probably are but I’m too lazy to look it up), but during the late 90s when they were used by Big Mac and across the MLB they were perfectly legal and publicized.
by superwong18 on Jan 11, 2012 11:32 PM EST up reply actions
Yes
the ‘guilt by association’ tag is the other side of the sword.
sententia Platonis semper in ore illius fuit, florere civitates si aut philosophi imperarent aut imperantes philosopharentur
by NASCARbernet on Jan 12, 2012 1:42 AM EST up reply actions
Labels
I’m not trying to label Bagwell as guilty of steroid use. I dont know if he used or not, and hope to find clarity in time regarding his situation, like we have with so many others. In fact, I’d prefer my suspicions be allayed by something more specific, compelling and relevant than a legal presumption of innocence, that would propel Bags to Cooperstown.
But I havent heard it yet, so these suspicions about performance progression, coupled with massive body change, will continue to complicate his standing among the game’s greatest players.
Reporters asked the Phillies' skipper how his pitcher had managed to injure himself in his sleep. "I don’t know," Manuel said. "I didn’t sleep with him."
by Diamondhacks on Jan 12, 2012 2:35 PM EST up reply actions
Suspicion
is just as effective as a label. Do you really think if Bags was not suspected of taking steroids he would only garner 56% of the vote? What does he need to show that he didn’t take a PED? Do you want 24 hour surveillance tapes of his whole life?
There is no clear cut way for a successful power hitter who played in the Steroid Era to prove he did not take steroids, which in the end is what I believe the true tragedy of the era is. The only real way is if you sucked then no one even cares even if you did anyway.
As far as performance progression and massive body change, give me a break. If you really think a 20 year old is going to stay the same size the rest of his professional career, then you are mistaken. They are definitely indicators, but if there is no real evidence proving that a PED they could very well just be the result of hard work.
Look at Pujols when he first came into the league, he’s he visibly larger. How about Bautista? 13 HRs to 54? If either of these “clean” guys were unfortunate enough to play in the Steroid Era we would be talking about them in the same light as Bags.
There is no clear cut way for a successful power hitter who played in the Steroid Era to prove he did not take steroids…
That’s true, but proof of a drug free career has never been the standard for HOF induction, and it’s not now.
Neither of us can read the minds of BBWAA voters, but the Orwellian scarecrow of constant surveillance and breach of private medical records isnt the standard voters need or want. Larkin and Alomar never met that standard. Eddie Murray never did. Voters arent trying to prove anything, as much as arrive at fair, reasonable decisions – for candidates as well for as the sport and institution. Irreversible decisions they can feel reasonably confident and good about.
I agree it’s too bad some voters categorically refuse to consider “steroid era” candidates, but judging from the recent elections of Alomar and Larkin, this appears to be a relatively small and surmountable cadre of curmudgeons. A larger bloc of BBWAA skeptics appears to be assessing individual candidates on a case by case basis, analyzing the same stuff they’ve looked at for seventy five years – like the statistical record – augmented by copious new information and arguments regarding drugs. This may take a while.
The only real way [to prove he did not take steroids] is if you sucked then no one even cares even if you did anyway.
This isnt true. Sucking doesnt ‘prove’ anything, regarding steroids.
If you really think a 20 year old is going to stay the same size the rest of his professional career, then you are mistaken.
I never said this, and doubt voters are concerned about any candidate ‘getting bigger’ from age 20. There’s a specific concern about Jeff Bagwell adding forty pounds of muscle at a later age.
Two points regarding “hard work” and its rewards. There’s this belief that because PED users are taking the easy way out in one respect that somehow they arent ‘hard workers’ in others, when in fact many PED users are also some of the visibly hardest workers (and best teammates) around. Just because Bagwell was a hard worker, as a matter of character, doesnt prove or even suggest that he eschewed PEDs. Second, if transforming his body later in his career resulted only from ‘hard work’, does that imply he didnt work hard, as a matter of character, when he hit four homers as a skinnier 22 year old? Boy, he sure got a lot of character in a hurry :-)
Perhaps the most troubling evidence is the progression. Bagwell was the 110th prospect taken in the 1989 draft. He hit four homers as a 22 year old in AA New Britain. A mere four yrs later, he bopped 39 in 110 Astro games. You’ve got to understand how Ruthian that is. If the 1994 strike hadnt happened (and Jeff hadnt broken his hand), 39/110g extrapolates out to about 55-57 homers, over a full season. In the worst hitting park in baseball history. This isnt a small, or medium, or even big improvement. It’s an off the charts unprecedented progression in the history of baseball, prior to the advent of PEDs .
That doesnt “prove” Bagwell took either. But if you really believe it’s the exclusive product of “hard work”, what does that say about the century of players who came before him? None of those thousands of athletes, competing against PED free opponents, ever crafted a mid twenties power transformation out of nowhere anything like Jeff Bagwell did in the Astrodome.
And defending him with Pujols and Bautista doesnt bolster a PED free case. You’re headed in the wrong chronological direction :-)
Reporters asked the Phillies' skipper how his pitcher had managed to injure himself in his sleep. "I don’t know," Manuel said. "I didn’t sleep with him."
by Diamondhacks on Jan 12, 2012 11:43 PM EST up reply actions
forgive my formatting for I suck at it.
but you said
“I’d prefer my suspicions be allayed by something more specific, compelling and relevant than a legal presumption of innocence, that would propel Bags to Cooperstown.”
which I intrepretted as Bags or any other player needing evidence that they did not juice to get into the Hall. I really do believe that that is the standard not for all players but for Steroid Era power hitters. They have to be able to prove that their success was the result of purely themselves and not PEDs of which there is no way.
what I meant by
“The only real way [to prove he did not take steroids] is if you sucked then no one even cares even if you did anyway.”
is that if you were not even a power hitter in the Steroid Era, then no one would suspect you of using steroids. Alomar and Larkin could have been jucing for all we know, but we would never suspect it because they were not power hitters.
and
“And defending him with Pujols and Bautista doesnt bolster a PED free case. You’re headed in the wrong chronological direction :-)”
if those guys played ten years earlier, they would have just been guys who played at the wrong time, which could be the case for Bags.
I don’t really care if Bags gets in or not, because frankly he probably did take steroids. But I am trying to make a case for the guys who are going to suffer because players around them made bad deciions.
Sigh
Please read the article on which you’re commenting, and then get back to me. There was a lot more to the case against Bagwell, e.g. a sustained increase in power at an age when he’s in decline, giving him home-run numbers over an extended period that are only matched by those known or proven to have used steroids.
Needless to say, none of that is the case for Gerardo Parra, and you look very, very silly for attempting to suggest so.
"There's one rule by which I generally run my life:
What would Mothra do?"
by Jim McLennan on Jan 12, 2012 5:00 PM EST up reply actions
Answers to questions:
1. Lee Smith
2. Jack Morris (which is ridiculous, imo)
3. Among best of all time in one or multiple aspects over a lengthy career.
4. No
5. Yes
6. No (If Bonds goes, McGwire, Bagwell, Sosa and Palmeiro need to go in too or it’s a total joke)
7. Documentable press evidence, court records and positive tests (sorry Braun).
"Hey, why don't you people watch the game?"-my mom after viewing a wave going around Chase Field.
Larkin too. I forgot he was up.
"Hey, why don't you people watch the game?"-my mom after viewing a wave going around Chase Field.
by Reynolds rapper on Jan 9, 2012 1:08 PM EST up reply actions
Larkin was the only one to get in
sententia Platonis semper in ore illius fuit, florere civitates si aut philosophi imperarent aut imperantes philosopharentur
The Lee Smith thing makes me mad.
"Hey, why don't you people watch the game?"-my mom after viewing a wave going around Chase Field.
by Reynolds rapper on Jan 9, 2012 7:57 PM EST up reply actions
Understandable
he was lights out for years.
sententia Platonis semper in ore illius fuit, florere civitates si aut philosophi imperarent aut imperantes philosopharentur
Barry Larkin
was pretty cool to meet; great baseball mind and great player. I’m glad he made it.
Tomorrow is another day.
Me too
The most graceful, skilled visiting player I ever saw @ BOB was Barry Larkin. Granted, it was against a bad home team in 1998, but he came in for a three game series, went 7 for 12, all seven for extra bases, including a legged triple and one homer each to left, center and right. He made ballet moves and lightning picks at short that my eyes couldnt follow, and ran the bases impeccably.
That was the first year I had season tickets, and I remember thinking, “This is why I’m here. To see beauty and excellence like this.”
Reporters asked the Phillies' skipper how his pitcher had managed to injure himself in his sleep. "I don’t know," Manuel said. "I didn’t sleep with him."
Oh yeah
you and ‘skins interviewed him at ASG fan fest thing, didn’t you?
isitspringtrainingyet.com
by imstillhungry95 on Jan 9, 2012 10:06 PM EST up reply actions
Who would you vote for this year?
Larkin and Smith. My dad always talks about how good Smith was and looking at his stats I can’t diagree.
What currently active players do you think most likely to be inducted?
Pujols, Mariano Rivera, Derek Jeter, Roy Halladay, Pedroira (sp?), and I hate saying this but I think Kershaw has a real good chance.
What do you see as the purpose of the Hall of Fame?
Allow the legends of baseball live on forever.
Have you been to Cooperstown? If so, what was it like? If not, would you want to go?
Haven’t been theres, it’d be nice to go, but I’ve always wanted to go on a tour of every MLB stadium so I’d probably go for that instead.
Attendance at the HoF has dropped almost 25% since 2007. Is it still relevant?
IMO, even if no one went, it would still be relevant. People will always appreciate it’s significance and it is the majority of baseball players wishes to get in someday.
Should steroid users be inducted?
I really can’t make a decision I feel strongly about. On one hand, I believe that steroids and PEDs in general are just a product of progress. If PEDs can help a player recover from injury and play longer, who are we to deny them? It would be like saying players using wood bats today that are only drop 2 or 3 in the majors that they can’t use them because players like Babe Ruth used tree trunks to hit and it gives them an unfair advantage. But then again, we can’t know if a player is using the PEDs for recovery or just conning a doctor so they can use them to get bigger or better. And I saw someone right something like bat speed != strength or power and even though it may not be a factor in all cases, it contributes to it.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Keeping good company: Albert Pujols becomes fourth-youngest player to hit 450 home runs
- Giancarlo Stanton misses cutoff man, and Logan Morrison is thankful he did (Video)
- Snoop Dogg delivers memorable first pitch at U.S. Cellular Field
- The Juice: Mesoraco’s grand slam helps Reds complete four-game sweep of Braves
- Please hold: Indians’ Joe Smith jumps the gun on relief appearance
