Jeff Bagwell has destroyed the innocence of yet another sportswriter, but maybe disenchanted voters are on to something.
Dec 15, 2011 - It's begun. That time of year where sportswriters lament the steroid era, and do so by voicing their opposition to players eligible for the Hall of Fame, regardless of whether there is any hard evidence against them or not. There are a lot of complaints against this "guilty until proven innocent" point of view, especially in regards to the character clause that facilitates the lack of voting.
Jeff Idelson, president of Cooperstown, explained his views on integrity and character in baseball in an interview with Joe Posnanski:
"Baseball has historically been held to a very high standard, right or wrong," he says. "There's a certain integrity required when it comes to baseball's highest honor, which is being inducted into the Hall of Fame.
This high standard is why players like Jeff Bagwell supposedly get the shaft when it comes time for Hall of Fame voting. There is no direct evidence against them for any wrongdoing, but they were associated with an era that makes us all want to bury our heads in the sand. Some might find this wrong; I don't think it goes far enough.
Idelson says "historically" that baseball has upheld this high standard, but a look back through history tells another story. There are cheaters, racists, alcoholics, drug users, and generally unlikable people enshrined in Cooperstown. If anything, there has been a terrible job done of upholding a high standard of integrity for players elected to the Hall of Fame. Maybe it's time to burn the whole thing down and start over with only those players innocent enough to merit inclusion.
No excuses, no reasoning a player entry into Cooperstown. If a player's character was ever deemed questionable -- even by association -- then they are out of the Hall of Fame. That way, we'll only have players we absolutely know represent the high standard of integrity that Idelson and many voters aspire to.
Let's start at the beginning: Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, Honus Wagner, Christy Mathewson, and Walter Johnson were the first Cooperstown class, back in 1936. Cobb is famous for hitting baseballs real well, but he's also famous for being a racist. As if that weren't enough to damn him through the eyes of this 21st century writer, he also assaulted a handicapped heckler in the stands in 1912. Fred Lieb wrote that Hornsby was a Klan member, putting him right out of the Hall. And if you don't believe that, Hornsby once punched Art Fletcher in the face since talking wasn't making his point.
We might not have the same evidence against the other three, but don't worry. Due to association and the fact that baseball's color line forced the formation of the Negro Leagues due to segregration, we can safely throw all of these pre-1947 players out of Cooperstown. If they weren't overtly racist like Cobb, Hornsby, and others, they at least played a part in keeping the status quo with their silence. See what you did, Cap Anson? Now it's not just your hit totals that are being changed after the fact.
You might think this is extreme, considering baseball integrated before the rest of the United States did, but there's nothing we can do. Racism is intolerable, and these players (and executives, too) should be retroactively punished for their misdeeds.
Moving past integration, we come to a whole new set of problems. In Jim Bouton's seminal Ball Four, the author and pitcher opens up about baseball's clubhouses: the drugs, the booze, and most importantly, the amphetamines. Greenies, the pre-steroid performance enhancer that gave players the energy to maintain their focus throughout the season. Their use didn't start with Bouton's career, but he was the first to blow the lid on it. This means anyone who played during Bouton's career (from 1962 through 1978) isn't eligible for the Hall of Fame, either, as amphetamines give you an edge, and that constitutes cheating. Cheating doesn't have much integrity in it, does it, character clause? Since rumors of amphetamine use go as far back as Ted Williams, we're probably safer if we just cancel out anyone between 1947 and 1962 as well. We wouldn't want anyone to accidentally earn enshrinement and defile the integrity of the institution.
If supposed use of greenies isn't enough to remove Willie Mays from the Hall, then how about the fact he was part of the 1951 pennant winning Giants? They had an elaborate system for stealing signs. It's been a while since I've cracked open a Bible, but I'm pretty sure I remember learning that stealing is wrong. Ergo, he's out, as is anyone else on that club (like Leo Durocher, who, as the former manager of Jackie Robinson, otherwise would have been safe).
Pitchers aren't saints, either. Gaylord Perry, Don Sutton, Whitey Ford, and others defaced baseballs with anything they could sneak on to the mound. Perry even named his autobiography, "Me and the Spitter" -- toss him out for audacity, too.
In the 80s, you've got drug use. Paul Molitor and Tim Raines (sorry, Jonah Keri) were both involved with cocaine. Ferguson Jenkins was arrested by customs agents for having cocaine in his suitcase. A few years before that, Orlando Cepeda smuggled 150 pounds of marijuana into Puerto Rico, went to prison for it, and was arrested again in 2007 for having drugs in his vehicle. Between amphetamines, rampant drug use, and the start of the steroid era in 1980s Oakland, it's probably not safe to allow any of these players into Cooperstown anymore without a ticket.
This doesn't even fully cover the character-related issues that Hall of Fame baseball players have had. Kirby Puckett had more than rumors swirling about him for domestic abuse. The recently inducted Roberto Alomar also came under scrutiny for domestic problems. Wade Boggs is an admitted sex addict. George Brett's pine tar incident (and subsequent tantrum) is one of the more famous 80s moments. Jim Bunning was a politician.
I don't need to rally against steroid era players, given voters are already doing their fair share of that, evidence or no. If Jeff Bagwell and his muscles make you nervous about your vote, remember that it's not always the big and strong players who were using. It could be anyone, at any time! Our advice? Blank ballots from here on out. Even today's game isn't safe, thanks to Ryan Braun; who knows when we'll be able to safely vote again, if ever.
That takes care of... well, the entire Hall of Fame. It's time to collect all of the memorabilia for the hundreds of former members found within its halls, and sell it all to the highest bidder. Cooperstown can then donate all of the money to the children whose lives players like Bagwell and Braun have destroyed. Now that's how you build character necessary for Cooperstown induction.
Mickey Hatcher, Angels Hitting Coach, Relieved Of Duties
Vance Worley Has 'Soreness', Will Miss Wednesday Start
Justin Morneau Will Be Activated From DL Wednesday
Manny Ramirez Rehab Assignment Will Start Saturday In Albuquerque
Jon Jay Heading To Disabled List; Shane Robinson Recalled
Troy Tulowitzki Day-To-Day With Deep Leg Bruise
Matt Kemp Goes On 15-Day DL With Sore Hamstring
Jeff Niemann Likely Missing 'A Few Months' With Leg Injury
VIDEO: Bryce Harper's First Career Home Run
Torii Hunter Placed On Restricted List Following Son's Arrest
More News »
Comments
You play a convincing fundamentalist Presbyterian
IGNORE ME
by tsunamijesus on Dec 15, 2011 12:23 PM EST reply actions
Your tired argument might be convincing to small children and journalists,
but most readers will understand that the illegal steroid use that has made a joke of multiple MLB seasons and records should be evaluated on its own, without reference to extraneous matters.
In the distortion it brought to final standings and all-time performance standards, steroid abuse stands alone in its impact on the game, and the degree to which it cheated fans of honest results. Someone should pay, and who better than abusers and Hall of Fame candidates like Bagwell? Let him sweat it out in HoF purgatory for a few years as he awaits the amnesty that surely will be granted to cheaters, right around the time Bonds and Clemens become eligible.
"Elder White! Look at the talent on those Cubs!" Harry Caray, KMOX Radio, 4/22/62
"And you have to wonder – What's the matter with Broglio?" Harry, KMOX, 5/24/64
by ernaga on Dec 15, 2011 12:52 PM EST reply actions
Re:
Show me all of the studies that detail how much impact steroids (a generic term, by the way) have on performance.
Twitter: @Marc_Normandin
by Marc Normandin on Dec 15, 2011 1:02 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Well, Mister Smarty Pants....
Here’s a whole WEBSITE that goes into all of the scientific evidence, point by point!
Of course, the results point to this conclusion:
There is no evidence of any enhanced player performance to be found in the statistics of the game.
The scientific facts, folks: http://steroids-and-baseball.com/
by jdscott on Dec 15, 2011 1:17 PM EST up reply actions
Incidentally, that website is the “best” thing since The TimeCube
by Phrozen on Dec 15, 2011 5:59 PM EST up reply actions
Do you have any specific problems with it?
The fellow who wrote that site is a regular on McCovey Chronicles, as it happens.
Cash rules everything around me
C.R.E.A.M.
Get the money
Dollar dollar bill y'all
by El Person on Dec 15, 2011 8:46 PM EST up reply actions
Good for him.
In addition to being all but impossible to understand clearly, he writes off steroids/PEDs entirely. And he bases this seemingly solely on league-wide Power Factor.
by Phrozen on Dec 16, 2011 7:13 PM EST up reply actions
I would argue that different eras had different performance enhancing “substances”.
Why does no one bring up the rampant use of “greenies” in the 80s? I would argue that, during a 162 game season, the use of “greenies” would give players a much needed boost. Perhaps it didn’t give them more power…but it did grant them the ability to be on the field…and play at a higher level had they not taken them. So why don’t we label that decade “tainted” as well?
by insane_sanity on Dec 15, 2011 1:55 PM EST up reply actions
Here's the definitive study:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/a/anderbr01.shtml
"Elder White! Look at the talent on those Cubs!" Harry Caray, KMOX Radio, 4/22/62
"And you have to wonder – What's the matter with Broglio?" Harry, KMOX, 5/24/64
by ernaga on Dec 15, 2011 2:16 PM EST up reply actions
I certainly hope you're kidding
by Jon S. on Dec 15, 2011 2:18 PM EST up reply actions
*sincerely
One of the cons of a mechanical keyboard. I type faster than I think now.
by Jon S. on Dec 15, 2011 2:20 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah, ’cause 1, 4, 3, 2, 21, 13, 12, 16, 50, 18, 18, 24, 19, 8 is a perfectly normal career homerun curve. Nothing unusual at all. Everybody does that.
by Phrozen on Dec 15, 2011 6:01 PM EST up reply actions
It wasn’t particularly unusual at the time; that was an extreme offensive era for a variety of reasons.
Cy Williams went 0, 4, 0, 13, 12, 5, 6, 9, 15, 18, 26, 41, 24, 13, 18, 30, 12, 5, 0. Was he also using steroids?
Cash rules everything around me
C.R.E.A.M.
Get the money
Dollar dollar bill y'all
by El Person on Dec 15, 2011 8:43 PM EST up reply actions
Williams also led the league with 15 in 1920. That’s a very different era.
Plus, compare Brady to some of his contemporaries, with 1996 in bold.
Anderson: …12, 16, 50, 18, 18
Palmeiro: …23, 39, 39, 38, 43…
McGwire: …9, 39, 52, 58, 70… Mac missed substantial time in ’94
Griffey: …40, 17, 49, 56, 56… Griffey missed substantial time in ’95
Belle: …36, 50, 48, 30, 49…
Vaughn: …26, 39, 44, 35, 40…
Galarraga: …31, 31, 47, 41, 44…
Bonds: …37, 33, 42, 40, 37…
Sosa: …25, 36, 40, 36, 66…
Caminiti: …18, 26, 40, 26, 29…
How is it that Brady is the rare standout who didn’t know how to hit homeruns before 1996, and forgot how afterwards? I mean, sure, offense was up all over the league. But it was waaaayy up around Mr. Anderson. It doesn’t fit.
by Phrozen on Dec 16, 2011 7:35 PM EST up reply actions
How much impact
Marc, there’s a huge difference between saying we don’t know how much impact PEDs had on players’ performance and waving them away as if they had none.
I can’t quantify the specific impact of PEDs, but they help players work out harder/longer/more often, thereby making them stronger. A stronger player can hit a ball further, a stronger pitcher can throw a ball harder.
Do they make a 300’ fly ball go 350’? I seriously doubt it. Could it make a warning track shot clear the fence? Probably sometimes.
Do they turn a Quad-A players into a superstar? Of course not. Could it turn a bench-warmer on a playoff contender into a starter on a second-division team? Maybe.
Do they enable a Pedro Cerano-type hitter to suddenly see a curveball clearly? No, they don’t help hand-eye coordination, but they can make the contact more powerful when it is made.
It seems people often disregard PEDs’ impact by saying, “Well, they sure didn’t help Jeremy Giambi become Jason Giambi.” But the effects don’t have to be huge to be significant.
I’m not trying to demonize guilty or accused PED users. What I’m trying to say it that just because we can’t measure the specific impact of a factor in baseball performance doesn’t mean we should dismiss it as nothing.
PEDs help athletes perform better, and that includes baseball players.
by GBSimons on Dec 15, 2011 6:48 PM EST up reply actions
Not quite..
You know what else helps athletes perform better? Wheaties. And Lasyk eye surgery. And Tommy John surgery. And cortizone. And protein shakes. And video replays of past opponents’ performances.
This stuff wasn’t like spinache for Popeye. It still requires hard work.. it just gave them a chance to workout more often, meaning they were actually working harder than the guys not using it. This isn’t to say that steroids and such should be allowed, but it’s up to baseball to define what an illegal PED is, and it’s up to baseball to enforce it. Baseball clearly did not enforce anything in that era, and as such, the writers should recognize the way baseball was, instead of penalizing the player.
by Ice Watter In His Veins! on Dec 16, 2011 6:23 PM EST up reply actions
The effects of steroids are quite literally huge, and that's what misleads
With steroids, you get enormous biceps and pectorals. Does that look different? Obviously. Does it give you more power? Not much. Strength is generated by the lower body.
Cash rules everything around me
C.R.E.A.M.
Get the money
Dollar dollar bill y'all
by El Person on Dec 16, 2011 6:26 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah, and steroids don’t do a damn thing for muscles outside the arms. Not a thing.
???
by Phrozen on Dec 16, 2011 7:35 PM EST up reply actions
So Bagwell is guilty by association?
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
by Al Yellon on Dec 15, 2011 1:07 PM EST up reply actions
The following link describes Bagwell as the Typhoid Mary of illegal steroid abuse in MLB:
http://baseballevolution.com/asher/bagwellconspiracy.html
"Elder White! Look at the talent on those Cubs!" Harry Caray, KMOX Radio, 4/22/62
"And you have to wonder – What's the matter with Broglio?" Harry, KMOX, 5/24/64
by ernaga on Dec 15, 2011 2:26 PM EST up reply actions
That article was satirical
But, you knew that, right?
Left Field: Adventures in baseball fanaticism, music obsession, craft beer enthusiasm, and other stuff from out of left field.
by Dan McCloskey on Dec 15, 2011 4:02 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
If it is satire, the author is a jackass for posting...
…and besmirching Bagwell’s good name. Good satire usually involves a ridiculous premise. Everything in this article seems all too believable in light of evidence against Bonds, Clemens, Palmeiro, Manny, et al, and the confessions of A-Rod, McGwire & Canseco. Not to mention the sudden, spectacular achievements of Sosa, Luis Gonzales, and others.
"Elder White! Look at the talent on those Cubs!" Harry Caray, KMOX Radio, 4/22/62
"And you have to wonder – What's the matter with Broglio?" Harry, KMOX, 5/24/64
by ernaga on Dec 15, 2011 4:26 PM EST up reply actions
It says so at the bottom of the article
Read the italicized stuff at the bottom. It expressly states that the article is satire (not that it was difficult to spot in the first place)
by Stephen Suffron on Dec 15, 2011 5:28 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Footnote at the bottom of the article:
“Important Note: This article has been getting far more attention in 2007 than it ever did in 2004. Back when I wrote this, people always used to get that it was a satire, a joke, a farce. But these are interesting times, and the days when this was obviously a joke seem to be over. Perhaps it is a testament to the creative genius of my 2004 self, or a testament to how absurd the steroid controversy has become, but it is wild just how reasonable this article seems now when it seemed utterly ridiculous just three years ago.
"
by Stephen Suffron on Dec 15, 2011 5:31 PM EST up reply actions
Did you seriously actually believe that was true?
Cash rules everything around me
C.R.E.A.M.
Get the money
Dollar dollar bill y'all
by El Person on Dec 15, 2011 8:43 PM EST up reply actions
Yes, I did.
And once again, the author should be called out for a post he falsely represented as factual.
it’s hardly “satire” to construct a believable narrative that fits not only the information made public about steroid abuse throughout MLB, but is also a story that dovetails nicely with the anomalous career paths of so many players since the mid-’90’s. In fact, the post is borderline libel, although I can’t imagine Bagwell turning it into a federal case.
In the matter of steroids in baseball, a truly-satirical script might have described someone like Ken Caminiti catching Bagwell in the act of taking illegal drugs before ripping the offending substance from Jeff’s hands, with teammates like Roger Clemens and Andy Pettitte helping to hustle Bagwell over to the nearest detox center for career and life-saving counseling.
"Elder White! Look at the talent on those Cubs!" Harry Caray, KMOX Radio, 4/22/62
"And you have to wonder – What's the matter with Broglio?" Harry, KMOX, 5/24/64
by ernaga on Dec 15, 2011 9:27 PM EST up reply actions
This is kind of a dead giveaway...
That teammate, none other than Rickey Henderson, responded that if Olerud would use steroids like his Mariners teammates, he could probably hit 20 home runs just like another first baseman that he had played with while he was on the Mets in 1999. After informing Rickey that Olerud himself had been the first baseman with the Mets that year, Olerud decided to join in the fun and juiced up at Mike Cameron’s house in Marietta, Georgia in the off-season, and hit 20 homeruns for the first time in three years.
by Stargazey on Dec 16, 2011 4:30 AM EST up reply actions
Rickey became the new Yogi years ago, and it's a shame this story is false...
Laugh-worthy it is, but only because it fits Rickey’s self-centered persona, and his history of playing on many teams. Would anyone truly be surprised if he didn’t recognize Olerud or, for that matter, any of his old teammates?
"Elder White! Look at the talent on those Cubs!" Harry Caray, KMOX Radio, 4/22/62
"And you have to wonder – What's the matter with Broglio?" Harry, KMOX, 5/24/64
by ernaga on Dec 16, 2011 9:33 AM EST up reply actions
Anyone who made it past this sentence
And didn’t realize that this was satire, needs to step away and take a deep breath.
“Unbeknownst to the general baseball public, steroid use began in earnest with the 1992 Astros.”
That was the 4th sentence of the article.
by ahhall on Dec 16, 2011 4:59 AM EST up reply actions
Are you suggesting
That amphetamines, sign-stealing, altering the baseball (by a pitcher), and disqualifying entire races from participating had no effect on standings and records?
It sounds to me like the greenies are indistinguishable from “steroids” because they are a drug which enhances your performance; stealing signs directly led to (at least one) team winning a pennant and making a trip to the World Series (which they otherwise wouldn’t have); altering baseballs has a pretty obvious effect; and the color line inflated the stats of every white player who didn’t have to face any black, Asian or Latin players (resulting in a significantly smaller talent pool).
Steroids are not the first immoral thing to come along on planet Earth, and they’re certainly not the first one to come along in pro sports. That’s the point. Steroids are only the apocalypse of baseball if you have completely ignored the last 110 years of truly awful, despicable behavior to gain the competitive edge. That’s why this witch hunt is so ridiculous.
by ahhall on Dec 15, 2011 1:45 PM EST up reply actions 6 recs
RE: HoF character.
The principal, and maybe the only criterion should be whether the candidate generally played by the rules as they existed during his playing career. As with most any other judgment call, it’s also a matter of evaluating the degree and consequences of his cheating.
Taking an illegal substance to add another 20-30 dingers to your season totals, or to add another five years to your career should be considered conduct egregious enough to warrant some penalty. The vote for the Hall is one way for traditionalists to make a statement that without rules baseball becomes little more than an exhibition akin to pro wrestling.
"Elder White! Look at the talent on those Cubs!" Harry Caray, KMOX Radio, 4/22/62
"And you have to wonder – What's the matter with Broglio?" Harry, KMOX, 5/24/64
by ernaga on Dec 15, 2011 3:12 PM EST up reply actions
yet I would argue
that players that took amphetamines (as MANY are rumored to have done in the 80’s) did so to gain a competitive advantage — they were able to play the game at a higher level than had they not taken them. (Tony Gwynn addressed it head-on…but the conversation has disappeared as of late)
Do we dare to go back another decade and bring some skeletons out of the closet?
by insane_sanity on Dec 15, 2011 3:31 PM EST up reply actions
What you're basically doing
Is creating the criteria to match your argument. You’re moving back and forth between topics like character, cheating, and impacting records. Your initial argument was entirely based on how steroids affected records and seasons, then you titled this post “character,” and now you’ve moved on to whether certain behaviors were technically “cheating” when they happened.
Is it character? If so, that’s what the whole article is about. The HoF is full of awful people.
Is it cheating? Altering baseball has been illegal for a long time. Pitchers who altered baseballs are in the Hall. Sign stealing may not have been illegal in 1951 (I really don’t know), but I’ve never heard anyone defend the behavior of that team as if it was something that happened all the time, like it was an unwritten part of the game or anything. Heck, they kept it secret for 50 years! You don’t do that if you think you weren’t cheating. I’m pretty sure that greenies were federally illegal at some point when they were still rampant in MLB, so that is/was definitely cheating.
Is it impact on records and seasons? That’s what I covered in my post.
One way or the other, steroids are just one in a long list of illegal and immoral things that baseball players (and athletes of all sports) have done to gain an edge. Singling them out is ridiculous, and so is trying to guess which players to single out. Either everyone is eligible, or else the Hall of Fame should just quit and close its doors. There is no in between.
by ahhall on Dec 16, 2011 4:55 AM EST up reply actions
I liked this article
the first time, when Posnanski did it. But the point still stands. Assuming I’m catching the satire, I agree with you that it’s ridiculous to keep players out of the HOF because of mere associations to roids when half of the current members have extremely tainted histories. I feel bad for guys like Bagwell in particular, he and Chipper are two I really hope never get found out for juicing, that would be awful.
by weekapaug09 on Dec 15, 2011 2:10 PM EST reply actions
Eight comments before a Poz reference!
I’m aware of the Posnanski piece (which is excellent), but his was more on talent levels and his disagreement that the Hall of Fame was too big than it was about pure character.
And I feel the same way about guys like Bagwell and Chipper. The rampant speculation sans evidence has hurt my love for Cooperstown quite a bit the last few years, and not because of players.
Twitter: @Marc_Normandin
by Marc Normandin on Dec 15, 2011 2:14 PM EST up reply actions
This whole thing is stupid.
Thank you for the article Marc. I have always maintained that the HOF is the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Good People Who Were Also Great Ballplayers. Nobody would argue that Paris Hilton or Kim Kardashian are people of good character, and they are clearly famous. Fame isn’t defined by the strength of one’s character. It’s a Hall Of Fame. Seriously.
It honestly disgusts me that there are many fans out there (and apparently administrators of the HOF itself) that would disregard in it’s entirety the era in which baseball’s most exciting (dingers!) records were eclipsed. The Hall of Fame allegedly preserves the history and legacy of the game. What are we thinking trying to cover up an important time in the game’s history? It’s like a museum of modern history electing not to accept items from the holocaust because it’s a shameful time in modern history.
Induct the most important people. Simple as that. Judge prospective inductees relative to their peers, if you think numbers in an era were elevated overall. If the game is really important to you, you must tell the whole story.
by Jon S. on Dec 15, 2011 2:17 PM EST reply actions 14 recs
Best take on this issue I have ever read.
1000 times rec’d.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
by Al Yellon on Dec 15, 2011 2:21 PM EST up reply actions
RE: Hof character.
The principal, and maybe the only criterion should be whether the candidate generally played by the rules as they existed during his playing career. As with most any other judgment call, it’s also a matter of evaluating the degree and consequences of his cheating.
For example, I believe it was a mistake to put Gaylord Perry in the Hall, given his self-admitted systematic cheating. Generally speaking, that’s the standard I would apply. Perry’s cheating was especially egregious, given the probability he could not have approached HoF numbers without ignoring the rules.
Which brings up the additional problem I see with players like Bagwell, Sosa, McGuire and Palmeiro. IMHO, none of them would have approached Hall-worthy numbers without the illegal juice. Their admission would mean they had achieved the Cheaters’ Triple Play: 1. By contributing to false results in final standings. 2. By setting phony records. 3. By gaining HoF status under false pretenses.
Even a performer like Clemens would have been borderline for the Hall had his career ended during the mid-90’s in Boston. Once he found the cure in Toronto, he went on to become an all-time great. At least when Bonds gets in, we can be reasonably sure he already had the career HoF numbers before he started juicing.
Finally, I agree that “you must tell the whole story,” and just as extra attention is paid to the stories of Pete Rose, Joe Jackson, et al because of their non-enshrinement, I’d like to see the same thing happen to the steroid crowd. Let Bonds and Clemens wait a while. As for the rest who never would have made it without the juice – keep ’em out forever.
"Elder White! Look at the talent on those Cubs!" Harry Caray, KMOX Radio, 4/22/62
"And you have to wonder – What's the matter with Broglio?" Harry, KMOX, 5/24/64
by ernaga on Dec 15, 2011 3:00 PM EST up reply actions
One of these things is not like the others.
by poole on Dec 15, 2011 4:02 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I respect
Your argument a little bit more now, having read that you think Perry shouldn’t be in the Hall. It shows some consistency of thought. You aren’t just singling out steroid folks. You are willing to revisit history and target cheaters of other ilks.
I still disagree with most of what you’re saying, but that sentence was important. The problem I see with your desired plan (of preventing cheaters from entering) is that there is no objective measure. There are no 10 Commandments of cheating which outlines which offense are egregious enough to warrant HOF blacklisting, how much you have to cheat before you become ineligible, etc. It would all be subjective judgment, which is exactly where we are now. Someone has to serve as judge and jury.
by ahhall on Dec 16, 2011 5:05 AM EST up reply actions
We can agree that HoF admission always will rest on a judgment call...
But what the OP and several others on this thread fail to acknowledge is that the whole Steroid Era was a fraud perpetrated on the pubic at large. With its inevitable focus on the superhuman feats of the major beneficiaries of illegal drugs, everyone outside baseball’s inner circle was intentionally mislead: not only by the players, but by the commissioner, owners, union officials, and sports media that all profited enormously from the attention given to baseball at that time.
Obviously, those who knew what was happening during Sosa-McGwire-Bonds now have a vested interest in pushing the idea of “nothing to see here, let’s move on.” As many in the baseball establishment must realize, inducting the cheaters not only will help put the issue to rest: At least indirectly, it also will vindicate their own behavior since ’98.
Fortunately, enough members of the BBWAA seem to recognize that the distortions created by the steroid cheats are unsupportable. Their unwillingness to validate the achievements of McGwire, Palmeiro and others should be commended.
"Elder White! Look at the talent on those Cubs!" Harry Caray, KMOX Radio, 4/22/62
"And you have to wonder – What's the matter with Broglio?" Harry, KMOX, 5/24/64
by ernaga on Dec 16, 2011 10:06 AM EST up reply actions
How was I misled? What was misleading?
You’re saying that these things are bad just because they are bad. You’ll need something more than that.
Cash rules everything around me
C.R.E.A.M.
Get the money
Dollar dollar bill y'all
by El Person on Dec 16, 2011 6:24 PM EST up reply actions
Why is it a fraud?
Did MLB systematically deny certain players the use of steroids while allowing others to use? Did they provide steroids for select players to give them an advanatge? No. In such, it was a level playing field. Not a great one, but many of these guys wouldn’t have gone that route if baseball had done something about the problem. The competitive drive on these guys was probably at the level of “Will this get me kicked out? No? But I will be able to workout more often? Great!” These guys put in the time and the effort within the constraints of the MLB rules.
You’re celebrating a group of writers who also use the logic of “Babe Ruth wasn’t unanimous on the first try so I’m not voting for this guy” for their ability to punish players without official proof of wrongdoing. If the great players from that era should be ignored, then what proof do we have that the average player also wasn’t using PED’s? We should use the same logic to wipe out all careers from that time period, which would then allow us to wipe out all of the games from that time period.
by Ice Watter In His Veins! on Dec 16, 2011 6:47 PM EST up reply actions
What happens to racing or boxing officials who get caught fixing sporting events...
by administering illegal drugs to their meal tickets. Sometimes, they go to prison. In racing, where state-sanctioned parimutuel betting is involved, I assume charges against these miscreants often are related to the fraud perpetrated against legal bettors.
The principle is the same in any sporting competition that presents itself to the viewer as a fair contest bound by rules designed to produce an unpredictable result. Bonds, Sosa, McGwire and the rest of the cheaters could predict with confidence that the illegal drugs they were taking would add at least 20 home runs to their season totals. They knew the fix was in every time they juiced. They cheated not so much to affect the outcome of games, but rather to increase their wealth and fame. No matter, it still was fraud.
When I speak of the fraud that results from illegal PED’s in baseball, I’m not referring so much to its impact on players who remain honest, although they surely are defrauded of fair results in countless games. Instead, I’m speaking of the fraud committed against a credulous public that probably still believes baseball is essentially on the level.
Unfortunately, the bigger the scam, the more difficult it is to put the blame on individuals. Like the crooked politicians and bankers who wrecked the world economy with their subprime mortgage-backed securities, players and officials involved in baseball’s fraud largely have escaped any penalties for their misdeeds.
Bankers, of course, received a taxpayer bailout. In a similar fashion, the major beneficiaries of illegal steroid use in baseball await their own bailout from the BBWAA and sports media that wants the whole issue of steroids to just go away.
"Elder White! Look at the talent on those Cubs!" Harry Caray, KMOX Radio, 4/22/62
"And you have to wonder – What's the matter with Broglio?" Harry, KMOX, 5/24/64
by ernaga on Dec 16, 2011 9:59 PM EST up reply actions
I literally laughed out loud at this dumb paragraph.
Goldschmidt happens.
by DbacksSkins on Dec 21, 2011 6:52 PM EST up reply actions
Hey sport, where's the WWE on your "fan of" list?
"Elder White! Look at the talent on those Cubs!" Harry Caray, KMOX Radio, 4/22/62
"And you have to wonder – What's the matter with Broglio?" Harry, KMOX, 5/24/64
by ernaga on Dec 22, 2011 2:38 AM EST up reply actions
Fame
It it were truly a hall of fame, Eddie Gaedele would be a member. You’re arguing semantics, Jon.
Hall of Famers represent the very best players in the game’s history. There are exhibits for the rest – Gaedele, Roger Maris, Morgana the Kissing Bandit, etc. – but true membership is for those who have excelled on the field.
I’m not arguing one way or the other in this post about PEDs, nor am I’m saying the Hall has the correct people as members. What I’m saying is that using the word fame as you are is contrary to how the HOF has been determined membership over the last 75 years.
by GBSimons on Dec 15, 2011 7:01 PM EST up reply actions
Gaedel.
But yes, good points.
by Phrozen on Dec 15, 2011 7:59 PM EST up reply actions
Eddie Gaedel is a curiosity; that doesn’t make him worthy of induction. There are real players who are in the Hall of Fame because of accomplishments (real or imagined) other than great success; Candy Cummings is one. Curt Flood should be another.
Cash rules everything around me
C.R.E.A.M.
Get the money
Dollar dollar bill y'all
by El Person on Dec 15, 2011 8:45 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Funny you put Maris in with Gaedel and Morgana. Certainly eclectic there.
by pinstripes7 on Dec 16, 2011 8:18 AM EST up reply actions
Cool
At least with this line of thinking, Dale Murphy is a first-ballot HOFer.
Heaven is a baseball field.
by rbratt3 on Dec 15, 2011 5:56 PM EST reply actions
It wouldn't be
an HoF post if I didn’t chime in with:
What about the integrity of the BBWAA?
by bucdaddy on Dec 16, 2011 1:33 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
Genocide is intolerable
Africa for the Africans,Asia for the Asians,white countries for EVERYBODY!
Mass immigration and “assimilation” forced on all white countries and ONLY white countries.
Genocide is genocide,it makes no difference legally whether it is accomplished by bullets and mustard gas,or mass immigration and social engineering.
Anti-racist is a codeword for anti-white.
by craigpeters on Dec 16, 2011 1:09 PM EST reply actions
You're free
to move to an African country, if you’re upset that immigrants are moving to yours.
Not that this has absolutely anything to do with anything.
Goldschmidt happens.
by DbacksSkins on Dec 21, 2011 7:11 PM EST up reply actions
I whole heartedly agree with this article
Once you start using fuzzy logic to keep players out, it gets really difficult to stop. The Hall of Fame is about recognizing the standout players from different eras so that future generations won’t forget them. Which alleged and unproven offenses are worse than others? As such, if steroids were the major controversy from the era, then the Hall of Fame needs to recognize that as something that happened. Not celebrate it, but acknowledge it, and mention who was associated with it, as well as how they determined that, and allow the patrons to come to their own decision.
The author may have intended it as satire, but it is true that racism was very much an issue in the early eras of baseball. To many, denying a person a right based on their race is worse than taking a substance that allows for quicker recovery time. Why are the writers taking such a strong stance now?
by Ice Watter In His Veins! on Dec 16, 2011 7:04 PM EST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed