Hey, While We're At It, Can We Kick Mickey Mantle Out Of Cooperstown?

Jackson received votes in 1936, so he must have been eligible at that time. He did not get any votes in 1937.

This was a good article. Playing hungover or drunk or out of shape is often regarded as cute which is wrong. A player’s primary job is to be mentally and physically prepared as much as he can for every game. If a player frequently is unprepared to play games to his fullest ability, then his integrity should be questioned.

But I’ll give this guy one thing: He has made a decision, he has taken a position and he states what it is. He’s not sitting on the fence for 15 years waiting for some vague “wisdom” to drift down out of the ether and tell him how to vote on Jeff Bagwell.

Doesn’t mean he’s not a doofus and Rob’s not right, of course.

Yeah, funny how the BBWAA has suddenly developed a collective conscience.

I think it’s clear that while the theoretical Joe might be of lesser character than the very real Mickey Mantle, one undermined the writer’s notion of fair play and sportsmanship, and the other did not.

You may disagree with that, but it’s a legit perspective.

The Perry analogy is more appropriate I think, and any writer holding off on voting for PED-users should be challenged to reconcile their position on Perry with that.

I think we’d find, given half a chance, that a (very cloudy and assumption-laden) association with PEDs is only part of Bagwell’s problem. Another part of it is the related but different issue that there was so much offense in his era that his story gets lost in all of it. And it may take a while for some writers to isolate it for examination.

There were a lot of high-profile base-stealers in the eighties, and it’s taking them a while to figure out that Tim Raines was so much more.

Rob, you’re a smart guy so I’m disappointed that you would take such a simpleton’s view on this.

Just because a few cheats got in lets keep bringing them in truckloads? Really?

Instead of saying hey a few got in, but lets install some better measures so it doesn’t happen again, you want to keep doing whats wrong?

Thank God you’re not in politics.

BTW, whatever happened to Bill James Classic Baseball?

especially, but not limited to, how it affects your baseball game.

Rob is absolutely right that people should think and continue to think. That the issue is not black or white.

But the issue being not black or white swings both ways. It might not be good to reject all steroid users instantaneously and permanently, but then it’s equally not good to stop thinking and just say, “Hey steroids don’t matter, you’re all in!” Thinking has to go both ways.

My own personal stance has softened a little bit through thinking. I don’t think steroids should be an automatic disqualification from the hall. I think it needs to be evaluated as part of the package, both how it impacts a players character and a player’s numbers.

At the end of the day, I want a hall filled with the greatest players of all time, in all senses of the word.

If a player has elite numbers, should it counteract the fact that the player has violated a rule of morality (IMO) by using steroids (or greenies, or any other illegal, dangerous drug) to cheat? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe sometimes.

That’s why Rob’s right. We should always keep thinking.

Babe Ruth would have been the first in line.

Ty Cobb and Cap Anson need to be at the top of that list

Ruth corked his bat and injected sheep testicle extract to try to boost his performance.

Mays and Aaron both were on amphetamines to help them make it through the rigors of the schedule.

The list would literally go on and on and on and include the biggest names in baseball’s history.

Besides the point of still not understanding whether or how much things like steroids or HGH actually enhance performance, I still say if the rule isn’t in the CBA then it’s not even cheating, making the whole point moot. But even if you want to argue that anyone who touched a steroid is a cheater, pretending that the cheating started in the early 90s and tainted just one solitary 15ish year period is tantamount to living in some kind of fantasy world.

So PEDs are okay now and we should let all users in…that’s a great message for the kids. Why is this game played? It pads the pockets of players and owners but why is it really played? Are these athletes not role models for our children? The mistakes we, as a society, made in the past are not an excuse to allow these “users” in now. I say that we should send a message by not allowing this type of behavior in baseball. I haven’t seen many drunk players showing up for games lately. Have you?

But I will say one thing:

The difference is in the effect on the numbers. Mantle achieved those numbers despite hampering himself physically. We don’t know what the true effect of steroids are but the assumption is that you will heal faster, possibly have a little better eyesight and probably be stronger.

So if Mantle put up Hall worthy numbers while hurting himself, we can assume that his numbers are at the least an indication of who he really was minus the hangovers.

We can’t tell that with McGwire or Palmiero. We don’t know if steroids inflated their numbers.

This may not correspond directly to the integrity argument and I agree with Rob in this regard. I think the integrity argument in regard to steroids is a straw man used to bolster an already weak point of view. But how that integrity (or lack thereof) effected the on-field performance is a different argument and one that should be considered.

Then why don’y you ever see them listed in criteria and people’s arguments on why they voted FOR someone. Seriously, why don’t these same writers who view the issue as so black and white ever say: “It was a tough call on Player X. Player X had a .301 career average, 1 MVP, led the league in home runs three times, won four Humanitarian Awards, started the Blankety-Blank charity, records show that he always over-paid on his taxes, and I’ve personally witnessed him consistently saying ‘please’ and ‘thank you’”? It’s because they only use “integrity” to get on a high horse and publish ink.
I’m not saying I would vote for clear long-term cheaters, especially if they were borderline candidates. Like everything in life…it’s a sliding scale. And, for say a guy like Bagwell, with no evidence of cheating and a great career, the scale shouldn’t even be touched. For guys like Bonds with a probable HoF career anyway but substantial evidence of long-term steroids, different people will have different scales and I’m ok with that. But “absolutes” don’t make much sense to me.

Where was the “integrity and character” argument when the voters declined to vote Buck O’Neil into the HOF? I find it hard to think there was a more deserving “integrity and character” guy out there in baseball history.

Got to wonder what will happen in 10-15 years, when these guys fall off the ballot.
Will the Veterans Committee start voting tainted players in?
Will we find out how deep the rabbit hole is?
Will someone already in the hall out himself as a user?

I’d prefer players get inducted along with education on what happened during the era for future generations. Otherwise, we get players like Jeff Bagwell perhaps not getting in due to unconfirmed suspicions, in part because he “looked like Randy Macho Man Savage” in his later years and didn’t look like it when he broke into the bigs.

Oh well… at least Junior will be in regardless!

I’m sure you just love getting article suggestions from others Rob, but I’d love to see the following if you felt like it:
Obviously, each voter gets up to 10 people he can vote in. Next year, there will be about two dozen people who have either already gotten more than the 5% required to stay on the ballot in prior years or who are first-timers that likely would get more than 5% in a typical year. I think it’s a very interesting academic discussion to try and figure out who the guys are who will be knocked off the ballot and ineligible in 2014 who otherwise wouldn’t have been knocked off in a typical year (and whether any of them could have started mustering real support after a while had they stayed on). Thoughts?

The HoF “character” element is not about “cheating”, per se, or being a bad husband, or boozer, or drug addict, or any of that. We all know Babe Ruth was a boozer, Ty Cobb was a racist, Mickey Mantle was a womanizer, and Tim Raines carried viles of cocaine in his uniform. And yes, players took greenies and amphetamines in the 60s and 70s, etc. The steroid HoF argument has a different element of anger attached to it. The single-season HR record stood for 37 years, and was OBLITERATED by two guys in one season. When I watch replays of McGwire beating his chest and accepting adulation for breaking the record, it makes me furious to this day, because it was all a lie. They distorted the record books, and had the gall to smile and celebrate it, knowing it was all BS. The HoF steroid argument IS about what happened on the field, and I don’t blame any voters for being angry, suspicious, and extrememly cynical.

Mantle didn’t cheat. He drank too much.

Bonds and Clemens knowingly cheated while devouring every record in the book and making a mockery of the game.

It’s worse than Pete Roe and Joe Jackson. One bet to win, and the other refused the money and played to win, but failed to tell others that his teammates were throwing the game.

It’s about the game, not about what people do between the games. It’s also about how egregious the cheating was: One week in an 18 year career (Neyer’s Straw Man argument Joe) is an acceptable, reasonable slip. Clemens and Bonds cheated for years, and they accepted the accolades that came with such artificially induced enhanced performances.

Steroids are a sad example of modern baseball’s excesses. But perhaps consistent with this era of excess is the apparent disinterest in how much steroids have destroyed the game.

What about anecdotal evidence that he doubled his season average for homeruns in just two seasons?

What about Marris going from 16, to 61 two seasons later then dropping to 30? Aren’t those kinda spikes the “evidence” that everyone is pointing to to keep all the current generation out?

Players careers should be defined the way MLB allowed them to happen. If baseball chose not to punish anyone at the time, and has yet to take an official position on that, how can Hall of Fame voters punish players for playing the game the way the league wanted it to be played?

Almost everything we do, eat, or drink now a days contains some form of artificiality that did not exist in previous eras. It is up to the league to define which of those are allowed for players, and which of those are not.

Steroids are not a can of spinache, that cause you to grow strong in a matter of seconds after taking them. You still have to put in the time and effort, even more so.

Shouldn’t the integrity line be drawn at, “Will it get me punished by the league?” the answer was clearly no.

Why are people so quick to keep Griffey out of the group of players always mentioned? He had a huge ego, and could very well have been doing things.. we just wouldn’t have known since he was too busy being injurred to put up big numbers.

I have been reading your work since 1998, when I first got the internet. I have read hundreds of your columns/posts. And there have been some good ones through the years. And this was the best one yet. I am so glad that in about 7 years, you will have a HoF vote. Why, I want to know, have the blowhards won this debate so handily (see Bagwell), and the people who use logic, reason, and context, seem to have lost. Will there be the day that the majority thinks like we do?

One thing that has always bugged me with steroids is that so many writers/voters seemed to jump to certain conclusions so quickly. For example, when talking about steroids, almost regardless of who took them and what they’ve said, the story that always gets written is that the player “was doing it to make a big pay day/break records/bring glory upon themselves/etc.”, and never “they thought it would help the team win”. In that case, wouldn’t taking something that could harm themselves to better the team be a positive for integrity? At the very least, it’s a possibility, unlike showing up drunk, where there’s almost no benefit to the team.

Just playing devil’s advocate (and there’s always the possibility that they’re more akin to placebos, too). I feel like I’ve seen people defend everything from stealing signs to scuffing balls to greenies as “oh, he’s trying to help his team win and that’s good”, while steroids are always, without question, “for selfish gain only, and therefore bad”. Thank you for bringing up this other side.

…is how a writer dedicated rejecting old tropes and sacred cows…who issuch a prime advocate of application of new understandings and standards…

…become so dedicated to the lowest common denominator argument in this case (as well as the ‘exception makes the rule’ clause he so assiduously describes above).

Regarding standards for the Hall of Fame, would Rob say “Anyone of Freddie Lindstrom’s talent level or higher should be included”? Of course not. Yet that’s precisely the argument he takes regarding the ethics clause.

Rob, if you want your arguments to have ANY validity…go after the entire clause itself for removal for consideration, rather than chastise modern voters for actually following it. After all, you wouldn’t complain about them using advanced metrics, would you?

Why are none of you making the case to put Jose Canseco in the HOF?

Granted, his numbers alone are not quite good enough: he’s a tad behind folks like Kirby Puckett and even Bernie Williams.

But doesn’t he deserve quite a bit of extra credit as a pioneer? As the “most conspicuous [early] example of a player who made himself great with steroids?” And as someone who helped make numerous other players great by actively helping them follow in his footsteps?

Doe he not meet the standard of “you can’t tell the story of the steroids era in baseball without mentioning this guy?”

If you think this HOF case for Canseco is outlandish (as I do), then I contend that you ARE in fact applying value judgements and moral judgements. If not purely against steroids then at the very least against narcissistic self-promoting players who publish tell-all books.

Was Mantle a dirt bag as a human maybe.
Did Big Mac, Barry Bonds, Sosa use steroids just once? Hell no!!! and there is the rub.
He gives this beautiful touching story about player that is hurt uses just once so he could help his team make it to the playoffs.
Apples and Oranges…not the same. That is were our individual consciences come into play.
Moore maybe wrong for lumping them all into one basket but so is Rob. Each has a right to the way they feel but each of them using a blanket clause to say they all should or should not be in is just immature.
Each case should be looked at individually…the merits or pros weighed against the cons…then choose as your conscience directs you but again be open minded.

Haven’t seen mention of this yet, but Mickey Mantle used plenty more than booze. According to the book “Cooperstown confidential” by Zev Chafets (p. 179), Mantle got shots from a quack named Dr. Feelgood that contained:

“a home-brewed serum of thirty to fifty milligrams of AMPHETAMINE mixed with multivitamins, STEROIDS, enzymes, and solubilized placenta, bone marrow, and animal organ cells” [caps added for emphasis]

This apparently occurred during his home run record chase in 1961 and the shot backfired, causing Mantle to miss games when he contracted an infection this way.

I am not too sure I am being an apologist for our genration, or easing up on my harsh stance against steroid use, but reading over this article and the many comments, I gave the subject a second thought and came up with the following.

There are different eras in baseball, each one representing a different kind of baseball. If the Hall of Fame can be considered not only a place to honor its greatest but also a collection of generational baseball heroes, then it is quite possible that many in our generation would without any hesitation induct Clemens and Bonds (not me). To do this effectively, we would need to be honest about the kind of generation they played in and the kind of people they were. Our generation should be called, among other things, the Steroids Era. Not too sure what I would call Cobb’s era to " justify " or explain his racism and bad sportsmanship. Or Ruth’s excesses (" Prohibition Era? "). Or Mantle’s drinking (" Rat Pack Era "). Or the bad haircuts of the 70s. But if I had been present in the 30s when we were honoring our first inductees, I might have wanted the HOF to make it clear the kind of people Ruth and Cobb really were. To make it clear that Bonds and Clemens used steroids, and that Bagwell played during an era of high steroid use, and hardly anybody in Major League Baseball made an attempt to stop their use, this could give baseball fans of all generations a chance to decide the merit of the induction.

Came here because of a note from SABR. Thought Neyer would be making a case to vote Rice out & have Dwight Evans rightfully take Rice’s place.

Of course, that might get Neyer’s former boss in trouble with the Sox. Even though Bill James was the first to explain Rice’s deficiencies & how underrated Evans was.

Rob, your analogy to the fictitious Joe is specious. McGwire, Bonds & Clemens used ’roids repeatedly. Over many, many seasons in the case of the first two, at least. Like Alex Rodriguez did.

Don’t believe A-Rod’s lies about using “boli” for just a short while. Go back & read Canseco’s book. Well, that might be asking too much … I skimmed most of it myself. But I carefully read the juice passages.

They’re carefully worded by Canseco’s co-author (& probably carefully vetted by lawyers). But reading them left no doubt in my mind that A-Rod was dirty very early on. 600+ homers might also give you a clue.

This Terence Moore is some sack of potatoes, though. Does he really think Frank Thomas was not a juicer? He played college football in the mid to late 80s. At Auburn.

I used to lift weights with a lot of football players at a small college in the mid to late 70s. Juice was readily avaiable then. But there’s a microscopic chance I could be wrong about Thomas because I always hated him.

1 reason is his nickname. I distinctly recall a play at the plate where Thomas was being blocked by the only man in baseball as big as Thomas was: Sandy Alomar, Jr. Thomas chose to avoid a collision. He should have been called “The Big Pussy”.

The motion of the Mick being put out of the HOF, should never be entertained.His overall record of accomplishments on the field will never be surpassed.His brute strength alone, gave him the power to hit HR,s around the circuit that can never be matched.His HR in Yankee Stadium that came within inches of going out to Riverside Ave. and then bouncing back with such force, that it landed at 2nd. base was proof of his strength.His Triple Crown record will never be met or will his HR record during WS play ever be matched.The Mick was everyones favorite idol during his playing days,in spite of messed up legs, he stil did what he had to do on the field and was a team player.