Elect Jeff Bagwell To The Hall, And Cooperstown Will Bloom Again

Seems like semantics to me. Could be wrong though. Just trying to understand the juxtaposition of indefensible to keep a guy out because of suspicion but it’s defensible to be suspicious? I think I have it after retyping it. But as you noted, the whole darn generation is suspicious, so it seems best for the “Hall” to just state as such and get the argument out of the equation. Said it before and I’ll say it again, a Hall of Fame without a generation’s best players is not worth the electric bills to keep it open.

Was stunned to hear Bob Costas say about Bagwell: “When in doubt, keep them out.” I’m a big Costas fan, and think he’s very bright, so I considered what he said, but disagree with him.

To cite PEDs for a non-vote, writers should require a failed test, admission of use, or inclusion in a legit investigation by baseball or a government. None apply to Bagwell.

It is not the writer’s role to decide if someone is eligible for the Hall, just if they are worthy. MLB has banned Rose and Jackson from the HoF, they have not done the same with the Steroid Era players. If they deserve to be in, put them in, regardless of suspicion.

I’m not crying over them now having to deal with the consequences of their actions. Kudos to the writers for at least trying to keep the users out.

I’ve never quite understood the argument that a Hall of Fame voter — if he thinks steroid use is germane — should ignore every scrap of evidence that doesn’t appear in the Mitchell Report or wherever.

If I thought that these voters were using things even as shaky as stories about individual players, I might agree with you. But it definitely seems like muscles and homers =steroids is the standard being used. And I have no idea why we should have faith in any BBWAA member’s ability to determine each steroid user. Are any non-Mitchell report pitchers suspected besides Clemens? I’m sure a large percentage of them used.

You seem to have far more faith in the guesswork of these voters to determine who fell under their dubious moral standards than any rational person should.

I agree with your article Rob. You said some things that needed to be said.

The only line I don’t agree with is this one:

“I believe that it’s intellectually indefensible to disqualify a player solely because you think he used steroids.”

I’m not sure how you can say this.

Steroids do give a player an unfair advantage and inflate a player’s STATS.

That’s why Hank Aaron has a legitimate beef against Bonds being called the all time home run leader. Ask Hank who he sincerely believes the all time home run leader is. I don’t think he’ll answer Bonds.

Steroids do throw a player’s STATS into question.

Would Mark McGuire have the STATS he has today without steroids? Certainly not!

Would his STATS be good enough without having used steroids to be in the HOF? Who can say?

Would Sammy Sosa have been a good enough MLB player to induct into The Hall without his steroid use? Again, who can say?

But I certainly think those who have used steroids bring their numbers into question in this way — enough so to warrant a no vote for The Hall.

How is such a position intellectually indefensible?

Here’s the syllogism:

If good STATS are required for HOF entry.
And if STATS are unfairly inflated due to steroid use.
Then those using steroids should have their good STATS questioned concerning HOF entry.

It is realistic and intellectually defensible to put Bagwell into this category!

….as Rob indicates here, that there are already steroid users in the Hall.

Paul Molitor admitted doing cocaine. So, for that matter, did Tim Raines (whose nickname was “Rock” for goodness’ sake).

Ty Cobb may have murdered somebody.

Countless players did amphetamines. Willie Mays and Willie Stargell in fact got other players (the late John Milner) hooked on amphetamines (according to Milner).

God knows what the Yankee doctors were giving Mickey Mantle, or what the Dodgers doctors were doing to Sandy Koufax’ elbow.

And I’m not even going to discuss Bill Conlin.

That’s not to mention the racists, wifebeaters, gamblers, and others who clearly were not good people off the field – to the extent that for some of them, their on-field performance was likely impacted.

Some day, hopefully within the next few years, a current Hall of Famer will admit that he did steroids or PEDs. It’s also likely that a “known” user – Bonds? Clemens? Andy Pettitte? Ivan Rodriguez? – will be elected despite their acknowledged use.

Then, it’s going to be up to a veterans’ committee in about 20 years to start writing the wrongs of the writers of this era and start enshrining people based on their numbers (Rose, once he has died, likely to be among them).

And we’ll all look back on this era and shake our heads because the same writers that were glorifying these players in the mid-90s as saviors of the game and “slamdunk” first ballot Hall of Famers got all high and mighty and decided that it was easier to punt the decision to the next generation and shroud themselves in cloaks of “decency.”

Who, according to their biographers, were given steroids and early steroid-like PEDs to recover from injuries by their team doctors.

And what about amphetamine users?
Weightlifters?
Lasik eye surgery recipients?
Tommy John surgery recipients?

All medical enhancements unavailable to all players or players of previous generations.

What makes a player more eligible 10 years after he’s initially eligible? This happened to Duke Snider and several others. Snider was first eligible in 1969. Yet, he didn’t get in until 1980. Did he finally go to BBWA charm school so he could get more votes? I don’t think so! And why does a player have to wait 5 years after retiring to be eligible? They should be eligible at least one year after retiring. They’re not going to add one more statistic to the records. Why does Bob Costas believe Maris should be in the Hall when there are those with better credentials that are not. Gil Hodges for example. Why hasn’t the old-timer’s committee voted him in? By the way, Vince Scully is the best all time broadcaster.

in my ego-fueled dreams, is that most thinking people have caught on to what a sham and circus the voting procedure is. Is it possible the general public really doesn’t understand why Bert Blyleven and Ron Santo had to wait 15 years or more — why, in fact, some guys get elected after they’re DEAD — to get into the Hall? That some fans just think this is stupid and wrong, and by the way, who the hell are Bert Blyleven and Ron Santo? Is it possible it’s hard to give a crap about guys you’ve never seen play and now couldn’t even ever meet in person, getting elected by some vague committee of old-timers?

I tend to look at this from a what would they do if someone already elected was proven beyond a shadow of doubt to have used PEDs. Would they remove said players plaque from the hall? If someone say Cal Ripken Jr. (I am not saying he did anything of the sort) came out and told the world that he was taking HGH like candy to stay on the field during his streak would he be stripped of his Hall of Fame status. Personally I think once you have it you have it.

If this is the case then I can’t see how they can keep someone out of the hall for doing the same in era where the vast majority were doing something.

This isn’t a case where one player is on so much stuff that it makes everyone else in the league look like a jockey. If it were you could keep said player out and use what happened with him to keep the rest of the league in line going forward.

The writers simply need to compare the players from that era against though of said era.

The hall is poorer without these players enshrined in its walls. Personally I rather see the Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens over the Jim Rice and Jack Morris’s of the world

Steroids was not an isolated incident. It was an industry-wide phenomenon. And regardless of the reasoning (union was too strong, baseball liked the ratings, etc.), this was a systemic issue. You cannot celebrate Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa for ‘saving the game’ in 1998 if you are then going to act with disdain in 2012 at the mere mention of their names’. The home run and run totals from 1993-2003 (with a crescendo around 1998-2001) was a lot of evidence. Remember, we used to ask, "Is it the baseball that is juiced?’ or ‘Is it the smaller parks?’. Partially. But the players were juicing and LITERALLY EVERYONE turned a blind eye or kept silent about his/her suspicions.

So..my point is that, it was a systemic baseball problem. So unless you’re going to completely delete the record books from the Steroid Era (notice it was such a pervasive issue that it has it’s own freakin ERA), then you have to tell the whole story, but elect the best players. Bob Gibson is partly enshrined due to 1.12, during the best pitchers season of the last 92 seasons. Jimmie Foxx is partly enshrined due to a fabulous offensive run from 1929-1939, much of which was attained during a previously unprecedented era that favored the offense. There are numerous documented cheats in the Hall of Fame (Gaylord Perry anyone?). So elect the best players, tell the kids who are my daughter’s age, 3, the whole story as they grow up, use it as a teachable moment, and stop all this moral high ground. It’s a waste of time.

Shouldn’t we always be looking to do what is morally best? If someone sees an opportunity to take Action A, and Action A is more moral than Action B, shouldn’t we always undertake Action A?

If you hold the perfectly valid opinion that using steroids to increase performance is morally wrong, then it seems like honoring a person FOR that behavior, which is what you are doing if you elect them in to the baseball performance hall of fame, is also morally wrong, if to a much lesser degree.

In the interest of doing what is morally right then, one would have a moral obligation to not vote for that person into the hall of fame.

Some people are essentially arguing here that doing what is morally required of one is somehow logically / rationally incorrect. I am not understanding such arguments. Comments like, “Get off your moral high horse.” Why? Shouldn’t we always be on our moral high horse? Shouldn’t we always be judging the morality of other people, from the more or less petty crimes (lying to cover up cheating on your wife) to the major crimes (raping and torturing little children). Should not we always do what in our eyes is most moral, whether it’s a petty or a major crime?

Explain yourselves, you anti-moralists.

This is about to drop off the front page so I guess that’s it. I know a lot of baseball writers hate this topic. To me, steroids and the hall of fame is the most interesting topic in baseball, as I find moral philosophy to be even more interesting than the sport. It’s a nice intersection of interests.