Something odd in San Diego: Mark McGwire, Steroids, and the Hall of Fame
by tarakas on Jul 15, 2011 1:17 PM EDT
Email
Print
I am a Mark McGwire fan. I said it. I admit. When he played, he played with a quiet class and dignity. I admired him. Now, of course, he has been smeared with the taint of the steroid scandal, and people question his fitness as a hall of famer.
People say that a steroid abuser has no place in the Hall of Fame. The problem to me is that we don’t know who used steroids. Without that knowledge, we might put someone in the Hall of Fame simply because they were better at hiding their usage or suspicion of such. In fact, a steroid user might already be in the Hall of Fame.
Hall of famer Tony Gwynn was a popular and awesome player. From age 22 to age 27 he hit an incredible .335/.391/.444. But when he turned 28, he started to fade. From the age of 28 to the age of 32, he put up a diminished line of .319/.372/.420. But then, at 33—an age when even most stars start to rapidly fade—Gwynn was better than ever. From the age of 33 to the age of 41 he hit .356/.403/.500. His rebirth started in 1993. The same time that many players, including Mark McGwire, were using steroids.
Did Gwynn use steroids? Something odd was certainly going on in San Diego during this period for players in their thirties. Steve Finley (long one of my favorite players) was a singles hitter throughout his career in Baltimore and Houston, putting up a line of .274/.313/.386. As a thirty year old joining the Padres in 1995, he hit .297/.366/.420. And then he seemingly discovered Gwynn’s magical formula for youth in 1996, hitting .298/.354/.531. His 30 home runs that year equaled more than his previous three years combined. This was no one-year fluke. From age 31 to 39 he hit .274/.333/.489, adding more than 100 points of slugging above his previous career numbers.
The year of Finley’s surge—1996—is an important one to remember. That was the year that Ken Caminiti enjoyed his MVP campaign. Ken Caminiti came to San Diego in 1995 as a 32-year old with lifetime numbers of .260/.315/.385. Leaving the Astrodome, he could expect a small bump in production, but given that San Diego was also a pitcher’s park, it would not be extreme. But Caminiti was also at an age that marginal talents begin to fade rapidly from the game. Instead Caminiti exploded and kept his improved production even when he returned to the Astrodome. From the age of 32 to 37, he hit .294/.382/.537. And he later admitted that he used steroids during this time.
Wally Joyner also admitted to trying steroids while with the Padres during this era.
The highly unlikely pattern of dramatic improvements in hitters in their early thirties in San Diego is troubling, especially since in two cases the players improved shortly after joining the Gwynn and the Padres. We don’t know if Gwynn had a hand in Finley’s and Caminiti’s improvement. And we don’t know if all three shared a common source for dramatic improvement at an age when players decline. All we know was that during the steroid era, several Padres players experienced dramatic improvements at an unusual age for such improvements, and at least one of them used steroids. Someone wanting to make a case that all three used steroids certainly could.
But we don’t know all of what happened. We never will. This is not a knock on Tony Gwynn. To be honest, I have no idea whether he (or Finley) used steroids. I hope not. But we can’t know whether Tony Gwynn used steroids. Or any other player from that era. Whether Mark McGwire is admitted to the Hall of Fame or not, we’ll never know if the Hall of Fame is free of the taint of steroids. Given the likely prevalence of steroid use during the era in which he played, I doubt McGwire’s exclusion will keep the Hall of Fame steroid free.
79 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Hmmm..Gwynn sure didn't have the "steroid" look to him.
I figured the 2 HOF’s most likely to have used steroids were Roberto Alomar and Rickey Henderson.
by The Ghost of Todd Burns on Jul 15, 2011 2:19 PM EDT reply actions
Rickey is interesting
He played in both Oakland and San Diego while teammates were using steroids. His career numbers constantly went up and down, though, so it is hard to see any obvious pattern. His two highest OPS seasons were after the age of 30 and during the steroid era, for whatever that is worth. But there is no smoking gun dividing line season.
Alomar came up at a very early age, and the steroid era was in full swing at the age he would be expected to develop. It makes it hard to see anything, one way or another.
Neither would greatly surprise me, either way.
I make semi-plausible accusations about someone else in the HOF
But quite frankly, I don’t really care about the issue. Anyone who puts up the numbers and/or was one of the greatest of their era deserves to get in. McGwire, Sosa, Bonds, Clemens and everyone one else “tainted” by the insinuations of the era deserve to be in.
I agree with this line of thinking
We just can’t know who used so in my view, the best players of the steroid era should go into the Hall of Fame whether or not they have admitted steroid use, been tried for perjury for failing to admit it, were named in the Mitchell report or been the subject of whispers. I just don’t think we can assume that certain players were clean, just because we want to.
I don’t think Gwynn used, but you just have no idea what the guy did to stay healthy. And in addition, even if he didn’t I feel like the clean players bear some responsibility for not pushing for testing at the time.
Kevin Brown
Was named in the Mitchell report.
The player I would like least at #9 would be my sister’s cat, Captain Creamsicle. She does have a great work ethic and agility, but I’m really concerned that at 9 lbs., she’s too small to play safety in the NFL. She also bites way too often on play action and is easily distracted by someone waving string in the crowd. Lastly, her wonderlic score was pretty awful, answering "meow meow meow" for most of the questions- Dr. Brackish Okun
i actually touched on this last year.
It generated a lot of discussion. I agree with you. We’ll never know who did or who did not take steroids. My solution is to let anybody with the stats to make it go in. There is no doubt that McGwire would make it in with his stats if he was never suspected of steroids.
Not to mention, there have been cheaters who have made it already in the Hall of Fame. So it’s a little weird that all of a sudden sportswriters are being the morality police. I think there was an article that said he didn’t vote for Jeff Bagwell because he looks like he took steroids and even if he didn’t, he didn’t say anything about everybody else taking them. He has never been even close to linked to steroids besides the fact that he is ripped.
So I wonder and hope the speculation game wil stop soon and they’ll just let everybody in. It’ll probably happen, but it’ll happen when McGwire’s time is already past IMO.
"And a boring game for boring people. Did you ever watch golf on television? It's like watching flies FUCK. Think of the intellect it must take to draw pleasure from this activity: hitting a ball with a crooked stick and then WALKING AFTER IT" -George Carlin
President of the Tyler Greene fan club - In need of Secretary and Public Speaker
In all honesty...
I think it was really crappy pitching in the NL, not so much steroids, that boosted the offense so much during that era. Even though ironically, many of the pitchers were using them as well.
I mean, McGwire didn’t start hitting HRs at that crazy pace until he was traded here. Why didn’t the steroids work so much in the AL?
The problem that I have with this line of thinking is twofold:
- In order to make the case for one player who’s admitted to using steroids, we have to sully the names of other players who might have used but haven’t admitted it.
- In doing so, we have to rely on spikes in performance that could be due to many other factors.
Separately, there’s a few other factors that aren’t touched on here:
- It’s pretty clear that both hitters and pitchers were involved in PED use. Yet, even though nearly 80% of those caught since testing began have been pitchers, we still have this aversion to people who improved power numbers during this time, even though it’s likely that more pitchers were using PED’s than hitters.
- We do this because of the offensive explosion from ’94 – ’06 makes for an excellent correlation to the “steroid era”.
But there are other factors here:
- The league was expanded twice in less than a decade (Rockies & Marlins, then Rays & D-Backs), diluting the pitching available to major league clubs.
- Many of the new ballparks built (not to mention the old park remodeling, like the Astrodome) in this period were much more hitter friendly.
- The strike zone looks to have been shrunk considerably,
- The ball seems to have been made harder.
- Maple bats began to become more prevalent (especially in the hands of sluggers like Bonds and Sosa).
- We saw an incredible excess in the amount of high quality hitters from 1990-2000, many more HOF level hitters than HOF level pitchers played during this era, the ratio probably as high as any time since the go-go 20’s and 30’s.
Do all of these explain the offensive explosion by themselves? No. Do the combination of all these factors, as well as better sports science, nutrition, training, use of video, evaluation of offensive value, etc. combined have the possibility of explaining this explosion? I’d say yes, and I would say that that combination of all those things has much higher probability of affecting the game at a dramatic level than any steroid use by players.
Can Colby round out our new MV3?
An additional point
Let’s also keep in mind that baseball players did not do strength training much at all until right about the time that the so-called “steroid” era started. It’s entirely possible that a number of players who improved performance at this time actually just started to do some strength training that hadn’t been done before in an effort to get stronger and play longer.
There’s so many things we don’t know and will never know. Do I think that people who took steroids should be blacklisted from the HOF? No. I agree with you on that point. But using cursory data and correlative conclusions to deduce that other HOF worthy players who haven’t admitted to steroid use might have used steroids to support the case of an admitted steroid user for the HOF is not he best way to go about this. It’s a 12 year old way of approaching the problem: “See, he might have done this too, so why are you punishing me?” That type of thinking will get those of us who share these opinions absolutely nowhere in this debate.
Can Colby round out our new MV3?
Good points, all.
the only part I differ on is:
Do I think that people who took steroids should be blacklisted from the HOF? No.
I think they should be disqualified if it’s proven or admitted. If Pete Rose is banned for gambling, then steroid users should be as well. I view steroid use as a greater offense than gambling.
Baseball statistics are like a girl in a bikini. They show a lot, but not everything. ~Toby Harrah, 1983
by Dave Pendleton on Jul 16, 2011 1:00 PM EDT up reply actions
Well, there is a big difference
Mark McGwire broke no rules of baseball when he used steroids.
Pete Rose broke a long standing rule with an explicit penalty.
What is the issue that keeps steroid users out of the hall?
Is it because they cheated? If so:
1. For many it was not against the rules when they used steroids.
2. The Hall of Fame does not exclude players who habitually cheat. They had no qualms honoring Gaylord Perry.
Is it because they used drugs illegally? If so, the Hall of Fame knowing admitted illegal drug user Ferguson Jenkins?
Is it because they used drugs that are against the rules now? If so, 50 years of widespread use of now banned stimulants in baseball pretty much wipes out huge numbers of players.
Has steroid use damaged the game to the point of nearly ending it?
No, it hasn’t. Never mind that ownership, the union, the media, and everyone watching the games during that era was complicit in looking the other way while players were looking more and more like superheroes every year. There were no rules against steroid use in baseball — there were rules in many other sports against the use of performance enhancing drugs, but none in baseball.
So comparing steroid users to Pete Rose is a false equivalence. Rose broke a rule that is posted in every clubhouse of every team and had been for over half a century. Gambling on your own team is a more egregious offense, due to the stigma attached to it and the consequences to the game if the notion of fair competition is deemed to be folly because of it.
Can Colby round out our new MV3?
I think Pete Rose the player belongs.
Pete Rose the manager is a dishonor to baseball however so he shouldn’t be admitted.
by WizardofOz1982 on Jul 18, 2011 2:21 PM EDT up reply actions
Really?
So you’re making the assumption that a guy who hung out with gamblers and men with mob ties for his entire playing career only started gambling on baseball games when he was a manager, and no longer player/manager?
The Dowd report didn’t look much into Rose’s past, but the guy was caught twice trying to bring suitcases full of cash back into the country from signings to avoid paying taxes on it. I don’t think it’s a huge stretch to say that his gambling issues started long before when he was actually caught doing it, and it took him 20 years to admit to that, and only when he could do so at a personal profit.
Can Colby round out our new MV3?
No I'm not making that assumption.
He was never caught gambling during his playing career. I don’t think anyone ever thought he threw a game or did anything shady, at least in an illegal sense, on the ball field. Prove he gambled during his career and I’ll gladly change my stance. Hell prove that the guy threw a single game during his playing career and I’ll gladly change my stance. Just like with steroids show me proof before accusations are made and Hall of Fame spots are withheld.
Babe Ruth hung out with gamblers, drinkers, etc. Should he be taken out of the Hall of Fame by your logic? Surely since he hung around with them he was guilty of something.
"Go crazy, folks, go crazy! It's a home run, and the Cardinals have won the game, by the score of 3 to 2, on a home run by the Wizard! Go crazy!" - Jack Buck (my earliest baseball memories)
https://plus.google.com/u/0/111459762327473828979/posts
by WizardofOz1982 on Jul 20, 2011 11:08 AM EDT up reply actions
If that's your line, fine, I'm not going to argue with it.
But I’m not ok with putting Pete Rose in the HOF as a player after he broke the cardinal rule of the game. I’m not ok with him ever being in. Maybe after he’s dead, so he gets no satisfaction at all from it.
He’s not been apologetic or remorseful one single fucking time in his entire life for the mistakes that he’s made. If I truly believed that Pete was sorry for what he did I might feel differently, but he’s an arrogant, self-centered individual who only does things when they are in the best interests of Pete Rose. He does signings at casinos. He makes a mockery of the HOF inductions every year by setting up shop a few miles away and doing signings there. He doesn’t give a fuck about the HOF unless Pete Rose is in the HOF. He has no respect for the game or the institution of the HOF at all.
Can Colby round out our new MV3?
He doesn't now.
So because he’s an asshole he shouldn’t be in the Hall of Fame? That’s the leg you want to stand on? Guess it’s the Hall of Lou Gehrig, Christy Mathewson, and Stan Musial then. Kick the rest out.
"Go crazy, folks, go crazy! It's a home run, and the Cardinals have won the game, by the score of 3 to 2, on a home run by the Wizard! Go crazy!" - Jack Buck (my earliest baseball memories)
https://plus.google.com/u/0/111459762327473828979/posts
by WizardofOz1982 on Jul 20, 2011 3:51 PM EDT up reply actions
No, he shouldn't be in the HOF because the broke the cardinal rule of the game.
Period.
None of this deliberation about “he did it after his playing career was over, so he should still get in as a player.” I think that’s bunk. He knew the score — Joe Jackson and Eddie Cicotte, despite being HOF worthy players, are not in the HOF. Rose knew that when he bet on baseball. Therefore, he doesn’t deserve induction.
Can Colby round out our new MV3?
There has always been a designation between players and managers in the Hall of Fame.
Connie Mack is there as a manager and not a player. Frank Robinson is there as a player and not a manager. John McGraw, Rogers Hornsby, etc. are all in for one but not the other.
Prove to me that Rose gambled as a player and I’ll gladly side with you that Pete Rose the player doesn’t belong. I’ve done a lot of looking, research, etc. and I’ve never seen anyone who said or even insinuated that Rose gambled while he was playing. I’d be more likely to believe Hornsby bet on ballgames during his playing career than I would Rose honestly. We know for a fact that Hornsby was gambling on other things, especially horses, during his career.
Joe Jackson (hit .375/.394/.575 in that series) and Eddie Cicotte threw a World Series. They didn’t bet on it. There’s a distinct difference there since they were playing in the game and could, in Cicotte’s case did, make a distinct difference in the outcome.
"Go crazy, folks, go crazy! It's a home run, and the Cardinals have won the game, by the score of 3 to 2, on a home run by the Wizard! Go crazy!" - Jack Buck (my earliest baseball memories)
https://plus.google.com/u/0/111459762327473828979/posts
by WizardofOz1982 on Jul 25, 2011 3:16 PM EDT up reply actions
There are 2 rules in play here:
Both rules were in place at the time of Rose’s proven and since admitted transgressions:
Major League Rule 21(d):
(d) BETTING ON BALL GAMES. Any player, umpire, or club official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has no duty to perform shall be declared ineligible for one year. Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible.
This places Rose on the permanent ineligible list.
Baseball Hall of Fame Rule 3E:
Any player on Major League Baseball’s permanently ineligible list is not, nor ever will be, eligible for the Baseball Hall of Fame unless removed from the permanently ineligible list.
Furthermore, Rose agreed to his placement on the list in August of 1989. He knew when entering into the agreement that he was permanently banned from baseball and from HOF induction. Pete’s story is that he agreed to the ban but that Giamatti stated that he could be eligible for removal from the list after one year. This is pursuant to the first phrase of the rule 21(d).
You know what I think? I think Pete Rose didn’t read the whole fucking document before signing it. He read the first phrase, but not the second. Either that, or he was too stupid to comprehend the two sentences of the rule and got confused as to which list he was being placed on. So he could plead ignorance, which is fine. Doesn’t change a damn thing, but that’s fine.
Instead, he’s chosen to lie, and lie, and lie, and lie, and lie, for more than a decade, and then come clean in a tell all book from which he made a giant profit.
It’s irrelevant how good a player Pete Rose was. He is on the banned list, which excludes him from HOF eligibility. Pete Rose signed an agreement that placed him on this list. Again, he knew the score before, during, and after he gambled on baseball and gambled on his own team. He has now admitted to gambling on his own team, which makes him a permanent member of the ineligible list as far as I’m concerned.
More here, especially how this relates to the steroid subject where this post started.
Can Colby round out our new MV3?
Even the rule makes a distinction between player and club official (manager) though.
I agree that he agreed to be on the banned list but I think it’s all about where you draw the distinction. They’ve obviously make exceptions for others. I don’t see why Rose was any different at the time.
"Go crazy, folks, go crazy! It's a home run, and the Cardinals have won the game, by the score of 3 to 2, on a home run by the Wizard! Go crazy!" - Jack Buck (my earliest baseball memories)
https://plus.google.com/u/0/111459762327473828979/posts
by WizardofOz1982 on Jul 25, 2011 11:45 PM EDT up reply actions
Where have they made exceptions for others?
- Nobody who has ever been on the permanently banned list has been elected to the HOF. * Nobody has ever been removed from the permanently banned list.
I’d say that’s pretty damn black & white.
The rule does not make a distinction between a player and a club official. I will quote it verbatim again:
Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible.
Where is the distinction? They are all named. Rose had a “duty to perform” as a manager of the Reds and was proven, and admitted, to have bet on his team while in that position.
This is as black & white as it gets. There are no exceptions for players who break this rule. It does not matter WHEN you go on the permanently banned list, only that you are on there and that if you are on that list, you are ineligible for induction to the HOF, per the HOF’s Rule 3E. Now, if someone had been inducted and was then permanently banned later in life, you might have a point if they are still in the HOF. That has not happened, so you argument has no precedent.
Can Colby round out our new MV3?
one of the problems with the "prove he did it" line is that rose has continually moved the goalposts to only what people
could prove.
first, he never gambled. then people proved he gambled. his new story was he gambled, but not on baseball. then they proved he gambled on baseball. he agreed he gambled on baseball, but swore up and down he never gambled on his own team. then they proved he gambled on his own team, which he then admitted to.
pete rose has told 4 or 5 different stories about what he did and has sworn several times that he never did something he later had to admit to doing.
pete rose lies so much about his gambling, i wouldn’t trust any denial of his. i believe he’d say anything to get into cooperstown.
what’s more, since he seems determined to lie about everything and anything to the greatest extent that he thinks he can get away with it, it makes me not want to give him any benefit of the doubt. i have a lot more respect for, say, jason giambi taking steroids and admitting that he did it while still an active player than for pete rose constructing lie after lie for a decade. that brings shame on baseball as well.
"chipper jones grounds out, third baseman albert pujols to first baseman mark hamilton." 5.1.11 "carlos pena grounds into double play, second baseman allen craig to shortstop tyler greene to first baseman albert pujols." 5.12.11
is this an assumption on your part?
I don’t think it’s a huge stretch to say that his gambling issues started long before when he was actually caught doing it, ……….
It may be true, but it looks like an assumption to me.
it took him 20 years to admit to that, and only when he could do so at a personal profit.
McGwire didn’t admit to anything either until there was something in it for him.
I’ll make an assumption of my own. If Big Mac didn’t want a job in baseball he would never have admitted to taking steroids.
Baseball statistics are like a girl in a bikini. They show a lot, but not everything. ~Toby Harrah, 1983
by Dave Pendleton on Jul 20, 2011 11:23 AM EDT up reply actions
I think McGwire would have admitted his use in front of the Congressional panel
had they given the players immunity from prosecution for discussing the issue. Mac didn’t want to be prosecuted for coming clean and didn’t want the game to be burdened by his past mistakes, so he chose not to talk about the past and instead talk about what could be done in the future to life the game from under the cloud.
You’re a very cynical individual, and also one who really seems to be confused about your argument. You want people to admit to doing bad things and then punish them, but to not worry about those who don’t admit to anything and deny all accusations. Then you come up with this line about people not doing anything until there is “something in it for them”. Well, which is it?
Can Colby round out our new MV3?
it's pointless to continue this.
Baseball statistics are like a girl in a bikini. They show a lot, but not everything. ~Toby Harrah, 1983
by Dave Pendleton on Jul 20, 2011 5:15 PM EDT up reply actions
You could make a similar case about many, many players during the 1990s and 2000s.
I understand where you are coming from. I was absolutely appalled by the innuendo and accusations regarding Bagwell and steroids by the press during this last HOF vote. To me, that is similar to what is done here regarding Tony Gwynn. There is not a shred of hard evidence that Gwynn took PEDs. And I’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt regarding usage. Like Craig Calcaterra, I believe that the standard should be “innocent until proven guilty” when it comes to PEDs. I defer to Calcaterra’s excellent piece on the matter:
I have a serious problem with this because even if it’s not a court of law, innocent until proven guilty is a fair and decent concept. There are a lot of places that aren’t courts of law that respect the concept that you actually, you know, have to be shown to have misbehaved before punishment attaches. School. Your office. Even a baseball field. No one expects a criminal standard of proof — evidence beyond a reasonable doubt — but some modicum of a burden would be nice before one is punished. Or, in the Hall of Fame debate, one’s name and reputation is sullied. I don’t think "at least a shred of credible evidence" is too daunting.
And that’s what we have here. Someone may Google Tony Gwynn and wind up at Viva El birdos, reading this speculation as to Gwynn’s use of steroids. Sure, sprinkled throughout the post are the usual caveats about not knowing if Gwynn did, but this post still calls into question Gwynn’s reputation. I think we need to be more careful before squeezing such toothpaste out of the tube.
"I'm gonna throw the nastiest curveball I have ever thrown...if he hits it, I'll tip my cap, but if not we're going to the Series."
--Adam Wainwright on the final pitch of the 2006 NLCS
I second that for sure.
Much of the media just doesn’t seem to care what they do to a person’s reputation. I can’t wait for someone in the media to be sued over some allegation like this, not that it will curb it from happening again. It’s far harder to restore a reputation than it is to ruin one. As they say, you can’t un-ring the bell.
As for Big Mack and others that, either admitted to it or it was discovered, I’m not in favor of letting them in the HOF….at least not without a footnote of some sort. Maybe the living members of the HOF should have the final say. If they’d welcome them, then I’d be ok with that, it’s their club.
Baseball statistics are like a girl in a bikini. They show a lot, but not everything. ~Toby Harrah, 1983
by Dave Pendleton on Jul 16, 2011 1:40 PM EDT up reply actions
I think my point
Is that we can’t know who did and did not use steroids. I’m not saying Gwynn did. Or Steve Finley did. You can make cases like this for many players. For some of them, the cases will likely turn out to be right. When people first started accusing Barry Bonds, I defended him by saying “Look, Roger Clemens had an odd late career surge. Why isn’t anyone accusing him?”
And that is what worries me. We have very odd standards about who is taking the blame for the steroid problems. Not the teams who encouraged it, or the reporters who turned a blind eye. Some players, often based on personality, get accused. If Tony Gwynn had Barry Bonds’s personality and reputation, I suspect people would be speculating about his steroid use.
I have often said that,
if players should be kept out for using, no sportswriter from the era should be inducted, either, because they didn’t their jobs. The non-using players, owners, managers, coaches, and media members are just as much to blame as the players who used.
"I'm gonna throw the nastiest curveball I have ever thrown...if he hits it, I'll tip my cap, but if not we're going to the Series."
--Adam Wainwright on the final pitch of the 2006 NLCS
I think the reputation for the players of the whole era is irreparably damaged
And always will be. If you played during this time, your reputation is damaged. I feel sorry for them all.
we agree on this.
in addition to what it does to the record books.
Baseball statistics are like a girl in a bikini. They show a lot, but not everything. ~Toby Harrah, 1983
by Dave Pendleton on Jul 17, 2011 4:08 PM EDT up reply actions
this part:
People say that a steroid abuser has no place in the Hall of Fame. The problem to me is that we don’t know who used steroids. Without that knowledge, we might put someone in the Hall of Fame simply because they were better at hiding their usage or suspicion of such. In fact, a steroid user might already be in the Hall of Fame.
just for the sake of discussion, here’s my view:
People say that a steroid abuser has no place in the Hall of Fame
I’m one of the people that say that, but I don’t know if I’m in the majority or minority.
I empathize “abuser”, as in…proven. Those are the ones I don’t think belong in the HOF.
So I don’t have a problem with someone getting in under the radar. They’re innocent until proven otherwise. They may be discovered at some point. Deal with it then.
So, for me, It really doesn’t have any bearing on Mark McGwire’s induction. Mark admitted he took steroids. It’s no longer just speculation, accusation or suspicion.
He should be the poster child for the Hall Of Fame’s committee, as they take a position, one way or the other….will they allow a proven steroid user in the Hall Of Fame or not, based on principal. And on principal, not deny entry without proof.
Basically, I say get it right when you can.
If McGwire is inducted it will be a heavy indictment on the committee, in my opinion.
Pete Rose fans everywhere should riot if that happens. It will be an injustice.
I can’t help but think that the players who used steroids knew what they were doing and knew what the consequences might be if they were caught. Some might have expected a wink or a slap on the wrist, and in some cases they were exactly right. But they should know it could jeopardize any chance they may have at the HOF.
I don’t really blame a player for getting into steroids. Once it started, it almost became necessary in order to compete (and make more money). But as a matter of character, I applaud all the players who performed without steroids. I think they have a better respect for the game, and themselves.
Baseball statistics are like a girl in a bikini. They show a lot, but not everything. ~Toby Harrah, 1983
So if McGwire had lied he would be a Hall of Famer?
I have trouble with saying “Steroid users, be sure to lie about it. That makes you Hall of Fame material. Whatever we want, it is not any cooperation toward learning the truth about what happened.”
I don't understand the last sentence, sorry
but, the player’s integrity is already impugned by taking them in the first place, and they’re already lying about it by trying to hide it.
Of course they’re going to lie about it, I expect them to lie or at least evade the truth. That’s the nature of doing something wrong. I don’t think saying to steroid users “be sure to lie about it” is all that necessary. They don’t need to be told that.
I’m simply speaking of those individuals that are proven users. They shouldn’t get in if it’s proven. It was against the rules, they got caught. Make it a statement.
You can’t catch everybody but deal with the ones you do.
Baseball statistics are like a girl in a bikini. They show a lot, but not everything. ~Toby Harrah, 1983
by Dave Pendleton on Jul 16, 2011 3:02 PM EDT up reply actions
McGwire wasn't caught using steroids
He didn’t fail any tests. He was not caught red handed. He only had some allegations without evidence made against him by people like Jose Canseco and McGwire’s estranged brother.
He is a proven steroid user only because he said he used steroids. He could have instead said “These allegations are baseless. Jose Canseco was trying to get publicity for himself, and my brother is lying to get back at me for an old family fight. I have always been clean.”
What makes him a proven steroid user is that he told us he was, when he did not have to.
So if he had not said that, there would be no conclusive proof he used steroids. So lacking this proof, would he belong in the Hall of Fame?
I guess I'm using the word "caught"
in a broader sense, to include confessions. I should have stated that, sorry.
Anyway,
He is a proven steroid user only because he said he used steroids.
What makes him a proven steroid user is that he told us he was, when he did not have to.
Agreed! Can’t have or need more positive proof than that.
but as an aside…I found it interesting that Mac felt more pressure to come clean from the Cardinals, to get a job, than he did from the government, and his lawyer.
That’s the bell I can’t un-ring. Maybe that’s unfair of me, but it’s stuck on me and I can’t pry it off.
I might also be unfair by thinking that: if he hadn’t knowingly done something illegal (baseball and/or civil), or at least, unethical, then what was the need to be so evasive, and when suspected, didn’t try to clear his name. I think he didn’t want to stir the pot.
He could have instead said "These allegations are baseless…….
He could have said a lot of things, including “I took steroids, sorry.!”, but he didn’t. If I remember it correctly, he didn’t say much at all about the subject.
When he did come clean his admission was full of apologies and regrets….regret for actually having taken the steroids. That’s cool with a touch of class. I thought he was pretty sincere, actually. But he knew he did something wrong, and came clean under pressure to do so, not because he wanted to.
To answer your question:
Had he not finally admitted to using steroids, I’d have to give him the benefit of “innocent until proven guilty”, and I’d vote him into the Hall of Fame, with equal consideration for Sammy Sosa, (under the same circumstances). That’s a whole different topic in itself.
Baseball statistics are like a girl in a bikini. They show a lot, but not everything. ~Toby Harrah, 1983
by Dave Pendleton on Jul 17, 2011 2:39 PM EDT up reply actions
It was against the rules, they got caught.
Except that few of them actually were caught. Mcgwire, Giambi, Pettitte, and others have admitted that they used PEDs, while sleazy assholes like Bonds and Clemens have lied their asses off in an attempt to keep their names clean despite the mounting actual evidence against them.
Also, PEDs weren’t actually against the rules at the time that most of these stats were accrued.
http://fuckyeahnouns.com/alex%20fritz
amen to this...
Except that few of them actually were caught. Mcgwire, Giambi, Pettitte, and others have admitted that they used PEDs, while sleazy assholes like Bonds and Clemens have lied their asses off in an attempt to keep their names clean despite the mounting actual evidence against them.
help me out, here…
did he continue to use them after they were banned and/or was there another substance involved?
Baseball statistics are like a girl in a bikini. They show a lot, but not everything. ~Toby Harrah, 1983
by Dave Pendleton on Jul 17, 2011 2:48 PM EDT up reply actions
Minor Issue
Petitte was caught and then he confessed. He didn’t come out of the blue . My dad bitches about it EVERY fucking day that he can that people wrongfully give him credit for coming clean when he was actually caught and realized that confessing was his best option instead of pulling a Clemens/Bonds.
Pettite is the textbook way to confess you took steroids if you get caught.
"And a boring game for boring people. Did you ever watch golf on television? It's like watching flies FUCK. Think of the intellect it must take to draw pleasure from this activity: hitting a ball with a crooked stick and then WALKING AFTER IT" -George Carlin
President of the Tyler Greene fan club - In need of Secretary and Public Speaker
by stlcardsfan4 on Jul 22, 2011 1:04 AM EDT up reply actions
So we should only punish the ones who tell the truth?
What kind of moral argument is that?
“Sir, if you’ll just lie and keep this a secret for the rest of your life, we’ll reward you with a Hall of Fame plaque. However, if you come out and talk about your steroid use, well, fuck you, there’s no way we will put you in the Hall of Fame. You’re a stain on the fabric of the game — we can’t go award cheaters that we KNOW were cheaters.”
Is this how you would approach your children? Is this the lesson we want them to learn? If they do something wrong that the only way to be rewarded for it is if they lie about it? Shouldn’t it be the other way around?
Can Colby round out our new MV3?
I'm befuddled.
what I tried to teach my children was this:
1) it’s always better to tell the truth.
2) Admit your mistakes early, hiding the truth is deceitful, evokes suspicion and stains your character.
3) if you tell the truth, you may be punished for what you did, but not for lying…telling the truth may get you leniency and your conscience will be clean.
4) Life isn’t always fair, but without the truth there can be no fairness.
5) Don’t cheat, don’t steal and try your best not to lie. Live an honest life and you’ll be the better person for it. Black marks on you character can come back to haunt you.
So we should only punish the ones who tell the truth? What kind of moral argument is that?
See #3.
I’m not talking about rewarding anyone for lying. that’s your spin on it. I’m talking about being responsible for what you do and suffering the consequences.
If you look at that as being rewarded for lying, then I don’t know what to say except that that’s not my perspective.
Baseball statistics are like a girl in a bikini. They show a lot, but not everything. ~Toby Harrah, 1983
by Dave Pendleton on Jul 17, 2011 3:48 PM EDT up reply actions
You're talking out of both sides of your mouth here:
but, the player’s integrity is already impugned by taking them in the first place, and they’re already lying about it by trying to hide it.
Of course they’re going to lie about it, I expect them to lie or at least evade the truth. That’s the nature of doing something wrong. I don’t think saying to steroid users "be sure to lie about it" is all that necessary. They don’t need to be told that.
I’m simply speaking of those individuals that are proven users. They shouldn’t get in if it’s proven. It was against the rules, they got caught. Make it a statement.
You can’t catch everybody but deal with the ones you do.
emphasis mine.
So we punish only the ones we know about, which is basically giving everyone who hasn’t been caught (and probably never will be at this point) the incentive to lie about it for years. To be fair, you have really two options:
- Nobody gets in the HOF if they played between 1990 and 2004. We can’t know who did what, but since steroids were clearly prevalent in the game, everyone gets punished for it. This should be the solution for all the purists who think that steroid use “ruined the game” and that PED use was prevalent in only one era.
- We just make the assumption that a hefty percentage of players were taking some form of PED’s, that PED use has prevailed in the game for a very, very long time, and that those players who were using PED’s were not breaking any baseball rules by doing so. Therefore, they get elected on the merits of their careers on the field since they broke no rules of baseball with their conduct.
I’m firmly in camp #2. Your arguments here put you squarely in camp #1. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t punish only those who have come forward and admitted usage while allowing those who evade and deny their usage to be rewarded with HOF plaques. Bonds was a HOF player before he took any PED’s at all. Clemens probably was too. You’re talking about punishing two of the best players of all time, forever, when it’s clear that many other players during this era were also using. If you allow them to come forward, admit to their usage, and not face any punishment for it, then it’s much easier to clean up this mess and move on.
Can Colby round out our new MV3?
Also
IT WAS NEVER AGAINST THE RULES. Ever. HGH, amphetamines, and all types of anabolic steroids were not illegal by the rules of baseball until 2005.
That’s the point you continue to miss.
Can Colby round out our new MV3?
I haven't missed that.
And honestly, I really don’t care if it’s against baseball rules or not. Just because something isn’t illegal doesn’t make it ethical or right. There are tons of things that aren’t addressed in the rules of baseball conduct, that doesn’t mean (in my mind) that it’s ok to do anything that’s not covered in the rules.
For years it wasn’t illegal to beat your wife but it was wrong anyway. I wouldn’t welcome a wife beater into my community simply because he didn’t do anything illegal.
My position is based purely on principal. Cheating is cheating. Legal or not, it’s still cheating. Maybe that’s old school thinking but I can live with it.
I think we may differ on what kinds of people we’d allow into the HOF and we may even differ on what the HOF should stand for. It appears that I also differ with the committee(s) of the past.
For me, character means a lot. I wouldn’t put Ty Cobb in, simply because he exhibited poor “sportsmanship”. He was an asshole on and off the field. He intentionally tried to hurt people. On the field he was a vicious, ruthless bastard, but there were no rules against being a vicious, ruthless bastard. So he’s in. (talk about sending messages to the kids!)
Lastly, I believe that MLB itself has an equal share of blame and shame for the whole steroid issue. As an entity, I believe it knew about the creeping prevalence of PED’s all along and allowed it because it generated excitement (phony as it was) and excitement = $. It turned a blind eye to much of it.
So, on principal alone, I feel cheated by MLB and PED users if I pay my money to see players compete, expecting that the games is based on the raw abilities of the players and not some enhanced super humans. How can that be called “sport”?
Baseball statistics are like a girl in a bikini. They show a lot, but not everything. ~Toby Harrah, 1983
by Dave Pendleton on Jul 18, 2011 12:09 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree with you, somewhat. but...
if I pay my money to see players compete, expecting that the games is based on the raw abilities of the players and not some enhanced super humans. How can that be called "sport"?
It really is a slippery slope argument- you don’t hear a huge outcry against Lasik surgery, or Tommy John surgery, etc, but how is firing an amplified light signal that doesn’t exist anywhere in the natural world into your eyeball, and changing the very curvature of your cornea, or cutting a tendon out of a cadaver and inserting it into the arm of a living man whose career would otherwise be over, any “less natural” or “less enhancing” than increasing the level of a naturally occurring hormone, and then working your ass off in the gym?
"Now that they've come out with that great stat, 'innings pitched per inning'-- is there anything they don't have a stat for these days?" -Al Hraboski, 3 Jun 11
Well let's start yanking guys out of the HOF then:
- Mays and Aaron — OUT: They used amphetamines, now banned by MLB.
- Gaylord Perry, Phil Niekro, Hoyt Wilhelm — OUT: Perry admitted to using doctored baseballs, Niekro & Wilhelm have been accused by numerous players and umpires for cutting and shaving the ball to help their knucklballs move.
- Rogers Hornsby — OUT: Probably an even bigger asshole than Ty Cobb, not to mention that he was probably the most racist man ever to play the game.
- Mickey Mantle — OUT: Noted philanderer and abuser of alcoholic beverages, clearly not a man of high morals. Great player though.
You know, because they all should have known better, even though there were no rules against any of their transgressions at the time.
It’s a slippery slope when you start talking about morality. I’d venture a guess that there are a dozens of pitchers who had HOF type careers cut short due to ligament and rotator cuff damage that is now repaired via surgery that wasn’t available 50 years ago. So do we dock the players with those surgeries too? What about Lasik? Would Mickey Mantle have hit 700 homers and stole 600 bases had doctors been able to repair his destroyed knee and gotten him involved with a nutritionist?
It’s easy to make these cases because your argument is short-sighted at best and laughable at worst. It’s based solely on judging the character of certain people based on what, most of the time, is circumstantial evidence. If it makes you feel like a higher moral character to denigrate the transgressions of others, that’s fine. But let’s not involve the game in this then. Because the game is bigger than all of us.
Can Colby round out our new MV3?
I don't see how I'm talking out of both sides.
nor do I see how my arguments opinions put me squarely in camp #1. I said nothing even similar to #1.
To be fair, you have really two options:
you present 2 options, as if that’s all there are and paint me into one of them…the one that’s most the ridiculous.
AND you’re bent on the idea that punishing the proven guilty somehow “rewards” those that don’t get caught, and making it sound like I’m the one saying it. Again, that’s your spin on what I said.
Another option is to deal with the ones that are proven users and forget about the others. That’s my camp. What that says or does to those that go undetected is open for interpretation. If you say they are “rewarded” then fine. I don’t interpret at it that way.
In your camp (option#2) you allow the proven users into the HOF? Do I get that right? Well then, aren’t you calling the clean players suckers for not using steroids?
Just for the sake of discussion, would you vote Bonds and Clemens into the HOF? Personally, I wouldn’t. And I wouldn’t care what it says to other players who didn’t use steroids or those who did and went undetected. Those players would be irrelevant in my voting.
My reason is simple. They took performance enhancements. I view that as cheating.
Baseball statistics are like a girl in a bikini. They show a lot, but not everything. ~Toby Harrah, 1983
by Dave Pendleton on Jul 18, 2011 11:35 AM EDT up reply actions
It's not that simple, that's the problem:
My reason is simple. They took performance enhancements. I view that as cheating.
Canseco and Caminiti came out in statements that “as many as 50%” of the players in the MLB during those years were on some type of performance enhancer. You want to punish 10 guys for something that 1000 players over those years were involved in? I find it ludicrous to call this “fair”.
If you want to clean this up you should give those who were involved in it a reason to speak up. Punishing only those who have admitted to use by not giving them access to post-career achievement like the HOF does and will not persuade anyone who has not come forward to ever do so. So you punish those who are honest while defiling those who aren’t and are trying to do the right thing by coming forward as “cheaters”.
I’m sorry — your “opinion” is a crock. You talk about honesty and integrity and then punish those who are honest.
Can Colby round out our new MV3?
what a class act this is......
I’m sorry — your "opinion" is a crock.
That kind of statement certainly promotes the discussion of different opinions and ideas, doesn’t it.
If you want to call my opinion “laughable”, “ludicrous” and “a crock” there’s no law against it, but my opinion deserves the same respect as yours.
We differ not only on this topic but we differ as well in how we discuss it.
I differ with your opinion, sir, but I don’t insult you about it. And I don’t ask you how you “approach your children”…..as if I’m teaching them some twisted logic.
I’m sorry — your "opinion" is a crock.
Is this how you would approach your children? Is this the lesson we want them to learn?
You talk about honesty and integrity and then punish those who are honest.
I think I see your logic here.
Confessing, admitting or coming clean makes a person honest? It erases all wrongdoing? It nullifies any consequences?
If me and two other guys knock down an old lady, beat her up and take her purse, then suspicion falls on me and I finally admit to it, am I now the honest one of the three? Am I no longer guilty? Should I escape punishment?
I had to go to confession every Friday when I was a kid. I sat in the box and told the guy behind the black curtain what I had done (under pressure) and it was uncomfortable. He said “say 5 Hail Mary’s, 3 Our Father’s and 6 Glory Be’s, and you will be forgiven”. Is that “a crock”?
I think so but at the time I believed it. Now I believe that I should expect to pay for my misdeeds weather I admit to them or not, especially if I admit to them under pressure or for some gain. Admitting it doesn’t erase the damage I caused.
-———————————————————————————————————————————————
I’m not against having compassion, but I’d give it to the player that admits to it out of good conscience, not to the player who had to be cornered to admit it.
Mark Mcgwire got his reward……re-entry to baseball as a hitting coach.
That’s my opinion, crockery or not.
Baseball statistics are like a girl in a bikini. They show a lot, but not everything. ~Toby Harrah, 1983
by Dave Pendleton on Jul 20, 2011 1:08 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
You're an extremely cynical person.
You apparently believe that people who make mistakes should be punished for those mistakes forever. That forgiveness is a sham and that if you fuck up, you should pay for those consequences for life. There is no rehabilitation. People can’t change. That’s basically what you’re saying in this post. And I think that’s a crock of shit. You are entitled to your opinion. I’m entitled to call it a crock of shit — mainly because it is. Time and again it’s been proven that forgiveness and second chances are part of life and that those given second chances make the most of them. We are a society built upon the idea of second chances, our country was formed on the basis of them and it’s the fabric of our national pride in a certain respect.
For one thing, it doesn’t absolve the person of any wrongdoing. I never said anything to that effect. But in order to move forward on the issue, you have to deal with these problems, especially in relation to the HOF. I’m not ok with morally banning people from the HOF for doing things that were not illegal at the time they were playing. I’m not ok with it because it casts a black cloud over the entire era, for one thing, and for two: You can’t even honestly make a definitive case that it was steroids that inflated the power numbers and not something else or a combination of other factors that were responsible. I’ve yet to see one definitive study that demonstrates that the Mark McGwire that hit 49 bombs his rookie year in the mid-80’s would not have hit 70 homers in a smaller ballpark with a smaller strike zone, a harder ball, and crappier pitchers a decade later. Barry Bonds was the best player of his era BEFORE 1999 when he supposedly started using. Do I celebrate these individuals for trying to gain an edge? No. Do I persecute them when it’s clear that many players were using at the same time they were? No.
Don’t talk to me about class. You don’t seem to have a shred of it. You want to punish everyone according to “Dave Pendleton’s Rules of Moral Compass”, which also seem to be rules that you yourself would have a hard time following when put in the same position. That’s fine for you. Be a crankypants. But don’t pretend that it’s classy. It’s not.
Can Colby round out our new MV3?
well excuuuuuuuse meeeee
for having a different view of things than you.
Baseball statistics are like a girl in a bikini. They show a lot, but not everything. ~Toby Harrah, 1983
by Dave Pendleton on Jul 20, 2011 5:32 PM EDT up reply actions
It's not that you "have a different view"
There are many people that have different views on this than I do.
It’s the fact that you want to be judge, jury, and executioner when your entire argument is based on a lot of circumstantial evidence, paradoxical thinking, and downright shameful moral grandstanding.
You can have whatever opinion you want. I’m also free to point out all the holes in your logic. That’s the society we live in. If you don’t like it, then either clean up your argument or get out of the room.
Can Colby round out our new MV3?
Has anyone ever read this article?
http://highboskage.com/juiced-ball.shtml
I think it’s clear that there were some big changes in the MLB that happened in a short amount of time, and cause a pretty consistent difference thereafter. Steroids were definitely part of it, but I don’t see how a consistent amount of players all started taking them at the same time, at the same rates, for a decade and a half, and then all stopped (apparently), and only hitters benefited from it.
I’m not sure if this article’s theory is correct or if the arguments are perfect, but they make a compelling case. I don’t think steroids alone is a satisfactory explanation for the offensive environment of the early 90s through 2009. For a variety of reasons, the “steroid debate” as it mostly exists is a pretty crazy witch hunt cum exercise in self-delusional pseudo-logic.
The very symbol, the outward and visible expression of the drive, and push, and rush and struggle of the raging, tearing, booming nineteenth century! -- Mark Twain
I've been referencing this article a lot since you first linked to it.
"I'm gonna throw the nastiest curveball I have ever thrown...if he hits it, I'll tip my cap, but if not we're going to the Series."
--Adam Wainwright on the final pitch of the 2006 NLCS
Coolness
I am kind of surprised that it hasn’t been passed around more (or maybe I just didn’t notice it) since I think it was written in 2009 or so? I can’t recall exactly.
Anyway, I happened upon it by coincidence when somebody in a Beyond the Boxscore comment section linked to it. Or maybe it was a Fangraphs comment section… or Hardball Times. Point is, it was by chance that I found it. More people should be shouting from the rooftops that the hilarious “narrative” to explain everything with steroids is just wacky, and there’s some pretty simple statistical analysis to back this up.
The very symbol, the outward and visible expression of the drive, and push, and rush and struggle of the raging, tearing, booming nineteenth century! -- Mark Twain
I referenced this point above
I’ve read so much research on the offensive explosion during that 15 year period that it’s made my head spin. There are so many other reasons for the offensive gains from that era that just labeling any good offensive player who improved his numbers during that era a “PED user” is just silly. Especially if we don’t reserve that same kind of label for pitchers who improved a lot over that time.
Randy Johnson went from lanky, oft-injured hard thrower to one of the best pitchers in baseball. How do we know that PED’s weren’t involved in helping him to stay healthy enough to throw 220 innings a year? Pedro turned in a couple of the best seasons in MLB history, in a hitters park no less. How do we know he didn’t gain an advantage by using PED’s to stay healthy and add a couple of mph on his fastball? Clemens? Well, the evidence there is pretty damning.
Can Colby round out our new MV3?
Yup
There was just so much going on, and so much had to either have been ignored or kept secret. Now we’re supposed to moralize only about steroids. It’s all such a jumbled mess.
The very symbol, the outward and visible expression of the drive, and push, and rush and struggle of the raging, tearing, booming nineteenth century! -- Mark Twain
who fucking cares? seriously, i'm sick of the PED shit
it wasn’t against the rules of the game so anyone who’s votes against Bonds Big Mac & the rest of them who took PED’s are hypocrites. i don’t give a damn if any player took anything. with all that money at stake & for the chance to play in the bigs i would have to.
Balls
Part of it that really bugs me is that the BBWAA apparently has decided it's up to them to "set things right" or some BS like that
Because the legal angle is to messy to do anything about it, and that’s setting aside the questions of how legally prudent or ethically valid it is to go about it the way they’ve been going about it. So now the BBWAA gets to be the final arbiters of morality by deciding not to vote for the really good players whom they strongly suspect took steroids? What the hell is the point? They’re going to deny some excellent baseball players from getting into the HOF because they “know” those guys did steroids at a time when lots and lots of players probably did them? What about the guys who actually came forward and admitted it and said sorry? What about the “known unknowns” of excellent players who did it, but nobody figured it out? There have to be guys like that too. But they’ll just pat themselves on the back about it anyway.
The very symbol, the outward and visible expression of the drive, and push, and rush and struggle of the raging, tearing, booming nineteenth century! -- Mark Twain
why do the managers and reporters at the heart of the steroid scandal get a pass?
There are some managers whose players routinely come up within the steroid scandal. They seem to avoid the whole issue. Did they never know what was happening in their clubhouse? Did their trainers never know? Did the press?
As far as stimulants go, I remember Will Carroll talking about clubhouses brewing two separate pots of coffee. One for players, one for non-players. The players’ pot was spiked with massive doses of speed. Everyone in the clubhouse—players, coaches, the manager, and the press—knew there were two pots and what the difference was. I don’t remember much press coverage of this
This is now against the rules and is tested for. So it has probably stopped. But while clubhouses were openly brewing pots of coffee spiked with drugs, we’re supposed to believe steroids were kept a big secret from everyone?
This is a cover up with some high profile players conveniently being made into scapegoats by everyone.
yep!
Baseball statistics are like a girl in a bikini. They show a lot, but not everything. ~Toby Harrah, 1983
by Dave Pendleton on Jul 18, 2011 12:13 PM EDT up reply actions
Interesting Article from on drug use by athletes from 1969
This is an article concerned about athletes (including in baseball) using drugs, from 1969:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1082543/index.htm
In it, among other things:
1. The Cardinal team surgeon talks about giving players amphetamines. I’m sure their use is now banned.
2. Dr. Robert Kerlan warns performance enhancing drug use by athletes is likely to become a huge scandal some day.
Amphetamines
Greenies were used quite heavily but a lot of teams. Hank Aaron and Willie Mays are two of the more well known “good guy” admitted greenie users. I don’t say that to besmirch either of their names either. You play the game with what’s available to you and what’s dictated by the culture at the time. Steroids are no more performance enhancing than greenies but it’s telling when players who used greenies get a pass, and in some cases HoF inductions, while steroid users are demonized and ostracized.
"Go crazy, folks, go crazy! It's a home run, and the Cardinals have won the game, by the score of 3 to 2, on a home run by the Wizard! Go crazy!" - Jack Buck (my earliest baseball memories)
https://plus.google.com/u/0/111459762327473828979/posts
by WizardofOz1982 on Jul 19, 2011 8:59 AM EDT up reply actions
Up to a point I take your argument
but we know Mark McGwire used steroids. We don’t know that Tony Gwynn did. I think there is a distinction there.
Still bitching to contact.
We also know....
…that taking androstenedione at the time was not prohibited by MLB and it was not even federally classified as an anabolic steroid in the United States until 2004. I feel McGwire was excoriated for not playing ball , so to speak, at the time and ‘just come clean’. They needed a scapegoat, and he was the biggest one out there apart from Bonds. In my view Big Mac has been shafted and should be in the HOF.
Griebenschmaltz!
I think he should be in the Hall of Fame too.
However he took more than just androstenedione. He admitted to HGH use among other things.
"Go crazy, folks, go crazy! It's a home run, and the Cardinals have won the game, by the score of 3 to 2, on a home run by the Wizard! Go crazy!" - Jack Buck (my earliest baseball memories)
https://plus.google.com/u/0/111459762327473828979/posts
by WizardofOz1982 on Jul 25, 2011 3:20 PM EDT up reply actions
Which, again
was not illegal or against any baseball rules at the time the usage occurred.
There’s also not much proof that steroid use has had any direct correlation to the increased performance of the era in question. Perhaps weight training, better nutrition, smaller ballparks, crappier/thinner pitching, and a hardened baseball were the culprits, not steroids. Perhaps their impact was completely negligible.
There’s also little doubt that other drugs now banned by MLB (amphetamines) were used for decades in Major League Baseball in the clubhouse of every team.
Again, why do we choose to punish a few individuals, especially those who have come forward and been forthright for the sins of players past and present over decades of time when we have little proof that they create any legitimate value at all?
Can Colby round out our new MV3?
this. FWIW, HGH "use" is actually STILL not illegal.
And there is no evidence that banning it from baseball in any way changes the competitive nature of the game.
"Now that they've come out with that great stat, 'innings pitched per inning'-- is there anything they don't have a stat for these days?" -Al Hraboski, 3 Jun 11
the hof is a privately owned entity.
we need to open a rival to cooperstown. let in the modern detrius of our 24 hr news cycle. make it more than the sad puffery that is cooperstown. racist welcomed with open arms but guys doing what it takes to win aren’t? we, the people, are the losers in this post-giamatti purianicalism.
when does RB Fallstrom get inducted to the hall of fame?
google "hall of merit".
"Now that they've come out with that great stat, 'innings pitched per inning'-- is there anything they don't have a stat for these days?" -Al Hraboski, 3 Jun 11
can the whole thing be solved with an asterisk? I could accept that.
Baseball statistics are like a girl in a bikini. They show a lot, but not everything. ~Toby Harrah, 1983
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
- Keeping good company: Albert Pujols becomes fourth-youngest player to hit 450 home runs
