THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

"The world won’t end if we do X” <> “It is affirmatively a good idea to do X”

The voting guidelines spell out that there are “integrity, sportsmanship, and character” considerations in voting for who gets in the hall.  If I’m a voter in 2012, knowing that Ty Cobb got in decades ago via votes from a completely different set of people, does nothing to change my subjective views on the character of Clemens and Bonds.  Two wrongs don’t make a right.

In life, there are many valid and just reasons to defy a set of rules, but “because so-and-so got away with it” doesn’t meet that criteria, in my opinion.

I’m also guessing the world won’t end if they don’t get a plaque.

Just started putting together a ballpark figure on next year’s Bonds/Clemens cruel gruel. 89 BBWAA voters and how they say they will vote in 2012/13. This is all subject to change, of course.

28 - WILL vote for Bonds/Clemens

35 - WILL NOT vote for Bonds/Clemens

26 - UNDECIDED (on their part or mine)

Kennesaw Landis is in the HOF. Landis did more than anyone to keep blacks out of baseball.

Any “moral” high ground the HOF voters may invoke wrt Bonds/Clemens/Bagwell/etc has been completely bulldozed by that nomination (and many others, I might add).

I don’t think it will matter, honestly. People in the future will ask questions, they’ll see how amazing Bonds and Clemens were, and they’ll wonder why they aren’t in the Hall of Fame.

And someone will tell them, and they’ll probably laugh.

I believe Tom has mentioned this before, but the system for determining the severity of the crime is the penalty for a guilty verdict.  This is true in the justice system as well.  Sure, running a red light and murder are both against the rules (and presumably moral failings) but one gets a fine and the other gets 25 to life. 

In baseball, the penalty for steroid use was nothing up until what, 2005?  And now it’s 50-games (and then more for further instances).  This is how we should interpret the degree of sin.  Baseball is telling us that steroid use is worse than a corked bat, worse than scuffing a baseball, but nowhere near as bad as betting on the game. 

Bill James wrote a passage about having rules which are routinely not enforced and the dangers therein.  I believe he was referring to catchers blocking the plate, but the potential for haphazard application of an oft-ignored rule is rife with opportunity for abuse in many areas.  The voting instructions mention character and integrity but up until Mark McGwire came on the ballot, it’s pretty clear the voters had been ignoring it.  Also, it isn’t just illegal drug use that’s the crime - cocaine is far worse for you than any PED these athletes are taking - but the ridiculous perception that what we saw did not in fact, happen.

I don’t much care about integrity, sportsmanship or character when it comes to producing on the baseball field. I certainly don’t believe and nor do I want a specific group of people judging someone on that criteria when there is no way for them to do so consistently. They do not and will not ever know enough about the person to judge them from afar with great accuracy.

Here’s the question I always ask people. Do journalists judge other journalists on these same qualities they’re judging athletes on when they’re voting for the journalists to get into the Hall of Fame? Does anything other than the writer’s contribution to the field or his excellence enter into the decision making process? I don’t know if it does or not, but I have a feeling that it doesn’t. I have a feeling these guys see each other as equals in many ways and understand that they can and will make mistakes. They won’t penalize them for this. They will judge them on their quality of work. They don’t want to be judged by their colleagues so I’m guessing they don’t judge the others when it comes to voting for the HOF. I have just one example: Bill Conlin. The allegations of abuse first surfaced in 2009 and I believe he was inducted into the HOF in 2011.

If the writers can’t even hold themselves to this standard they’re currently holding athletes to, something needs to be done to change the system.

I want a Hall of Fame that represents the great players in the game. All of the people with plaques will be flawed since they’re human. That’s the great part about it. That’s how we can relate to them. They’re as flawed as we are. They make mistakes like all of us do. Most importantly, the great players were a major part of baseball for a long time. Hall of Fame or not, people are always going to remember Bonds as one of the greatest to ever play. His absence only questions the credibility of the Hall of Fame.

To follow the analogy, every American accepts the benefits conferred on us by the sacrifices of the founding fathers, notwithstanding their many moral issues (Franklin fathered a son out of wedlock who ended up a Tory governor of New Jersey; Jefferson I don’t need to describe in detail) and the stain of slavery on the whole enterprise.  No team, and no fan of a team, is giving back games won, or titles won, with the help of steroids.  Managers whose won-lost record was helped by steroids still get hired and some will make the Hall of Fame (how ya doin’, Tony?).  Writers who either willfully suspended disbelief or were complicit are now looking for scapegoats and never look in the mirror.  A Hall of Fame without Barry Bonds’s plaque, but which still displays Barry Bonds memorabilia, is as hypocritical as the writers keeping him out.

Wow 7 posts and no one has touched on the crux of the, “I won’t vote for PED users, but I might vote for Cobb or some other rath scallion,” argument?

Journalists will vote for other journalists who are boozers and womanizers.

Baseball writers will vote for players who were miserable characters.

However…

Some baseball writers will not vote for players who they think may have done something that thet think gave them an unfair (read: against the rules) advantage such that their vaulted statistics may have been affected.

Just as some journalists would not vote for an otherwise great journalist who was accused of or found to have plaguerized one or more pieces of writing (or some such transgression that actually affected the quality of their writing in a potentially significant fashion),

It has nothing to do with character and integrity.  You can compare PED users to other “cheaters” such as ball scuffers or amphetamine users.  Please don’t compare them to people who were miserable persons but who didn’t do anything against the rules of baseball or the rules of society (laws) in order to presumably gain an advantage on the field.  That is why some writers won’t vote for Bonds and Clemens et. al.  Not because they were not of upstanding character and integrity.  Let’s be clear on that.

Note: I have no opinion on whether these guys (admitted, proven, or suspected PED users) should or should not be elected. And I don’t care a hoot about the issue…

Tim Raines got a lot of votes despite being a cocaine user, even during games.

How many guys are in the HOF who have DUI convictions or who beat their wives, or cheated on them.

The Babe and most players at the time violated prohibition.

As far as I am concerned, if MLB they are on the ballot, that means they have passed the character test. If deemed unsavory like Pete Rose was, Bonds, Clemens, etc name would be off the ballot in the same fashion.

Keeping Bonds and Clemens out of the HOF means the HOF should be named the HOI (hall of irrelevance), or perhaps HOC (hall of clean).  The sad thing is a number of players who used PED’s but were lucky enough not to get caught because they did not perform well enough to draw attention to themselves will get in.

#10, that is the point I am trying to make.  Invoking the character clause to deny PED users entrance is disingenuous.

However, denying them entrance based on the fact that their transgression of the rules gave them a significant advantage on the field is not.

“The sad thing is a number of players who used PED’s but were lucky enough not to get caught because they did not perform well enough to draw attention to themselves will get in.”

Isn’t that true of any deceitful or treacherous behavior? You get to reap the rewards if you don’t get caught. How is that ever a reason not to punish people if they get caught? You shouldn’t punish me because lots of other people did what I did and did not get caught and therefore did not get punished?  Is that what you are saying? If not, I don’t understand what that sentence means?

#4, Your comment is totally unsupported.  Landis was not a leader in integrating baseball, he followed the owners (his bosses).  But he certainly was not a leader in keeping baseball segregated.  He trails other HoFers in his malevolent racial influence, certainly Cap
Anson, and Tom Yawkey for starters.  Landis’ opposition to mixed-race barnstorming was not race based.  He was opposed to most barnstorming as it conflicted with the World Series or produced revenue out of the control of the owners.  (Veeck’s account of trying to buy the Phillies is not to be trusted.)

MLB has deemed what is the magnitude of the transgression for:
a. intentionally hitting a batter,
b. intentionally fighting a player,
c. intentionally scuffing a ball,
d. failing a non-PED test,
e. failing a PED test,
f. betting on baseball.

Other than the last one, none of them will get you lifetime banned from the game on a first or second offense.

For the first three, fans often cheer when these things happen, or otherwise revel in it. 

Gaylord Perry wrote a book about how he cheated.

But we as fans, let’s be serious, think it’s a big joke.  We laugh when emery boards are thrown out of pockets.  It’s like “ha!  we finally caught him!”.  Gary Carter’s reaction to Mike Scott’s non-scuffed scuffed-ball is priceless.  We don’t get the same sick in our stomach reaction.  It’s very much in the spirit of “if you ain’t cheating, you ain’t trying”.

And it’s understood that when you get caught, you pay your price, and you get back in the game.  And you get a clean slate.

And PED in football would be similar.  We hope and beg these guys to be as brutal as possible for us, to be our gladiators.  We are not to judge them for entertaining us.

Am I going to not listen to the Beatles because they were high?  I’m not going to watch a Roman Polanski movie?  I’m not going to cheer Ron Leflore (the ballplayer… you kids should look it up)?

Somehow, the moral certitude line is drawn at baseball ballplayers and PED.  Just like that.

The “character clause” is about as intelligent a clause as the 1922 Sherman Act that applies to baseball but not to football, basketball, hockey, or soccer.

Get the BBWAA out of the business of being Holy Writers, and put them back in the business of being baseball writers.

To be accurate, the Sherman Act, per a Supreme Court decision, does not apply to baseball, but does apply to the other sports. 

MGL’s comments assume, as do so many, that we have any clue that PEDs improve baseball performance and by how much and when, and that we know who was using and who was not, and who was facing PED enhanced performance.  Short of shutting down the Hall of Fame eligibility of every player from the day Jose Canseco came up until the advent of drug testing (and even then we don’t know what hasn’t been detected and the time frame is undoubtedly off), you don’t know that you have already included players whose performance was enhanced, or players who sought to enhance their performance and failed, or what you don’t know about other enhancements that were undetected.  As I implied above, the games all still count, the ticket prices have not been refunded, the banners still wave and the stadia were all built using public funds even if the enterprises were in fact questionable.  So why we focus on some unknown number of individual players who may have used things we don’t quite know against players whose performance might also have been enhanced, is beyond me.

And then there’s the greenies . . . .

You shouldn’t punish me because lots of other people did what I did and did not get caught and therefore did not get punished?

This thought goes through my head *every time* I get pulled over for speeding (which is not that often, but still too often). 

However, I never can bring myself to say it to the officer at my window, because it’s a ridiculous and pathetically weak justification for requesting/demanding leniency.

Using PEDS, which by design and intent, improve on0field performance (the main criteria for hall of Fame enshrinement) is very different than founding fathers owning slaves, which was both legal and common practice.

I don;t think that prohibiting users from the HoF is the defined consequence, but I do disagree that it’s analogous to being a racist or an a’hole.

It’s cheating. Seriously, it is. Whether or not MLB tested for it or, it’s still cheating.

Granted there are a whole host of issues that go along with levels of proof, etc.

I suppose the analogy could be used that by owning slaves, Washington, Jefferson, etc attained a status that they would not have achieved “on their own”. But, unlike PEDs, it’s not illegal, nor is it common practice (unless we’re back to the idea that half or more of the players were using PEDs ... which seems reasonable to me).

I think the case can be made that both Clemens and Bonds had “HoF careers” before PEDs (Bonds ~2001 and Clemens before he went to TOR). That’ll be how the writers justify their enshrinement while keeping out lesser player, even though they have far less suspicion or smoke (or unknowing use admissions) of PED use.

Basically, if you’re going to use PEDs, you better be really, really, really good, otherwise there’s a penalty from the HoF. Basically, the same message these guys get from about age 12 on.

Hey look, Ryan Braun gets to keep his MVP.

And hey look again, multiple teams are talking about signing Manny Ramirez. THAT’s how upset owners and players are about it (they’re not). They’ll sign a two-time offender, despite being well up there in age, if he can help the team.

What we have are a bunch of guys wandering through the swamp going “Hey go this way.”, “no this way”, even though few, if any, have any real gauge on which way is north.

I feel like someone should have mentioned Pete Rose by now. And this would raise the question of whether character should count at all.
If not, he clearly should have been in a long time ago.
If so, but only a bit, then perhaps he should go in before others since I feel like gambling is less bad than than PEDs on that front (especially in light of this article I read a whil back about some guy who worked for the HoF and ran a card table at their annual celebratiosn—anyone else remember that story?)

We have countless metrics and more importantly, memories we use to measure these players in our own minds. We know who was great, who was overrated, who we cheered for, and who we booed.

Tell me again why I should care what a few hundred self-important voters think about these same players. I don’t need a certain percentage of them to agree with me in order to legitimize my memories and opinions.

Even if you agree that PED is cheating (but somehow scuffing a ball is not) that warrants exclusion from HOF, do we REALLY want the Holy Writers being the arbiters?  Do we really want “backne” being a criteria they use?  That Bagwell is “suspected” in the same way I suspect all Holy Writers of plagiarism at some point in their lives?  Completely baseless and without merit? 

It’s like these Holy Writers forgot journalism 101.  Don’t make up a story that doesn’t exist.  And yet, that’s exactly what they do when they vote (create news) and exclude Jeff Bagwell.

***

non-illegality of presidents owning slaves:

“I’m saying when the president does it, it’s NOT illegal!”
-- Richard Nixon

@17 - per Tom’s #13 comment - we know that betting on baseball is basically the worst crime one can commit against the game because that’s what the penalties tell us.  Gambling in general should probably be reprimanded as well, but I have no idea if there is a mechanism in place for that. 

I’m not saying I necessarily agree with Rose’s lifetime ban, and I’m pretty sure that ruling doesn’t have to include exclusion from the Hall of Fame either.

#20.  No, gambling has the highest penalty and is separately regarded as the worst moral offense because baseball may cease to be a contest in which each side is trying its best to win when betting is involved.  PEDs and all the forms of cheating mentioned here are efforts to improve the quality of the individuals play, something in general we support.  We are only against steroids because of medical side effects.  (And that would be the only rational reason to make them illegal.) PEDs do not directly cause you to hit more HR.  They (supposedly) allow one to train harder and recover faster than without.  These are good things and they would not be banned except for the side effects.

The Olympics have no problem with changing history later based upon failed drug tests.  High school sports authorities and the NCAA regularly force schools to forfeit at a later date, games won in which an ineligible player appeared.  MLB could have done something like this but chose not to.

Many people have indicated they don’t think that 73 or 70 and 762 are the “real” HR records.  But given the choice of allowing a player who was known to have just flunked a PED test to play in the playoffs and WS the powers that be let J.C. Romero play and had his suspension start at the beginning of the next season.  The first entry in the record books I would remove would not be HRs but would be Philly 2008 World Champions. 

If I felt there was strong evidence that the Holy Writers were blaming MLB and trying to make up for MLB’s errors I would have some sympathy for their attempts to keep PED users out of the HoF.  But I don’t see much evidence of that, (e.g., criticism of allowing Romero to play).  The importance given to certain numbers by those who are generally opposed to truth from numbers, (i.e., anti-sabermetric.), speaks to an unhealthy emotional attachment to things of lesser importance.  (And almost certainly a very misplaced nostalgia.  Anyone who thinks the 1950s were a Golden Age of Baseball is; a) probably from NYC, b) doesn’t understand baseball history.)

Two of the best players in the history of baseball embroiled in their own steroid scandals.

In this, the greatest country in the world, our legal system says you are innocent until proven guilty.

They’ve both lied, and lied, and lied, because they know there’s very little actual, physical evidence against them.

They are bank robbers at the border of Mexico, and the last hurdle they need to jump to be free and clear forever are the BBWAA.

In this country, for better or for worse, people want to see justice done. Me? I’m all for justice. The world isn’t fair - and anything to even the balance just a little bit is fine by me.

So the BBWAA does the only thing that anyone in the world can do to compel Bonds and Clemens to be men and tell the truth - they hold back their vote.

There is a character clause for a reason: To hold people accountable when they act like sociopaths in court rooms. (Not to punish old timey vets from scuffing balls.)

“He… misremembered.”

@#22: And if they came out and told the truth (or whatever the BBWAA assume the truth is) they would get the votes?

i never understood the big deal about steroids. yes its cheating. yes they shouldn’t have done it. but so what? of all the injustices in the world, this is pretty far down on the list, IMHO. the union and the league didn’t test for steroids and they had no clear, explicit punishment for it even if you did get caught. who could say if you were in a similar situation you wouldnt do the same thing? theyre just guys trying to make a living playing a game and entertaining people.

lets say you were a desk job, and someone says, hey, i have some brain pills, do you want some? they arent really legal but no one will test for them so its impossible to get caught. and they also may have some long term negative affects on your health. but then again, they might not. they also may not work, but also they might. and if they do work, you could make an extra 5 million dollars over the next 10 years or so. in that case, who wouldn’t take the brain pills? i’m 99% sure i would.

Again, the whole point is whether we want the Holy Writers to be the last line of defense, the ones who catch anyone who falls between the cracks, or in the case of Bagwell, lump them in with the rest.

The issue is the Holy Writers.

This is just like SOPA where you want to stop copyright infringement, but the people responsible for enacting the law don’t even know how the internet works.

The over-regulation by the Holy Writers and Congress should be a concern.

"So the BBWAA does the only thing that anyone in the world can do to compel Bonds and Clemens to be men and tell the truth - they hold back their vote.”

Please.  There is no way the BBWAA withholding votes could compel Bonds/Clemens to admit anything.  If they were to make public confessions right now, no “holy writer” would change his mind and vote them in.  Quite the contrary, their support would drop a bit, as it has for McGwire the last two years. 

“There is a character clause for a reason: To hold people accountable when they act like sociopaths in court rooms.”

Very ex-post-facto reasoning there.

@23 and 26/Rally

Imagine Bonds and Clemens after 14 years on the ballot, sitting in their living rooms, thinking to themselves either:
A. selfishly: “maybe it’s my only way into the hall”
B. unselfishly: “maybe it’s the right thing to do, to finally tell the truth”

You believe the probability of that outcome is 0%?

But the point isn’t whether or not they’re likely to tell the truth, it’s about justice for lying to the fans of baseball and to America on national TV...over and over and over. It’s some small justice. Call it vindictive if you will, I understand. I’ll call it fair.

Tango/25

I feel the answer is yes, I want the BBWAA to be the last line of defense. Your SOPA analogy is a stretch to me for one reason - the HoF is purely a privilege. The greatest privilege that can be afforded to a retired baseball player. There are no real world repercussions, just egos and honors. SOPA is a hornet’s nest of constitutional and capitalistic implications… I know you meant to compare them qualitatively and not in magnitude, but I don’t think it really holds up.

Just a quick response to the last paragraph of 26

That was unnecessarily dramatic of me… What I meant to convey was that we have a character clause, and this, to me, seems a very applicable time to use it. Lying to federal investigations, grand juries, fans, everyone - on the biggest stage that the sport of baseball couldn’t imagine in its worst nightmares. And they tarnished themselves and the sport by lying. That’s how I feel.

i never understood the big deal about steroids. yes its cheating. yes they shouldn’t have done it. but so what? of all the injustices in the world, this is pretty far down on the list, IMHO.

1. What does worldwide importance have to with anything?

2. It’s cheating, so what?

How lackidasical we are when it involves the profession of someone else.

Of course let someone compete against us use ability-enhancers, and it’s probably not just “no big deal” ... especially when our salary depends on how we compete against them.

who could say if you were in a similar situation you wouldn’t do the same thing?

What any of us “would” do in that situation is irrelevant. I say that as one who is operating under the assumption that I’d choose “unwisely” in many situations.

Just because it’s me doesn’t make it any less wrong, or illegal.

There are “reasons” for everything. That doesn’t make them “excuses”.

They willingly too the chance knowing how it was going to affect their performance (duH0, and then they got caught. They took the chance, it paid off ... then it became shameful. The part I really don;t like is how these big, strong, heroes ran and hid ... and lied and used verbal gymnastics to avoid responsibility. I guess they only like certain types of spotlights.

Still, I don;t agree with the writer’s position. But this idea that PEDs are no big deal is insane. I think we can look at performance during the era and get an indication that they are a big deal, and we should understand why so many athletes risk their careers to take them.

Seriously, look back at all of the guys that accepted all of the praise and accolades and yet avoided the consequences at all costs. I’m not sure I’d spend much effort defending these men.

I don’t agree with e writers at all, but that doesn’t mean I support the players either. Neither group is “right”, IMO.

@#27 Lee: “But the point isn’t whether or not they’re likely to tell the truth, it’s about justice for lying to the fans of baseball and to America on national TV...over and over and over. It’s some small justice. Call it vindictive if you will, I understand. I’ll call it fair.”

I certainly don’t feel as if I am owed anything by steroid users. What justice should I be receiving from them? What lie did Barry Bonds ever tell me?

@#29, CircleChange: “How lackidasical we are when it involves the profession of someone else. Of course let someone compete against us use ability-enhancers, and it’s probably not just “no big deal” ... especially when our salary depends on how we compete against them.”

What steps did the clean players take during this period to eradicate steroids? I don’t recall any. In fact, my memory is the opposite. The union fought against testing. If the clean players didn’t speak up, what responsibility does the average fan have? As has been stated on this blog before, it’s a workplace issue. I sell computer code for a living. If someone in my workplace takes a drug that gives them an advantage in writing code, I don’t expect our customers to speak up about it.

I always come back to the same two issues:

1. Do we want to trust those with not only a conflict of interest (writers reporting on news they create), but who apply the “backne” and “suspect in my head” tests? 

2. Baseball treated differently from the other sports.

As for 1: doing nothing is better than trusting the Holy Writers on any issue.

And for 2: this has nothing to do with anything other than 62 or 73 HR and 756 HR. 

Baseball was revitalized in 1998.  But, let’s kick our soldiers, gladiators to the curb, once they did all the dirty work.  We’ll take it from here, and apply our self-righteousness.

As someone else said, the Olympics will redact their history, take back medals, etc.  MLB doesn’t think it’s that big a deal.  The players obviously didn’t think it’s that big a deal.

#29 - ok then i guess am insane because i still dont see the big deal.

im agreeing with you that it is wrong, but there are different degrees of wrongness. i dont think the response by many writers and fans is merited given the circumstances in which the wrong took place.

with hindsight i can say that it would be much better for everyone now if the people in charge had made different decisions years ago. but they didn’t. and so a bunch of professional athlete entertainers took steroids. and i just can’t make myself care about that. sorry!

Tango/31

That’s the most compelling point in favor of the PED users, to me. The way that it happened, how Baseball rode the homerun-fest-gravytrain to relevance in popular american culture and fatter paychecks for everyone associated with baseball, then turned on those who brought them there - that was surely despicable in its own right.

I’m not sure how to reconcile it with how poorly I feel the players, in particular McGwuire, Bonds and Clemens handled their legal affairs in the national spotlight. There’s certainly grey area to me, and I think I’d rather have the BBWAA wade through that grey area at the expense of possibly getting one wrong, then to ignore the catastrophe and lack of honor by many in the PED camp completely.

Now you care about how they handled their legal affairs outside the baseball field?

Do you care about how players handle their personal issues outside the baseball field?  Cheat, steal, go to jail, lying about ages, etc?

Congress went on a fishing expedition, because Congress can.  I don’t see them do the same for NFL and NHL and NBA players.  What does dealing with Congress have to do with the HOF?

As for Bonds, again, that had nothing to do with baseball.  But, baseball is sexy, and so, once they had the chance to get some press coverage, they went for it.

Congress to, as they love the TV and they know that no one watches C-SPAN, but everyone watches baseball players in Congress.

Please.  All this moral certitude and self-righteousness is beyond belief.  We apply standards to baseball players that we simply don’t apply to other athletes, and other entertainers.

And, for god’s sake, I don’t want Holy Writers applying logic that can only make sense in grade school.

If the clean players didn’t speak up, what responsibility does the average fan have?

Do we know that they didn’t?

Seriously, look at the players that were figurehead users ... Clemens, Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, Ortiz, ARod, Canseco, Palmeiro, etc.

Jose Canseco, the father of Steroids in baseball, wasn’t taken seriously (at the start), but yet owners and managers are going to take the clean players’ perspective that the best hitters are on PEDs, even though no one has 1st-hand knowledge of it.

Do you go to the police and report a murder without seeing someone kill someone else? Or see a murder weapon? Why not?

Canseco claimed to have 1st-hand knowledge and also admitted his own extensive use, and the collective response was “He’s a liar, baseball players don’t use steroids.” Then Caminiti admitted it, then someone else, then someone else. The initial response was that Canseco was making it all up because he was being blackballed by MLB. But, yeah, the owners and managers are going to make a big deal on a report of a clean player that has zero evidence, other than the obvious that we ALL saw (1. Home runs, 2. Muscle increases).

We all understand that Bonds’ trainer went to prison rather than testify, right? And we’re asking why his clean teammates didn’t go to management and report his use? How stupid are we?

It’s not like these guys were having injection sessions in the middle of the locker room.

I look at baseball as a sport, not entertainment. I believe fully in the “I’m better than you and I can prove it” aspect of competition. To me, it’s not WWE where anything goes as long as I get to cheer or see something cool.

It’s just the same discussion over and over.

I just find it hilariously absurd that MLB didn’t believe the guy that spread steroids all over baseball, but they’re going to believe a bunch of clean players reported the obvious .. without evidence.

That’s the most compelling point in favor of the PED users, to me.

Well, and teams are inquiring about Manny Ramirez for 2012.

Ryan Braun will be right back to the big bat for Milwaukee, after 50 games.

I haven’t forgot about washington and his slaves. I’m still pissed off and i’m not voting him into the baseball hall of fame until he comes clean.

@BrianK wrote “What steps did the clean players take during this period to eradicate steroids? I don’t recall any.”

How do we know there were any clean players? LOL.

Seriously, Rick Helling tried to get the union to take action but they ignored him.  Meanwhile, during one of the MLB owners meetings in the late 90’s MLB put on a presentation showing the benefits of steroids on performance.  This was in Torres biography written by Verducci.

It was an open conspiracy, Selig, owners, managers, coaches, sports writers, players and most fans knew what was going on.  It was only when an AP writer broke the Andro story and a few non-baseball writers in SF broke the Balco story and then Congress got involved that everybody got religion about the evils of steroids and covered their collective behinds.  Now Bud Selig and the writers are crusaders against Steroids, LOL.  Hypocrits all.

I remember the story of Manny Alexander and the bat boy from Dorchester, the writers shut that story up and did not follow up on who all the syringes and steroids were for.  Paxton Crawford told a ESPN reporter about how prevalent steroids were with the Red Sox and told of an incident where he spilled a bunch of syringes in the locker room with writers all around, and the Boston writers and players all crucified Crawford who was out of baseball at the time.

Clean players and writers ignorant of what was going on may be as rare as 40 yo virgins, and using steroids may have been far more prevalent than we like to believe.  Yet history is being rewritten, like much of popular history, including that of Washington.

@mglwrote “Isn’t that true of any deceitful or treacherous behavior? You get to reap the rewards if you don’t get caught. How is that ever a reason not to punish people if they get caught? You shouldn’t punish me because lots of other people did what I did and did not get caught and therefore did not get punished?  Is that what you are saying? If not, I don’t understand what that sentence means? “

Given that the amount of steroid users may be as much as 50%, I don’t have a problem with those who used but did not got caught getting in so much as I do the assumption that the only steroid users were those we know about (and did not hit many HR).

I do not think anyone should be denied entry to the HOF if they get on the ballot.  Punishment should be limited to suspensions, fines, jail, whatever, and handed out by MLB/legal authorities, not hypocritical writers.

I agree it’s important to make a distinction between 2% PEDing and 50% PEDing.  It’s like prohibition of alcohol.  Who cares if it was “illegal”.  And who cares if slavery was not illegal.  Who cares if cock-fighting is illegal here but not in the DR.

And why not problem with Gaylord Perry?  Seriously.

I’ve weighed in on this ad nauseam and won’t repeat myself, but I don’t think I’ve made this point before.

Re DavidS/6 and Tango and others:

The fact that MLB has a punishment in place for the transgression by no means precludes another body (and, yes, Tango, the H/Ws are highly problematic as that body in this case, I am making a general point) from passing its own judgment.  This happens all the time in the real world that DavidS goes to for his example: Someone gets drunk and runs a red light and maims a kid; the judicial system determines a punishment.  It would then be unfair and wrong for the judicial system at a future date to impose an additional punishment, as I’m sure we all agree.  But there’s absolutely nothing wrong with the drunk driver’s friends deciding that they no longer want to be friends with him because of what he did (perhaps not even as punishment but just as a result of the brute fact that they no longer want to be his friend).  Wrongdoing (and maybe PED use isn’t wrongdoing, but I’m making an abstract point) has consequences all over the place both within and without codified systems of punishment.  This is so normal and natural that it is unavoidable.  It doesn’t mean that keeping PED users out of the HOF is right, but the argument that there’s another punishment already in place holds absolutely no water.  MLB and the BBWAA/HOF may be related but they are separate entities.

It’s not some other body, and it’s not their friends.

It’s The Holy Writers.  Forget the theoretical.  Deal with the reality that it’s The Holy Writers that are the arbiters.  On that basis alone, nothing is better than them.

And why not problem with Gaylord Perry?

Actually, this WAS a problem for Perry when he was on the ballot.  Perry himself believes that his enshrinement took a couple of extra years because some Holy Writers were put off by his cheating. And other Holy Writers complained about their colleagues who withheld votes for Perry.  It was unfair after all, since we all know Don Drysdale was an admitted head hunter, and Whitey Ford later admitted he used his belt buckle, etc., etc.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1126494/index.htm

Is there some reason why we must give identical weight to every possibly objectionable activity?  Does it have to be 100% tolerance or 0% tolerance?

Must we completely ignore the relative side effects and legality of vaseline vs. steroids?  Are they truly identical, ethically?

Must we completely ignore the magnitude and the results of the cheating?  If we don’t have absolutely perfect information, should that preclude us from making reasonable judgements from the information we do have? 

At least one Holy Writer thought the following was relevant to his vote for Gaylord Perry:

Dave Duncan, who was Perry’s catcher with the Cleveland Indians in 1974, a season in which Perry went 21-13. claims Perry threw only one spitter that year. “He had a great sinker and just kept up the act [his fidgeting on the mound] to make hitters believe he was loading up the ball.” says Duncan. “So they focused on trying to catch him cheating instead of concentrating on how he was pitching them.” Though opponents watched him closely. Perry was caught throwing an illegal pitch only once in his career.

BTW, Perry had a career high ERA+ of 144 in 1974.

@40 - I see your point, but I think such a stance would demand some consistency. 

The bit about the morality clause is really a copout.  How many extra votes would McGwire get if that phrase weren’t there? 5? 10?  I think we can agree it’s not a moral issue.  I half-suspect if only pitchers used and didn’t rewrite the record books in the process, everyone would understand that they needed help recovering. 

How long did it take for people to get over Roger Maris “cheating” by playing 8 extra games?  Quite a while, right? And didn’t Hank Aaron receive death threats?  The bottom line is that the older generation doesn’t like it when the kids best their heroes.  Eventually they come around.  Mark McGwire was my favorite player for a number of years and I hated Barry Bonds for breaking that record.  And while I’m on that subject, I hate him all the more for breaking Henderson’s walk record (my other favorite player).  I’ll probably root against ARod when he gets close to the runs record.  Nevertheless, if I had a ballot, I would put them all in and not think twice.

42/

Okay, I’ll bite: Who else are you suggesting should be deciding?

I can’t imagine you would suggest it should be an automatic statistical computation. That would be pretty guy for reason I can get into if you’re so inclined to suggest it.

Fellow baseball players would be worse—as evidenced by the veteran’s committee selections. They’d be twice as holy.

The all-star game people’s choice hasn’t exactly gone particular great, either. But maybe that’s the best option? Some sort of public vote? If you’re suggesting this, there is still lots to consider, and I’m not sure it’d be any less holy.

So, what’s the alternative?

@45 - how about a baseball trivia contest?  100 questions, anyone can register, and the top 500 scorers get votes.  Let those who have demonstrated the greatest knowledge of the game’s history be entrusted with the honor of keeping the gates.

I see no reason to have the same voters year in and year out and I’m sure there are thousands of qualified, intelligent, and knowledgeable people so you could even mandate that previous winners are ineligible. 

As for computers, I believe any reasonable program will produce far greater results than the BBWAA.  People may be able to see more things and judge context better than computers but in general, they’re going to screw up more than they fix.

Hall of Merit has shown we can do fine, without all the righteousness.  There’s dozens of better ways to do this than Holy Writers.

The HoM is just another group of self-selecting fans of a website. So you’re suggesting another limited class of people be entrusted with the keys? Are you presuming the group of writers/readers you’re allied with would somehow be free of any of the foibles that humans are generally afflicted with in making these sorts of decisions?

I would submit that the BBTF crew, or whatever subset of writers you’d propose is filled with just as much self-righteousness and self-regard with respect to thinking they know what baseball is really about, thinking they know what is important in baseball and thinking they know what should count as value in baseball as the writers you decry. And they haven’t even been gifted the keys to the castle - give them a few years and it’s Animal farm.

i like how the pro football HoF has an upper and lower limit of admittees every year. no less than 4 and no more than 7 go in every year. if you made whoever the selection committee is, be they writers or former players or the fans or whatever, but make them stick to 2-5 players a year, you’d do away with some of the problems. if two players dont get 75% of the votes, then you just take the top two vote getters that year.

do that and mandate making ballots public with explanations/justifications and i think the BWAA process gets better. still not perfect. even if all that happens, the voters could still keep out bonds, macgwire, clemens (actually i’d be fine with that since he is my least favorite player in history, but thats neither here nor there). in which case it’s just a difference of opinions, and while i will feel a little bit bad that people dont agree with me and things happens that i wish wouldn’t, in this case i’d get over it pretty quickly.

Tango/34

“Please.  All this moral certitude and self-righteousness is beyond belief.”

I am trying to assess the situation with as little bias as I possibly can, and I don’t believe it to be self righteousness.

Character transgressions are not created equally. They have magnitude and context. The “steroid scandal” if you were to lump the entire series of events together, would be in the top 3-5 most scrutinized public events in MLB history. Clemens, McGwire and Bonds were the Mt Rushmore of this era. I believe they should be judged on how they conducted themselves as ambassadors of baseball in those situations.

If you, on the other hand, don’t wish to account for those actions, that’s your opinion.

But then I would ask you - in what situations WOULD you apply the character clause?

It is my personal belief that the off-field issues of Clemens, McGwire and Bonds have hurt the game of baseball, and thus, those actions should be weighed accordingly by those voting for the HOF.

Feel free to disagree, but I believe you are showing some bias in this thread against the “Holy Writers”.

Bonds hurt the game?  The same guy that AFTER his leaked testimony, fans turned out in record numbers on the road (and at home) to watch him break the record?  That guy hurt the game?  Fans don’t care.  Fans at home didn’t care, and fans on the road didn’t care.  The only ones who cared are those who can manipulate the media into building their narrative.

***

Sorry, I’m not buying any of it.  You are just making stuff up at this point, with your conclusions.

NOTHING can hurt the game of baseball.  (Insert James Earl Jones quote here.) The game of baseball will survive because it is a beautiful game.

As for hurting MLB, I would think lockouts and strikes hurt MLB far more than PED.  These are all workplace issues, safety issues, policy issues. They have nothing at all to do with the game you watch.

Which would you rather accept: a “clean” sport, but which you will lose one season out of three due to CBA issues.  Or a “dirty” sport (i.e., no PED testing, and no revelations of PED usage), and you get all the baseball you want.

I’ll take 1996-1998, thank you very much.

***

You get caught cheating, breaking the rules, you serve your time, and you get back in the game.

The media turned this into a news story.

Like I said: this only applies to baseball and not football.  People have different standards for football, which is insane.

I’m not biased against Holy Writers.  They’ve earned their reputation.

"But then I would ask you - in what situations WOULD you apply the character clause?”

Jackie Robinson, if he needed it.  Though he didn’t get to play MLB until he was 28 years old, his statistics are good enough to make hime an easy HOFer anyway (similar WAR to Alomar and Sandberg).

Larry Doby.  His statistical record falls a bit short.  He needs it to get in.

If the character clause isn’t going to keep Ty Cobb or Cap Anson out, then I can’t see it ever being used against someone.  Maybe Pete Rose or Joe Jackson, but it’s not any character clause keeping them out, they are simply ruled ineligible and the debate is cut off.

It’s clear we don’t meet eye to eye, but I’m not sure why you so forcefully insist my opinion is wrong.

When you say “they didn’t hurt the game of baseball, and nothing can”, this is your opinion, and I disagree. It’s quite clear they didn’t hurt the bottom line of the game. To me, they damaged the integrity of the game. Like the Black Sox did, like Pete Rose did, like the MLB itself did during the steroid era.

These aren’t monumental transgressions in the world. They are practically nothing, meaningless. But to someone who deeply cares about the game, who takes pride in devoting much of their life to playing, studying, discussing and watching Baseball, I have an emotional investment in who is bestowed the highest honor in our sport. As I’m sure others reading this do, too.

The Hall of Fame is truly an honor and a privilege. If you think I’m wrong because I wish to hold players to a higher standard of character, if you think that’s self righteous, then that’s your opinion.

If Clemens came out tomorrow and showed genuine contrition and humility, and told the truth about his entire career, I would vote for him. And this conclusion the result of processing all of the data points (talent, career, the allegations, his public appearances, etc.) through my personal lens. 

This is not a situation where you can simply apply a formula and arrive at an answer, as much as I believe you’d like it to be. This is a situation where you pass judgement. This is what you want to hear explicitly admitted, right?

Conclusion:

Of course there is enormous grey area when dealing with judgement of character. By definition, inherently, there has to be. I am perfectly fine with the notion that the BBWAA is to pass character judgments on players when voting for the hall, if the alternative is to, for all intents and purposes, remove the character clause from the criteria.

You believe they

I’ll tell you who hurt baseball, the owners who colluded to keep Barry out of the game after 2007.  It is just not credible that the guy with the 169 OPS in 2007 would not have been able to play at an acceptible level in 2008.

It particularly grates on me since teams were willing to give extra chances to players who had both taken steroids, and weren’t anywhere near as good, like Jay Gibbons.

I’m 100% sure Bonds could have been valuable in 2008-2009 as a part time DH.  Or even LF (his defense was bad but no worse than Adam Dunn or Carlos Lee).

How long could he have been a productive player?  Hard to say whether he would have had anything left for 2010-11, or even if he could be looking at playing in 2012.  Probably not likely at current age 47, but if Julio Franco could do it I can’t 100% count Bonds out.

But we’ll never know.  Thanks baseball owners.

"If Clemens came out tomorrow and showed genuine contrition and humility, and told the truth about his entire career, I would vote for him.”

I don’t know if you are sincere about this, but you’re not a voter anyway.  The actual voters have shown, as evidenced by McGwire’s decling vote total, that a confession will make them dig in their heels, give them more reason to deny the vote.

McGwire can probably sympathize with Eddard Stark.  First he’s told if he confesses to treason he will be spared his life and allowed to guard the wall.  So he confesses.  And what does King Joffrey say?  “Ser Ilyn, bring me his head!”

#55 - so what are you saying, that a capricious, bitter, vindictive, over privileged, power abusing brat like King Joffrey would feel right at home in the BBWAA?

also, does that make Tango, Tyrion Lannister?

Tango/42:  In these arguments you engage in rhetorical switching that keeps you from addressing individually the various arguments for taking PED use into consideration when determining the appropriateness of HOF induction.  DavidS/6 and you/13 make the argument that MLB has already determined a punishment for PED use and so it is inappropriate to consider it in HOF discussions under the general principle of the unfairness of double jeopardy.  I make an analogy--with a separate set of facts by definition, as this is how analogies work--to suggest that your argument about the principle is not strong and then you back away from the abstract to an argument based on the specific frailties of the HWs.  The fact that the HWs are a deeply flawed as gatekeepers has no bearing on whether double jeopardy, in the abstract, applies here to rule out considering PED use in determining the appropriateness of HOF induction.

#56, sounds spot on.  I’ll let Tango decide if Tyrion is a good comp, if he watches the show.

I prefer Ned Stark actually.

***

BFD: you are using BBWAA as some idealized gatekeepers, keeping them abstract, and trying to handle the issue.  I’m saying that I don’t want to consider the BBWAA as a proxy for gatekeepers, that the larger issue is BBWAA passing judgement.

And again, why the difference between baseball and football?

And again, why the difference between baseball and football?

Football uses a more exclusive group of Holy Writers, who vote in secret (is that preferable)?

Are you suggesting that football Holy Writers are much more tolerant of PED use than baseball Holy Writers?

What is the evidence to support that?  I have no doubt that there must be steroid users in the football HOF, but which player(s) were actually enshrined in the face of clear evidence of extensive cheating?  (Genuine question.  I’m not aware of any but I could be missing someone).

I believe that there are some would-be marginal candidates—like Lyle Alzado and Mark Gastineau—who never received serious consideration precisely because of their clear-cut ties to steroids.

51/

I think we’d agree that the term “holy” partly refers to substituting ones own personal opinion for actual inquiry of what the general public thinks.

Well, I’m calling you on this, Tango: Use teh google and query “poll steroids baseball”. Over and over you see the public advocating for harsher steroid punishment, including Hall exclusion.

Evidence shows the public does care about character and does care about steroids. A lot.

It’s a narrow segment of the baseball-blogging population that purports to know that enjoyment of baseball is all about quantifiable on-field value and on-field value alone who are not representing the regular fan. That, to me, is Holy.

And here’s your obligatory link:
http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/misc/us090309/Baseball/Eligibility%20for%20Hall%20of%20Fame%20by%20Players%20Using%20Performance%20Enhancing%20Drugs.htm

73% say a professional baseball player who used steroids or other performance-enhancing drugs should not be eligible for the Hall of Fame.

So, that is the evidence that this statement:

Fans don’t care.  Fans at home didn’t care, and fans on the road didn’t care.  The only ones who cared are those who can manipulate the media into building their narrative.

No kidding. I’m tired of hearing how Bonds didn’t hurt baseball.

I went to games in St. Louis and Chicago during the record breaking year and he was boo’d loudly at both places, and StL rarely boos anyone.

In SD that year, fans threw syringes on the field. There were unflattering signs at every park. People were NOT turning out to watch him break the record, they were turning out to root against him. He was MLB’s version of The Iron Shiek.

Fans came out to boo the best player in baseball because he was a know, although unknowingly, cheater. That’s not good for the sport. That’s the kind of stunt McMahon would try and use in the XFL.

I don’t think they came out to watch him break the record, we already saw TWO guys do the same thing a few years earlier, and by the time Bonds was breaking the record the drug-aided cat had burst out of the bag.

Barry Bonds was good for profits, but I wouldn’t say that he was good for baseball. Having your greatest players of an era and major record holders be drug cheats is not a good thing. Not in the olympics, not in MLB, not in any sport.

It’s amazing to me how people seem to blend their sports and their entertainment. I’ll say it again, sports are not the WWE. In sports there is an expectation of “fair play” and “competition”, not just whether it’s “fun to watch”.

I think most fans love to see catchers get plowed, basebrawls (they sure do cheer loudly), and things of that nature ... I wouldn’t say those are good for the game.

------------------------------

Why the difference between the NFL and MLB? IMHO, it’s because people don’t really LOVE football. They just like the entertainment aspect of it. It’s fast, violent, and obvious. In other words, anyone can enjoy it. I say that as a big football fan, but there is so much happening on a football field that the viewer is completely unaware of ... and they’re fine with that.

Baseball fans don’t seem to be the same type of fan. I could be wrong about that, and perhaps the attendance figures show that the PED performances brought out casual fans like crazy, and if we only view the bottom line and say it’s good for baseball.

IMO, there is nothing about anything related to Barry Bonds that is good for baseball. It’s all just one black eye after black eye. There are some that think that any attention is good attention. I’m not one of those.

Not necessarily disagreeing with your longer point but

IMHO, it’s because people don’t really LOVE football.

Wow!  Are you kidding?

I’d bet you Canadians love their hockey more than Americans love their baseball.  I think the top-rated show in Canada was the Olympic finals.

Though, really, Americans love their football more than their baseball.  They come out in droves for football.  I remember back in 1987 or so, when the Tigers and Jays had a finish to remember, and they replayed the 1987 Super Bowl (there was a lockout I guess), and the replay beat out the Tigers-Jays extravaganza.

Tango/59:

I know I’m new, but I had gotten the impression that you strove to keep this space free of name calling.  http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bfd for those of you who didn’t catch his little inversion.  Hats off.  You’re very clever.

I’ll make my point again, and hopefully more clearly, on the off-chance that some non-Tango people care:  I am *definitely* not using BBWAA as any kind of idealized gatekeepers.  I’ve tried to bend over backward to show my agreement (which is why I follow Tango in calling them the Holy Writers) with the claim that the BBWAA qua gatekeepers is hugely problematic.  My entirely separate point was that claiming double jeopardy as a way to argue against considering PED usage in HOF selections, regardless of the gatekeeper, does not hold water.

Wow!  Are you kidding?

People love the entertainment value of football. Like I said, it’s violent, fast, and obvious ... and GREAT to watch on TV.

How many football fans can point to the B-gap?

You don’t have to really understand or love football to enjoy it tremendously. It’s entertainment value is high.

BFD: I don’t know what in Tango/59 has some name-calling aspect to it.  And Urban is blocked at the office.

However, if I unwillingly said something deviously clever, I’ll take credit for it as it being intentional.  On the other hand, if you take something I said in a negative light, then you read me wrong.  It’s win-win!

Tango,

This was probably unintentional on your part, but again you use “B F D” to refer to a poster who calls himself “B D F”.

Apparently “BFD” stands for something offensive.  But I don’t know, or want to know what.  I’m sure urban will be blocked where I work too.

If he’s taking offense, it would be wise to be more careful to get the initials correct.

Rally: ah, thanks for that, I didn’t notice in the least.  BDF certainly doesn’t roll off the tongue, er, keyboard, as cleanly as MGL or other initials I’ve seen.  But, I’ve made a note to remember (it’s in alphabetical order, so that’s easy to remember).

Thanks…

#67 “How many football fans can point to the B-gap?”

im guessing everyone who plays Madden, which is millions of people, to start with. and i wouldnt call football “obvious”. try watching it with someone who’s never seen it played before and ask them if they can tell whats going on. you pretty much have to be passionate to follow the sport beyond just clapping for touchdowns. 

baseball may have a greater proportion of “fanatics” (i mean that in a good way) to casual fans than football, and there are certainly lots of people who follow football simply because its popular. i don’t know exactly how the percentages shake out, but if you don’t know many fanatic football fans (which i find surprising but is not impossible), just look for some blogs. there are heaps of them brimming with fanatics, many of whom never played a down of football in their life.

also i was under the impression that BFG stood for Big Friendly Giant, the classic Roald Dahl children’s book. or i guess it could stand for ‘big deal’ the same way WTF stands for ‘what the’.

I assumed it was intentional given your emphasis on precision and capacity for excoriation of sloppiness as well as my (apparently mistaken) belief that “BFD” is a widely understood eff-bomb sandwich acronym.  But if it wasn’t intentional ... then it wasn’t.

You don’t have to read between the lines with me.  I say what I have to say.  I don’t have the inclination to play games in a medium that is easy to be misunderstood.

All I ask of people is that if there’s something unclear, then give me the benefit of the doubt.  Don’t presume the worst.

@ Ken

Sorry, been down a few days with pneumonia.

Been thinking about this discussion, and I’m pretty much gonna say you’re absolutely right.

Football is way more popular than baseball (we all knew that), and football fans support a whole lot more events (signing day, draft day, etc) than baseball likely would.

I was think along the lines of baseball:boxing as football:mma, but upon more thinking, MMA is both more entertaining and more interesting than boxing. While it’s more obvious, it also has more diversity/styles. So, even though people don;t have to understand a lot about it to enjoy it, a lot of people do understand a lot about it to really enjoy it.

I’m the baseball guy among among football buddies, and I was also considering how much I enjoyed football without coming close to understanding football as much as those guys do. They’re pretty much focused on the line and what players are dictating the action, whereas most fans are looking at the results of the actions and what players receive credit for the plays.

In the end, you’re right. I wanted to be sure I said so.