The Confirmed, the Suspected, and the Hall (and my 1st ever post!)

[Shea Knight]

Hello, folks, I am Shea Knight (a Mets fan, as you may have guessed) a bit of info about me, just for schnicks and giggles, before I get down to it. ;)


I reside in the So. Cal. area, just a couple hours from the Pasedna/LA/Glendale area-

AND I HATE IT! :grouchy

I really, really REALLY want to move back east, hopefull to one city in particular (look at my name- thee guesses where....) ;)

I'm newly graduated from High School. I have a SUPER close group of friends, I mean we literally have lived together at times (tough times and good times alike.) All my friends are in/were in my former HS's drama program- and in my last year there, we won a So. Cal. competition with out play that is basically the theatre equivalent of winning the Pennant for theatre, so yes- THAT was a memorable experience, charter busses and all, months rehearsing and performing, rooming together on the big weekend..... it was GREAT.

My three great wishes in life- to stay close with my friends-that-are-basically-family (we all want to go into theatre/film/tv and live in NY and a couple want to stay i LA), for the Mets to FINALLY win the Series, and to be a talk show host/comedan like David Leterman or Johnny Carson or, my great hero, Groucho Marx.



Thanks- and now on to the players.

This is about the Steroid Era's potential HOF candidates. With the 2003 test names being slowly leaked, let us speculate who should go and who should be barred.

First, those who we KNOW took Steroids:

For me, it's a blanket ban- use Steroids, be barred from the Hall (and if I had my way the game as well- Pete Rose got barred for gambling, which is arguably "less" of a cheating/disgraceful action, though I don't buy that 100%)

So Sosa- ban. McGwire- ban. CLEMENS- BAN (and I'd love that- a nasty fellow to begin with, and a cheater to boot; Ty Cobb was a nasty cuss too, but at least he was no cheater, he'd beat the competiton fair- and THEN AFTERWARD he'd act disgracefully.)

Steroids Proven=banned

And know, the more interesting, circumstancial, "did they?" cases:

-BONDS

I think this is a relatively easy call- there's so much circumstancial evidence, BALCO and the Mitchell Report (I believe...) player testimony, I've never heard ANYONE really seriously defend Bonds and say t the press striaght they DIDN'T think Bonds used.

Barry Bonds may have stolen the "official" HR record from Aaron and Ruth (for now, more on that later)but one honor he won't steal/share with them is the Hall. He will nver get enshrined, and nor should he.

-"PUDGE" RODRIGUEZ

This is a tougher call. Pudge has been named a user by others, and was certainly connected with known users (Canseco named him, for one, and while Canseco may be the Lucifer of baseball players, he is usally on the ball about who used.) And if you look at his stats, he has a HUGE HR spike over three years, from 10-15 regularly to 30-40 in that span. However, he WAS a great defensive catcher as well, and did not have a physique bulge a la Sammy Sosa, an I don't recall him being named by anyone other than Canseco formally (though I may be wrong, I'm sure you'll all correct me if I am) so with Pudge, I have a wait-and-see attitude: there's not enough evidence to formally or informally "convict/label" him a user, and yet still enough to cast a cloud of suspicion........ he's not even retired yet, so there will be at least 5 years to either clear the air or incriminate- as of right now, I'm formally on the fence.

-CHIPPER

I hate the Braves for obvious reasons, but does anyone actually suspect Chipper Jones? No? Neither do I for a second- skinny, great player, fun to watch at times- but I'd lik him 1,000x more if he was in the AL/played fr NY all these years (though I think Wright will eventually be better.) When Chipper retires, he'll have a clear and clean path to the Hall- and rightfully so.

-JETER

See Chipper.

-MADDUX and SMOLTZ

Again, see Chipper.....

-TIM SALMON and TROY GLAUS

Glaus WAS named in the Mitchell Report, and that's enough for ME; for the voters..... I don't think his numbers/prestige is quite enough anyway, and the Mitchell report won't help. He's denied. Salmon was a decent fielder, nothing too spectacular but very solid, a very good baserunner in his prime, and a great average hitter- he was literally only a few hits shy of 3,000 when he retired. The Hall? Well...... there ARE better candidates, and he's definitely a fence sitter, not at all a 1st or maybe even 2nd or 3rd ballot player. But I think he'll have just enough in the end to get elected, and, in any case, the voters may well want to go with the skinny slap-hitting types over the slugging steroid question marks when the time comes. It won't be an easy road, but I say Tim Salmon, rightfully, is an eventual HOF inductee.

-KEN GRIFFEY, JR.

Is this even a serious question? Unless Griffey becomes linked, and there's NO reason to suspect him (big numbers, but he started off that way, declined naturally as opposed to a freak late career surge a la Bonds, and always had a skinny, non-'roided physique) he's an inductee, a first ballot inductee, and easily one of the best and brightest spots of this past era, and in the history of the game overall.

-JASON KENDALL

Kendall looked like a possible HOF candidate early in his career, posting nice BA and GREAT defensive numbers for the lowly Pirates, but injuries and a journeyman second half to his career have diminished his image. No reason at all to consider steroids, and I think that he has a shot- not any time soon, but I think Jason Kendall looks like a VERY good Veteran's Committee choice, and I see that possibility happening far down the line.

-GAGNE

Where have you gone, Eric Gagne? Ever since those few record-setting years with the Dodgers you've been traded around, injured, and named in the Mitchell Report. A reliever.... even with relievers earning respect now, Gagne has no chance at the Hall, and rightfully so.

-RAINES

A growing movement is calling for his enshrinement, and, suing the same logic that I applied to calling for Tim Salmon, I agree- Tim Raines, finally, makes it to Cooperstown.

-STRAWBERRY and GOODEN

These may look like odd selections, but I AM a Mets fan, after all. ;) Strawberry and Gooden were both pegged (and rightfully so) as future HOFers early in their careers....... and then along came the drugs and injuries and wives and second wives and arrests and a MESS. At heart, I think both guys character wise are OK- not anges, but not little "devils" like Canseco or Bonds. They were young stars in NYC when they made their lives living hells and royally screwed them up. In later years they've recovered and repented, to varying degrees; Gooden certainly seems more of a changed man than Strawberry, who has taken steps and whom I like as a player but is still hard to judge as a man. So why bring up these two? Because they are arguably the two greatest stars of the 1980's to never be considered; both have long sincce flamed out as a possibility on the regular ballot. However, the Veteran's Committee is still opn, and being increasingly populated by players they knew and played against.... and after all this steroid talk, baseball might just bee in the mood to look at a couple of guys who were no angels, but at least never cheated. Statistically and characterwise, it does not happen for Strawberry- he doesn't have the stats, and still seems to be a bit too unhumbled for my taste. Gooden flamed out after a great 5-6 years, which are statistically in the ballpark of Koufax. He then had 5 years where he was just a non-factor, and five of mediocre to good play. Do 5 years of near (and in some categories exceeding) Koufax-level play and a few decent years, coupled with a Cy Young or and two rings build a good enough case for the Vets, especially after Gooden's made a turnaround and has lived the last few years of his life clean, repentent for what he did and teaching others not to mak those mistakes? I'd vote for him, and I'd like to see Dr. K make the HOF on a VEt. Committee induction; there's an uphill battle to be fought, however, and it may be/likely is too little, too late. Still, it is talked about occaisonally- 20-20 years from now, who knows what could happen....

-CANSECO

The day he makes it is the day George W. Bush makes it to Mt. Rushmore.

-MANNY and SHEFFIELD

Both arrogant, both players kids should not look to as role models- both linked to steroids and both in the 500 club. These two have really alienated themselves from the media and a lot of fans, so look for both to be barred for a LONG time, if not forever.

-PIAZZA

AH, Mighty Mike- my favorite player and childhood hero. A player who, yes had backne and was no stick like Chipper, and yet not Bulge Boy like Sosa or McGwire or Bonds. Numbers were consistenty high, no spikes in production- and declined as he got older, just like all the honest and clean greats. Three things stand in Piazza's way- the backne/fact he was no pixe, his defensive play, and Pearlman's section on him in "The Rocket That Fell to Earth" naming him a user through.... Piazza's alleged off-the-record admission to reporters and an imortal player named Reggie Jefferson (WHO?) naming him. Jefferson- a player who's a mere footnote and forgotten average at best player (who plyed in the AL, so how he would have really been exposed to Piazza that much is anyone's guess) so let's orget him and focus on the other bits. Telling reporters off the record? Possibly damning, but the NY media always loved Piazza for a reason- think about it. If YOU were clean, and played in te tabloid capitol of the US (TWO of them, LA and NY) would you want the press to hound you over steroid suspicion? An easy way to get them off your back- "tell them" off the record and thus become their buddy. The backne is a steroid symptom, but also is a symptom of other things as well, and lest we forget Piazza never showed any 'roid rage (ie never threw a bat shaft at anyone.) So steroid suspicions, while admittedly there, I think are negligible enough that, given Mike's statistical and physical consistency, can be given the benefit of the doubt (undoubtedly some of you will disagree, but that's why this is a forum, after all.) That leaves the question of defensive play- Piazza had a bad arm for a catcher, I have no trouble admitting that, even with him being my kid idol. But he handled pitchers brilliantly, as journeymen and decent-but-not-All Stars like Orel Hershiser and Al Leiter had some of their best seasons with Piazza calling the pitches and handling them on the mound. Offensively, there's no catcher who's better; Bench and Berra rival him, and admittedly probably were better overall catchers, but offensively, through stats and in the clutch (plenty of postseson HRs and key hits, and 2 HRS in 5 WS games, and a key hit in the Mets' only win of that WS) Piazza is king of catcers and, barring any stunning steroid revelation (he was actually injured for most of 2003, the year A-Rod and Sosa and 102 other players tested positve, so chances are even if he used, which I still doubt, he wouldn't show up) Piazza is a first ballot HOFer in 2013, probably, and hopefully, with a Mets cap on his plaque.

-BIGGIO and KENT

Two scrappy 2nd basemen; Biggio was better defensively and Jeff Kent had the edge on offense, but both basically of the same mold and both relatively free of steroid suspicion, and, come 2013, I think we'll see Biggio become the first Astro in the Hall, and in a few years after that Kent add another Giant plaque to Cooperstown.

OK, I think that's enough to start with. ;)

Comments?

[Cougar]

Tim Salmon retired in 2006 with 1674 hits.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/s/salmoti01.shtml

That's not just a few shy of 3000...it's about 44% shy.

I think there was a typo somewhere in your Baseball Encyclopedia.

Otherwise, very good first post...welcome to the site.

[Brad Harris]

George Bernard Shaw was right; youth is wasted on the young. But be that as it may, it's great to see another young pup join the site. Particularly one with so much enthusiasm for our favorite pet forum. Personally, I'm thrilled anyone under 30 has even heard of the greatest comedian in American history, much less is familiar with him. I have only two words to say to you, Shea Knight: Hail Freedonia!

Addressing the larger subject of your post...

The voters have already made clear - at least for the forseeable future - that any admitted or proven PED user isn't getting 75% of the vote. At present, I believe, this now covers Bonds, Caminiti, Canseco, Clemens, Gagne, Giambi, Glaus, McGwire, Palmeiro, Ramirez, Rodriguez, Sheffield, Sosa and Tejada.

While it remains to be seen whether the Shoo-in-Without-Steroids caucus is enough to push Bonds or Clemens over the edge in a couple of years, it's questionable whether or not attitudes will remain as hardened towards these individuals by the time Alex Rodriguez hits the ballot. One hopes that the Not-In-My-Lifetime voters soften their approach by that time; else the Hall will virtually exclude a whole gener be excluding an entire generation of all-time greats.

As for the other names you mentioned:

Ivan Rodriguez - Accused though not largely suspected; barring him moving into the above group, however, he's a shoo-in for election.

Mike Piazza - Also accused and also not suspected by the public at-large; also a shoo-in barring more revelations coming out.

Chipper Jones - Never heard his name come up in these discussions before. Shoo-in.

Derek Jeter - See "Chipper Jones".

Greg Maddux - See "Derek Jeter".

Craig Biggio - General public tends to not look at "small ball" guys as potential roiders. 3,000 hits says Hall of Fame barring scandalous revelations between now and his first ballot election.

Jeff Kent - He did it ugly and it might take a few ballots for the voters to rally a consensus, but he's accomplished enough to merit induction. Hard to see the BBWAA not putting him in, barring (of course) revelations of PED usage.

John Smoltz - Never been too big on the "combined" candidacy, but he's actually got a better case than Eckersley, IMHO and he's just surpassed 3,000 strikeouts; prolly the last to do so for quite a while. Shoo-in.

Ken Griffey Jr. - I've always been a little curious why his name doesn't pop up in PED discussions more often considering the way his body "suddenly" broke down mid-career. Nevertheless, like I-Rod, he's a shoo-in so long as he didn't fail one of those "anonymous" tests.

Tim Salmon - Don't recall him mentioned in these PED discussions, but then again that's because he's no closer to election than Ross Grimsley is. Might garner a few votes his first time out but almost certainly a one-and-done candidate when his name is called.

Jason Kendall - Tim Salmon, but with a better case.

Tim Raines - Best 80's superstar not in the Hall. Extremely deserving. Questionable whether or not he'll be elected. Has nothing to do with steroids scandals.

Darryl Strawberry and Dwight Gooden - Two very talented, very troubled players who were briefly superstars of the game. Neither deserve election. Neither's case has anything to do with steroids.

Hard to tell someone's a Met fan, huh? ;)

[Ace Venom]

The National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum only considers those permanently ineligible for election if they have been banned by Major League Baseball. Given that none of these people were banned for steroids, they remain eligible for election.

[SavoyBG]

for the Mets to FINALLY win the Series


They have already, twice.

[Brad Harris]

The National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum only considers those permanently ineligible for election if they have been banned by Major League Baseball. Given that none of these people were banned for steroids, they remain eligible for election.

I think our young friend is aware of that, but feels strongly that PED usage ought to automatically "disqualify" a candidate under the character clause. Much as I disagree with that approach, it certainly appears to at least have a plurality of support among fans in general.

[Captain Cold Nose]

They have already, twice.

Not in his lifetime. History is great, but witnessing it is greater.

[Brad Harris]

Not in his lifetime. History is great, but witnessing it is greater.
Truer words were never spoken. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtlLX3DUrik)

[Shea Knight]

They have already, twice.

And the Yankees have won 26, the Dodgers 5 in LA, one in Brooklyn, the Cardinals are almost like a NL version of the Yanks w/ 13 I believe, and then you have the dynastis that people always talk about, the 70's A's and the Big Red Machine and Willie Stargell as "Pops" for the Pirates.......

Twice is not all that much (unless you're a Cubs fan, in which case twice in the laste 100 years would hae been heavenly I'm sure...... ;)

Anyway, I want Wright and Beltran and the rest to win like THAT, or at least pull off another typical Mets storybook year- 1969's Miracle Mets and the 1986 Mets (who I'd argue were the best team of the 1980's to win the Series, though I'm sure some will disagree and I'm seeing it at least partially through blue and orange-colored lenses.)

I loved Piazza, and really do have some good memories from those years, but a WS win, and not just a win but a dramatic one like '69 or '86 that makes the wait worth it, or a strig o WS wins is what I want (that and for Piazza to go into the Hall as a Met- does anyone seriously disagree with that here?)



Back to the HOF cases.....

Note on Tim Salmon- Just looked him up and it was HRs that he's one short of a 3-milestone at 299. :p Cpnfused that as hits and 2,999 obviously- and that's not the case. I still think he will get more attention than a one-and-off-the-ballot deal, but maybe he won't get in after all. I think he's at least as deserving as a few Veteran's Committee inductions (newly inducted Joe ordon comes to mnd- he has a LOWER BA and HR total than Salmon and got in, am I missing something w/ him, like great defense I don't know about?)

Moving on.....

I still think Gooden SHOULD get more HOF consieration than he has gotten. Those were not just a few years of superstardom- those WERE Koufax-like years, and he did win a ring during those years on a team he plaed an intircal part of. He's deflated his head, and I think after this past age of people cheating by taking 'roids (more on that in a second) that someon like Gooden should be viewed more seriously as a HOF candidate. If others with lesser stats have gotten in via the Veteran's Com. then why not Dr. K?

Responding to whoever said it up there, yes, I view steroid users and the Hall with the hard-line stance of "not in my lifetime" (and as you all can tell from my youth, hopfully a LONG time before "my time" ends.) If you induct then just to fill a generation gap, how special does the Hall become? And, in any case, the Hall of Fame inductees in a way represent their eras, from the First Class to the first wave of integrated players as well as other greats from the 40's-60's, to the wilder days of free agency and more "verbal" players in the 70's and 80's. If the 90's and early 00's are under-represented, it'll be because that is when baseball was under-repesented in the public eye, dying and sadly startin to fade; now I believe that's thankfully reversing, but a huge reason why is because people now see the cheaters being caught and punished, and can almost begin to once again believe totally and unquestioningly what they see (or at least they can do so more than 10 years ago.)

Players that were clean and make it, like Maddux, Smoltz, Chipper, Piazza (I believe, and REALLY hope) Biggio and the rest will shine though as examples of great men who did not take the forbidden fruit when so tempted, who played great on their own in an era of phony greatness.

By the way, I'd always thought there was moe suspicion about Pudge- no? Though he was named........ if not then yes, induct him straightaway (though that three-year spike still looks fishy.........)

Who else are we missing from the era?

Bagwell?
Posada- not a user that I know of, does he get in on talent, is there enough?
PITCHERS- who here do you suspect?

And this was the first time I've been the "young one" in a group lol I'm at the older end of my theatre friends, a coupleare 18 or over but most are 16 or 17 or just barely turning legal. They're not big sports people overall, but baseball they'll follow casually, most of them, and my best couple friends like the Red Sox and a couple, to my dismay, like the Dodgers :/

And to end on a good note:

"One morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas- how he got in my pajamas I don't know." An inspiration to Jewish comedians like me everywhere :p

[Brad Harris]

Your post is entirely irrelephant. ;)

Guess I know what I'm watching this weekend now. :laugh

[Francoeurstein]

Your post is entirely irrelephant. ;)

Guess I know what I'm watching this weekend now. :laugh

?:confused:

[willshad]

I think the problem with 'blanket' bans is that there are different levels of suspicion for different players. Sure, it's easy to say 'Bonds, Sosa, Palmeiro and Giambi are out', but what about the guys who we think MIGHT have used, but there's no real evidence? Guys like Pudge, Bagwell, Thome, E, Martinez, Kent, Sheffield, Pujols, and others are all at varying levels of suspicion. We cannot keep ALL of them out, and yet it is almost a guarantee that some if not most of them used PEDs.

Oh and Piazza goes in the hall as a Dodger. Im a Mets fan and my lingering impression of him as a MET is a guy who was overpaid and always injured, while batting around .260 every year. On the Dodgers he hit like hell every year.

[Los Bravos]

-CHIPPER

I hate the Braves for obvious reasons, but does anyone actually suspect Chipper Jones? No? Neither do I for a second- skinny, great player, fun to watch at times- but I'd lik him 1,000x more if he was in the AL/played fr NY all these years (though I think Wright will eventually be better.) When Chipper retires, he'll have a clear and clean path to the Hall- and rightfully so.


-MADDUX and SMOLTZ

Again, see Chipper.....

-CANSECO

The day he makes it is the day George W. Bush makes it to Mt. Rushmore.

Comments?You are, officially, my second favorite Mets fan.

And I love Doc Gooden.

[redban]

-"PUDGE" RODRIGUEZ

This is a tougher call. Pudge has been named a user by others, and was certainly connected with known users (Canseco named him, for one, and while Canseco may be the Lucifer of baseball players, he is usally on the ball about who used.) And if you look at his stats, he has a HUGE HR spike over three years, from 10-15 regularly to 30-40 in that span. However, he WAS a great defensive catcher as well, and did not have a physique bulge a la Sammy Sosa, an I don't recall him being named by anyone other than Canseco formally (though I may be wrong, I'm sure you'll all correct me if I am) so with Pudge, I have a wait-and-see attitude: there's not enough evidence to formally or informally "convict/label" him a user, and yet still enough to cast a cloud of suspicion........ he's not even retired yet, so there will be at least 5 years to either clear the air or incriminate- as of right now, I'm formally on the fence.


I recall one year, I think 03' or 04' when steroid testing began, Pudge showed up to spring training 25 lbs lighter.

[Shea Knight]

?:confused:


I believe that to be another Groucho reference- from his famous "Captain Spaulding's Adventures in Africa" monologue. :)

Anyway.....

I hold out the hope that SOME players were clean. As for varying levels, that is true, but technically "cheaters" have gotten in the Hall before (corked bats and pine tar, George Brett comes to mind) and that really is alright in that instance.

Take George Brett- do a coupl cases of too much pine tar, technically considered cheating, disqualify him seriously? Or Gaylord Perry, who was PROUD of his cheating techniques (throwing the spitball once it became illegal, shaving the ball, making it rough intentionally to alter its spin) does he belong east of the Hall?

Likewise, if it is the cas of someone like Jeff ent or Pudge or Piazza, were the evidence is too negligible to "nail" te player as a cheater, and the upside to the player during his career (ie Pudge as generally considered either equal to or exceeding Bench as a defensive catchr extraordinaire, or Piazza, who lifted the Mets from obscurity to greatness for a good few seasons, while lifting the entire city of New York to its feet with suh Herculean feats of the heart as hitting the HR thatwon the first post 9/11 baseball game for the city of NY, while being the greatest hitting catcher of all time) then I say give the player the benefit of the doubt and allow them in.

If, however, he player is KNOWN to have taken steroids and there is a great amount of evidence to suggest the 'roids were the sole cause or driving cause to what made that player HOF-worthy stat-wise (ie Sosa's now revealed PED usage during one of his best seasons, and the fact he went from stick to muscle man and from a 15-20 HR guy to hitting 60 HRs or more in three years of his career, or Bonds, who likewise put on the pounds, saw his production increase, and increase at the tailend of his career when players decline, and BALCO ad the Mitchell Report and on and on) then I say bar the player from the Hall.

So bar Canseco, Bonds, Sosa, McGwire, Palmeiro, A-Rod (in my opinion) and then even still you have plenty of HOF players to induct from the era who are clean/"probably" clean

-Pudge
-Piazza
-Biggio
-Kent
-Maddux
-Smoltz
-Randy Johnson
-Curt Schilling
-Pedro Martinez (it will be a GREAT class for pitchers, since the sluggers will be under so much scrutiny) ;)

And, again..........

I say "yay" for Dr. K. :)



Alright, let's take the case in on ourselves. Say we are the HOF electors for the Hall in 2017 or so, when many of the PED usage will be exposed, if the current pace of exposure keeps up.

Pick the 7 from the list that you think are STEROID FREE and deserve the Hall.

My picks (and I know this isn't how the Hall does it- just play along lol):

-Maddux
-Radny Johnson
-Pudge
-Piazza
-Biggio
-Schilling
-Ken Griffey, Jr.

And for the Veteran's Committee: Tim Raines and Doc Gooden ;)

[STLCards2]

I believe that to be another Groucho reference- from his famous "Captain Spaulding's Adventures in Africa" monologue. :)

Anyway.....

I hold out the hope that SOME players were clean. As for varying levels, that is true, but technically "cheaters" have gotten in the Hall before (corked bats and pine tar, George Brett comes to mind) and that really is alright in that instance.

Take George Brett- do a coupl cases of too much pine tar, technically considered cheating, disqualify him seriously? Or Gaylord Perry, who was PROUD of his cheating techniques (throwing the spitball once it became illegal, shaving the ball, making it rough intentionally to alter its spin) does he belong east of the Hall?

Likewise, if it is the cas of someone like Jeff ent or Pudge or Piazza, were the evidence is too negligible to "nail" te player as a cheater, and the upside to the player during his career (ie Pudge as generally considered either equal to or exceeding Bench as a defensive catchr extraordinaire, or Piazza, who lifted the Mets from obscurity to greatness for a good few seasons, while lifting the entire city of New York to its feet with suh Herculean feats of the heart as hitting the HR thatwon the first post 9/11 baseball game for the city of NY, while being the greatest hitting catcher of all time) then I say give the player the benefit of the doubt and allow them in.

If, however, he player is KNOWN to have taken steroids and there is a great amount of evidence to suggest the 'roids were the sole cause or driving cause to what made that player HOF-worthy stat-wise (ie Sosa's now revealed PED usage during one of his best seasons, and the fact he went from stick to muscle man and from a 15-20 HR guy to hitting 60 HRs or more in three years of his career, or Bonds, who likewise put on the pounds, saw his production increase, and increase at the tailend of his career when players decline, and BALCO ad the Mitchell Report and on and on) then I say bar the player from the Hall.

So bar Canseco, Bonds, Sosa, McGwire, Palmeiro, A-Rod (in my opinion) and then even still you have plenty of HOF players to induct from the era who are clean/"probably" clean

-Pudge
-Piazza
-Biggio
-Kent
-Maddux
-Smoltz
-Randy Johnson
-Curt Schilling
-Pedro Martinez (it will be a GREAT class for pitchers, since the sluggers will be under so much scrutiny) ;)

And, again..........

I say "yay" for Dr. K. :)



Alright, let's take the case in on ourselves. Say we are the HOF electors for the Hall in 2017 or so, when many of the PED usage will be exposed, if the current pace of exposure keeps up.

Pick the 7 from the list that you think are STEROID FREE and deserve the Hall.

My picks (and I know this isn't how the Hall does it- just play along lol):

-Maddux
-Radny Johnson
-Pudge
-Piazza
-Biggio
-Schilling
-Ken Griffey, Jr.

And for the Veteran's Committee: Tim Raines and Doc Gooden ;)

No mention of Glavine at all? Let me guess, you hated him when he shut down the Mets for 15 years (loved him from 2004-most of 2007) when he was a well-above average pitcher and won his 300th game, then hated him immensely when he had that horrific performance against Florida. Of course the memories of that game personally overwhelm the facts of the first 20.9 seasons of his career. :happy:

[jalbright]

When it comes to Gooden, here's an exchange in the thread dedicated to his case (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=18743):

What other pitcher has a career like Gooden? What other pitcher came up at 19 and 20, had a few very, very good seasons and one that may be the best ever, and then the rest of their career wasn't all that much. I can't really think of any other pitchers like that. A few others may have had one great season and only one or two other ones, but none have the great season nearly as great as Gooden's was.

You're putting too many qualifiers on it. However, there are a number of pitchers who had one or two dominant years and wound up with careers which one might argue compare to Gooden. Let's start with guys not in the Hall and not active and have at least had a few years on the BBWAA ballot. For the big season, let's require that the guy was the best pitcher in his league in a year (after 1900) by at least five win shares (Gooden won by six in 1985) and beat Gooden's career win shares (187). Guys who meet those criteria are Al Orth (big year 1906, 243 win shares), Dolf Luque (1923, 241 win shares, none of which counts his Cuban play), George Uhle (1926, 231 win shares), Lon Warneke (1931, 220 win shares), Wes Ferrell (1935, 233 win shares), Bucky Walters (1938, 251 win shares) and Bret Saberhagen (1989, 193 win shares). If Gooden gets in, all these guys have a) essentially the same case and b) more career win shares--so shouldn't they all go, too? Even if Gooden's one year is much better than all these guys' big years, with the exception of Saberhagen, they all have him by at least 33 career win shares to compensate. Maybe some deserve it, maybe not, but if the line is below Gooden, I think it's tough to exclude these guys--and I don't want to put all of them in.

[Shea Knight]

When it comes to Gooden, here's an exchange in the thread dedicated to his case (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=18743):



You're putting too many qualifiers on it. However, there are a number of pitchers who had one or two dominant years and wound up with careers which one might argue compare to Gooden. Let's start with guys not in the Hall and not active and have at least had a few years on the BBWAA ballot. For the big season, let's require that the guy was the best pitcher in his league in a year (after 1900) by at least five win shares (Gooden won by six in 1985) and beat Gooden's career win shares (187). Guys who meet those criteria are Al Orth (big year 1906, 243 win shares), Dolf Luque (1923, 241 win shares, none of which counts his Cuban play), George Uhle (1926, 231 win shares), Lon Warneke (1931, 220 win shares), Wes Ferrell (1935, 233 win shares), Bucky Walters (1938, 251 win shares) and Bret Saberhagen (1989, 193 win shares). If Gooden gets in, all these guys have a) essentially the same case and b) more career win shares--so shouldn't they all go, too? Even if Gooden's one year is much better than all these guys' big years, with the exception of Saberhagen, they all have him by at least 33 career win shares to compensate. Maybe some deserve it, maybe not, but if the line is below Gooden, I think it's tough to exclude these guys--and I don't want to put all of them in.

The difference between Gooden and those other pitchers is that while they may have approached him statistically, Gooden alone in that group truly dominated the league, was THE premier pitcher in at least te NL, if not all of baseball- and that is a rather undisputable fact.

The Hall is about more than just numbers- it's also about the legacy of the player. Gooden's legacy is one of the most intriguing pitching-wise of all time: from 1985-1991 he was always oneof te best pitchrs in the league and putting up amazing, phenomenal numbers and winning numerous awards and a ring on a team that, like, him was phenonenal and was capable of so much more and yet fell apart due to off-the-field trouble. From 1992-1996 he disappeared largely, with injuries, losing records, arrests, drug issues, and general self-destruction. And finally, from 1997-2000 he re-invented himelf as a long reliever/4th-5th starter that was a key part of the Yankees '96-97 and 2000 playoff pitching staffs where he served in a sort of Rollie Fingers fireman role, and wore the mantle well- not being his old 1980's dominating self and consistently throwing for K's, but ratera consistent out getter who nearly always got his man, and during that time Gooden began to re-invent himself from a lifestyle point of view, eventually with his taking he initiative, entering rehab on his own, and cleaning up once and for all while while spreading the word to others about the daners of drug abuse.

So- 6 years of greatness that have not often been emulated statistically and rarely if ever in a persona-mystique way: just as Koufax was "THE" pitcher in the early to mid 1960's and Walter Johnson, though beig great throughout his career, was "THE" pitcher in the early-mid 1920's (both eras that are usully thought to be more pitching-friendly than the 1980's-90's) Gooden was "THE" pitcher in the mid-to-late 1980's, the dawn of the Un-Natural Home Run and The Steroid Era.

Add to those 6 years of true and utter dominance the last 4 years of his career where he was a effective reliever and sometime starter, cutting out the 5 "lost" years to injuries and drugs, and you have a 10-year career with 6 years of HOF worthy greatness, and 4 years of good play, and 2-3 rings (I forget if he got one for the Yankees in the 1990's, but I know he got one in 2000 with them, and then of course there's the 1986 Mets.)

That legacy, with 6 years of greatness, 4 years of goodness, numerous awards in those 6 years, and a K count of 2,293, just 10 less than HOF Juan Marichal, just 30 less than Early Wynn, 50 less than Robin Roberts- and more than HOFers Lefty Grove, Eddie Plank, Jim Palmer, Grover Cleveland Alexander, Catfish Hunter, or Whitey Ford, not counting other notables sch as Tommy John, Vida Blue, Orel Hershiser and possible future HOFer David Wells (what do you guys think about HIM, also- HOFer?)

Gooden is not eligible via ballot anymore; he can only get in on the Veteran's Commitee, and is eligible in 2021, more than a decade from now.


Does Gooden's career warrant induction into the Hall on a ballot? No.

But, especially looking at some of the players the Veteran's Committee lets in, is he worthy of induction via the Veteran's Committee in 11 years, especially after how much he's cleaned up?

In my opinion, yes.


Do you agree with that assessment?


And to who mentioned Tom Glavine:

I din;t include him on my list of the first 7 clean/probably cean players from te Steroid Era I'd induct because:

-Barring any steroid reveltions, the 7 I picked (with the exception of Kent) are all slam-dunks by themselves: Piazza, Pudge, Biggio, Schilling, Maddux, and The Big Unit, so I really thik that'd be a packed "class" already, nd those 6 you can't say are less deserving than Glavine, and most if not all of them are bigger names.

-Glavine worked on a staff, and is a HOFer, but also shares some of his glory with Maddux and Smoltz; all three will get in, but not all at once. Maddux clearly is the first to get in, with the most storied career and arguably most continued success (tough all three have really been great for what seems like 15 or more years now.) If it were up to me, actually, Smoltz would get in before or at the same time as Glavine, due to he fact he succeeded as both a starter and reliever/closer.

-Look at the other pitchers that are on this list: Maddux, Smoltz, Schilling, Randy Johnson, and Pedro Martinez. That's a VERY saturated list of great pitchers- not all can get in on the first ballot. Pedro had a tremendous peak but then did falter for a good few years; I'd have him go in last, and I think he will. But then look at the others facing Glavine. Maddux- the ACE of the Atlanta staff and now some are entering him in the "Top 10 Greatest" discussions. Smoltz- brilliant as both a starter AND a reliever, Denni Eckersley except in my opinion even better, as he fared better as a starter than Eck. Schilling- great years with a great reputation for nasty stuff, and not to mention the tail-end of his career has one of the greatest postseason stories ever, the pitching with the bloody sock in New York to help the 2004 Red Sox come back from 3-0 in the Series to defeat the Yankees for the Pennant. Randy Johnson- 2nd all-time in K's, and less than 100 behind Ryan; if he can somehow keep pitchin a couple more years or have a monster year this year, he could become the new K King. Those are 4 great players and stories that very well could, and more than likely at least Maddux, Schilling, and The Big Unit will, go into the Hall ahead of Glavine.

-Glavine was great- but what's his calling card? I just mentioned the other things about the other 5 HOF pitchers, and that was off the top of my head. Glavine...... all that pops to mind is Braves, 300 Winner, HOF. As Maddux and Randy already have 300 and a coupe other things on their resume, thy definitely go first. Schilling I can't remember if he has 300, but it must be at least reasonably close, and with his ERA and legacy, heightened all the more by the great 2004 heroics, he has s stronger appeal, adn I think will go in ahead of him. Smoltz could have won 300 in my opinion, but became a reliever and so splits between Saves and Wins; I'd put him ahead of Glavine, but we'll see what happens. Nothing so exciting comes to mind when it comes to Glavine he's just a numbers guy to me.......

So Tom Glavine will indeed be a HOFer- but not 1st ballot if he's up against those 7 or 8 stars, and certainly not ahead of Maddux or Rany Johnson, and possibly behind Schilling and Smoltz as well.

[jalbright]

If one is willing to buy the lowest common denominator (i.e. all pitchers better than Jesse Haines belong in), then maybe Gooden belongs. But we shouldn't be using the clear mistakes as the bottom level for future picks, or we'll have literally dozens of pitchers (and well over 100 position players) to add. I would rather be without Lefty Gomez in the Hall, for instance, and I see him as definitely superior to Gooden. Gooden doesn't really have that much to offer in terms of making a case for greatness outside of his first two seasons. It's not enough, IMHO.

That "fire sale" approach only is good for the players who get in. If the standard is that Dwight Gooden has to make a reasonable argument to be one of the 70-80 best pitchers of all time (and IMHO it should be), he fails without getting very close. Besides, there are pitchers like Bert Blyleven and Wes Ferrell to name just two in addition to the group I listed in my earlier post who IMHO definitely belong in front of Gooden. Why should Gooden pass guys who most see as clearly superior candidates? No reason I can think of unless you're only thinking of what's good for Gooden.

[Shea Knight]

The Hall and its inductees represent more than just who is statistically sound.

Its inductees are those who have truly great baseball stories, and have left behind a legacy that means something to the game.

The First Five are like the Mt. Rushmore of HOF players- Ruth, Cobb, Walter Johnson, Honus Wagner, and Christy Mathewson. Cobb and Wagner represent not just the best hitters and best examples of offense in their erea, but also a true battle- Wagner vs. Cobb was good vs. evil, North vs. South (and not too long after the Civil War) and the joy and bittrness of the game alike. Mathewson and Johnson represent not only stoicism and class but the struggle between the AL and NL early on, with Mathewson's Giants becoming one fo the earliest dynasties while Johnson's Senators were often downtrodden and beaten around. And as much as George Washington is the Father of America, Babe Ruth is the Father of Major League Baseball As The National Pastime. Ruth wasn't just the greatest slugger in baseball of his time or all time- Ruth, with his Herculean, or "Ruthian," feats of heroics, and his charm and good nature, IS baseball.

And think of others in the Hall. Lou Gehrig- the quiet, stoic warrrior who was always second fiddle behind first Ruth and the DiMaggio, and still plugged away and showed up for work each day, and did his job, and did it well, before disease brought his career to an end that would even today have the most hardened Red Sox and Mets fans crying for the old Yankee. Joe DiMaggio- fighting stereotypes and giving Italian Americans a positive imge when most of America still saw thm as mostly layabouts and gangsters, not to mention 56, a number so magical it needs no explaining. Jackie Robinson and the rest of the Boys of Summer in the Hall- Pee Wee, the Duke, Campy, and Newk- represent the common American man pluggng away and fighting as the underdog, always eager and ready to work fo something better even with the odds against him (The Boys of Summer vs. The Aristocratic Yanks) and American tolerance and unity; if Babe Ruth is the face and father of baseball, Pee Wee Reese putting his arm around Jackie Robinson is the soul of America.

And it goes on. Willie Mays- playing the game he loved with as much joy as anyone, and quite possibly the best all around player in its history. Mickey Mantle and the rest of his Yankee friends, Berra and Stengel and Whitey and on- symbolizing forever both the Golden aspects of 1950's Americana (innocence, playing the game for the sake of it being a game, his brilliance mirroring America's strength in the 1950's) and its grime beneath the Gold (America's social and civil rights questions were glossed over in the same way the press ignored Mantle's affinity with the bottle and his admitting he's shortened his career by drinking.) Ernie Banks- forever the pride of the Wrigley faithful, symbolizing the typical Cubs season of a few great players losing loveably on a poor team in one of the most beautiful ballfparks in the world. Sandy- a great hero for Jewish kids (including my Yankee-loving uncle, who got Sandy to sign a ball once, whic I now proudly own) by refusing to put a game before his faith and by achieving heroics so lofty and numerous they are a whole thread all by themselves. Bob Gibson, and Lefty Grove before him, and Nolan Ryan after him- the faces of fear on the mound.

What does Gooden offer? The story of a baseball player who is all to human to be a legend. Gooden is the Hamlet of pitchers- all too human, achieving highs (the first 6 years) followed by a tragic fall (the next five years) that was due entirely to his own tragic weaknesses and flaws ad a character- flaws he faced, fessed up to, and overcame, makng a comeback as a successful mop-up man for the Yankees in the last few years of career, and then dedicating his life to talking to kids to steer them way from his mistakes, and it is through that act of trying to guide others to the light he guided himslf there.

Dr. K is a true basball great, and has a Hall of Fame saga to tell, on that reflects our game (it is almost eerie how Gooden's greatness in the 80's and then flatness and near death through much of the 90's parallels the state of the game at that time, how his cocaine addiction tells the story of many other major leaguers who succumbed the same way.)

Statistically he is sound, and better in areas than many good Hall of Famers (more K's than Lefty Grove, Eddie Plank, Jim Palmer, Grover Cleveland Alexander, Catfish Hunter, or Whitey Ford, as said before- and you argue you can't judge future HOFers by the bottom members, do these men strike you at ALL as "bottom HOFers," sir?)

And he has the legacy and story of a Hall of Famer, and if he got in, it would be via the Veteran's Committee, not the ballot, for whatever that's worth, an would be 11 or so years from now....... if this steroids business blows up like I fear it may, Dr, K may look VERY good to the Hall in 2021.

[Los Bravos]

-Glavine was great- but what's his calling card? Glavine...... all that pops to mind is Braves, 300 Winner, HOF.The poor guy. How can he cope with just that? :think:

Let's see...

300 game winner

100 games over .500

.600 career winning percentage

Nine time All Star, two time All Star Game starter (back to back in '91 and '92, first NLer to do that since Robin Roberts)

Two time Cy Young Award winner, runner up two other times, third place two other times (that's Top three a total of six times)

Five time 20 game winner

World Series MVP, 2.47 ERA is Series play

Four Silver Slugger Awards

Other than that he was pretty run of the mill.

[STLCards2]

Nine time All Star, .

Actually 10. Sorry!

[jalbright]

What does Gooden offer? The story of a baseball player who is all to human to be a legend. Gooden is the Hamlet of pitchers- all too human, achieving highs (the first 6 years) followed by a tragic fall (the next five years) that was due entirely to his own tragic weaknesses and flaws ad a character- flaws he faced, fessed up to, and overcame, makng a comeback as a successful mop-up man for the Yankees in the last few years of career, and then dedicating his life to talking to kids to steer them way from his mistakes, and it is through that act of trying to guide others to the light he guided himslf there.

Dr. K is a true basball great, and has a Hall of Fame saga to tell, on that reflects our game (it is almost eerie how Gooden's greatness in the 80's and then flatness and near death through much of the 90's parallels the state of the game at that time, how his cocaine addiction tells the story of many other major leaguers who succumbed the same way.)

Statistically he is sound, and better in areas than many good Hall of Famers (more K's than Lefty Grove, Eddie Plank, Jim Palmer, Grover Cleveland Alexander, Catfish Hunter, or Whitey Ford, as said before- and you argue you can't judge future HOFers by the bottom members, do these men strike you at ALL as "bottom HOFers," sir?)

It's nice you're a dedicated fan of Gooden, but he doesn't belong in a discussion with Whitey Ford, Grove, Palmer or Alexander. I'll give you that he had at least as good a peak as Plank, but Plank didn't get in on his peak. Plank obliterates Gooden on career value, almost doubling his win share total. Hunter IMHO was a mistake, so as far as I'm concerned, at best you've raised another mistake who's in the Hall who might be misused to justify Gooden.

If a good story is all that matters, there's hundreds of them. How are we to choose among them if not by reference to their quality of play? If Gooden were truly close to the in/out line, I could see his story maybe being worthy of inching him over the bar--but as I see it, he's not in close enough for that to come into play. If we let him in, there's probably about another 50 pitchers who should go in with him--and then we should add another 100 or so position players. It's just too much. If Gooden had had five or six great years instead of two, he might have a Koufax-like case to make. As it is, baseball history is littered with pitchers who were super for a year or two and then were never much more than a little above average, whether it be because of drugs/alcohol, arm injuries, whatever. I'm not alone in that thinking, as a look at the thread dedicated to Gooden I referenced (scroll over the end of the first line, and click on the link that comes up) will confirm. Gooden had a good but not great career, and that's just not enough.

[Los Bravos]

Actually 10. Sorry!I'll take a correction like that any time.

[Shea Knight]

The poor guy. How can he cope with just that? :think:

Let's see...

300 game winner

100 games over .500

.600 career winning percentage

Nine time All Star, two time All Star Game starter (back to back in '91 and '92, first NLer to do that since Robin Roberts)

Two time Cy Young Award winner, runner up two other times, third place two other times (that's Top three a total of six times)

Five time 20 game winner

World Series MVP, 2.47 ERA is Series play

Four Silver Slugger Awards

Other than that he was pretty run of the mill.


I said he was a stats guy, I never doubted that- in fact, that's my point. They ALL have great stats- but what is Glavine's "thing?" Maddux was known as one of the best control pitchers, and probably the best control-K pithcer (ie getting K's more with brains and location than necessarily overpowering stuff, especially late in his career.) Smolz was a star starter and reliever, a rare role that smoltz excelled in. Pedro was blazingheat and a sharp curve in a great peak. Randy Johnson is heir to the K throne, just behind Nolan Ryan.

And Glavine "is"..............? :?

Not saying he's not HOFer, but in my mind he was no better than the others, duller to watch (for whatever that counts) and simply great, with no quirk that would make me vote for him over Maddux or Johnson or Schilling in an election head-to-head.



And I still believe in Gooden, but this is becoming too much about Dr. K for a "who to vote for in the Steroid Era" thread, so I'll drop it for now.

And anyway, still have 11 years to bring it up. ;)

Moving on......

Let's start talking about some of the harder subjects- not which pitchers or catchers deserve to go in first, but rather:

-Would you vote for a KNOWN steroid user?
-Would you vote for someone who is "suspected" of useage?
-Who do YOU sspect is using/used that has HOF numbers
-Who do you believe is CLEAN from this era ad HOF worthy, and not the onse above, they'e gotten enough attention and loe for now. ;)

[Los Bravos]

And Glavine "is"..............? :?

Not saying he's not HOFer, but in my mind he was no better than the others, duller to watch (for whatever that counts) and simply great, with no quirk that would make me vote for him over Maddux or Johnson or Schilling in an election head-to-head.I can't give you a bumper sticker slogan for him, really. He went to the post when it was his turn for nearly two decades, got people out and gave his team a chance to win most of the time. To me, that's a fine definition of a professional pitcher. I know that's not everyone's cup of tea, but it worked every five days for him (and for me.)

[jalbright]

I
And I still believe in Gooden, but this is becoming too much about Dr. K for a "who to vote for in the Steroid Era" thread, so I'll drop it for now.

And anyway, still have 11 years to bring it up. ;)


There's a Gooden thread I pointed you toward in post 17 in this thread if you wish to talk about it there.

When it comes to PEDs, that's a subject that, IMHO has been beaten to death in multiple threads here, and besides, it's a depressing topic. It's not pretty from any angle, and the arguments on both sides get rather predictable. I'll pass on getting involved in another such debate.

[Ace Venom]

With PEDs and the Hall, you can arrive at different conclusions.

1) Not a single PED user should be enshrined. This is a common one because it assumes PEDs are the worst form of cheating imaginable. Unfortunately, you've got admitted spitballers/ball doctors and amphetamine users in Cooperstown. While some say never again, is it really fair that they get to enjoy the Hall of Fame despite cheating?

2) Only those who were Hall of Famers before PED use should get in. The problem with this argument is that you actually don't know when the use began. If Alex Rodriguez proved anything, the "sight test" is bogus. Much like with auto insurance companies and speeding offenses or drunk driving, you can't assume that getting caught was the only time. This is something that people who argue the first conclusion can mention.

3) Ban them for first offense so they can go on the permanent ineligiblity list. This is more of a spin-off of the first argument. This is the extreme case that would keep PED users out of the Hall of Fame. Bud Selig can't do it because the union is too strong.

4) Grant amnesty to those who used before penalties existed within the sport. People have often noted that while murder is not banned by MLB, it doesn't mean that MLB approves of murder. However, this argument is foolish because it puts illegal drug use on the same level as murder. There's enough blame to go around as to how the issue got out of hand in the first place and it's likely that the strike played a role in delaying the sort of drug testing program we have now. Nobody forced the players to inject steroids, but there aren't large numbers of people who will blaze through speed traps either. The fact that there are still 102 names we don't know makes me believe that certain individuals in the media with axes to grind are more interested in tearing MLB down brick by brick while appealing to the moral outrage of the sports writers. Amnesty may be a solution here, but this could just as easily be an argument to ban users for the good of baseball.

5) Just let ever PED user in the Hall of Fame. If Canseco's assertions are right and he likely is, then you're dealing with a era that was very enhanced. How many personnel decisions and counting stats influenced by PEDs? Quite a bit. For Hall of Fame voters that use counting stats, it's ludicrous to keep a PED user out and the guy whose stats he bested. We don't know how many people should have been league leaders during this time, so we're left scratching our heads. What we do know:

- Mike Greenwell would have been the 1988 AL MVP.
- Moises Alou would have been the 1998 NL MVP.
- Luis Gonzalez would have been the 2001 NL MVP.
- Randy Johnson could have been the 1997 AL Cy Young Award winner.
- Pedro Martinez could have been the 1998 AL Cy Young Award winner.

It makes your head hurt just thinking about it. If you won't adjust counting stats, then letting every PED user in is the alternative. Do you intentionally under represent the time period just to make a statement?

I believe those are the main arguments.

[redban]

- Mike Greenwell would have been the 1988 AL MVP.
- Moises Alou would have been the 1998 NL MVP.
- Luis Gonzalez would have been the 2001 NL MVP.
- Randy Johnson could have been the 1997 AL Cy Young Award winner.
- Pedro Martinez could have been the 1998 AL Cy Young Award winner.


Mike Piazza also lost the 1996 MVP to Ken Caminiti, and Caminiti admitted to using steroids that year.

So Piazza should have been 1996 MVP.

Carlos Delgado lost to Alex Rodriguez in the 2003 MVP.

Pujols lost the MVP award about 3-4 times to Barry Bonds.

[Shea Knight]

1) Not a single PED user should be enshrined. This is a common one because it assumes PEDs are the worst form of cheating imaginable. Unfortunately, you've got admitted spitballers/ball doctors and amphetamine users in Cooperstown. While some say never again, is it really fair that they get to enjoy the Hall of Fame despite cheating?

3) Ban them for first offense so they can go on the permanent ineligiblity list. This is more of a spin-off of the first argument. This is the extreme case that would keep PED users out of the Hall of Fame. Bud Selig can't do it because the union is too strong.

4) Grant amnesty to those who used before penalties existed within the sport. People have often noted that while murder is not banned by MLB, it doesn't mean that MLB approves of murder. However, this argument is foolish because it puts illegal drug use on the same level as murder. There's enough blame to go around as to how the issue got out of hand in the first place and it's likely that the strike played a role in delaying the sort of drug testing program we have now. Nobody forced the players to inject steroids, but there aren't large numbers of people who will blaze through speed traps either. The fact that there are still 102 names we don't know makes me believe that certain individuals in the media with axes to grind are more interested in tearing MLB down brick by brick while appealing to the moral outrage of the sports writers. Amnesty may be a solution here, but this could just as easily be an argument to ban users for the good of baseball.


A bit of commentary on those ideas:

-1: This is my stance. Cheating is cheating, and cheaters of that sort do not belong in the Hall; the difference w/ ball doctors and amphet. users is that they were allowed for so long, lierally half or even more than half of baseball's history, in some cases, that it would be unfair to ban players from the time when they were allowed. Steroids HAVE always been conidered cheating and been against the rules- they just weren't always tested for/punished because baseball wanted to trn a blind eye and just sit back and enoy the homers.

-3: That IS harsh, but possibly the only way to really reduce steroid use to negligible proportions. I'd back that idea, but it'll never pass, especially with Don Fehr manhandling Bud Selig. We nee a REAL commisioner......

-4: I don't like the idea of amnesty- who DOES like the idea of Barry Bonds shring the same hallowed halls as Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron? Amnesty for amphetamines is different- is was used for 40+ years without being penalized, and thus the Hall already has plenty of amphetamine users; deny them, and you'd have to kick out the likes of Mickey Mantle. But there are not juicers yet in the Hall- and it should be kept that way.

[jalbright]

There's no way without a Congressional push on all sports to permanently ban PED users on the first offense this will come to pass. The union will never approve it absent such pressure, and the commissioner/owners are not going to be permitted under the contract or the law to impose such a rule. Other sports, such as the NFL, do not have such rules, and so I can't see Congress pushing only baseball to make such a rule. Besides, I personally hope Congress spends far more of its time working on the more critical issues of our time than PEDs in baseball.

[Andy K]

I believe that to be another Groucho reference- from his famous "Captain Spaulding's Adventures in Africa" monologue. :)

It's Chico, during the trial scene in Duck Soup. But I can see how you'd confuse it with the scene in Animal Crackers. :)

[Brad Harris]

And I still believe in Gooden, but this is becoming too much about Dr. K for a "who to vote for in the Steroid Era" thread, so I'll drop it for now.

And anyway, still have 11 years to bring it up. ;)
I'm sorry, but...where do you get the "11 years" from? :confused:

[Ace Venom]

-1: This is my stance. Cheating is cheating, and cheaters of that sort do not belong in the Hall; the difference w/ ball doctors and amphet. users is that they were allowed for so long, lierally half or even more than half of baseball's history, in some cases, that it would be unfair to ban players from the time when they were allowed. Steroids HAVE always been conidered cheating and been against the rules- they just weren't always tested for/punished because baseball wanted to trn a blind eye and just sit back and enoy the homers.

Before they became illegal to use without a prescription, steroids were practically within the limits of what was acceptable. It's a bit hard to consider it cheating when you weren't even breaking the law of the land at that point. Baseball was extremely late in getting on the PED train. It was rampant in professional football and bodybuilding years before Jose Canseco decided to get an edge in order to be called up from the minors.

Bud Selig wanted drug testing a lot sooner, but the player's union kept that from happening. That's a major reason you saw it in the minor leagues first. Selig would never have gotten Congress involved if the player's union hadn't kept him from doing it. Baseball wouldn't police itself because it was effectively prevented from doing it. From there, it came down to local law enforcement and anyone lucky enough to spot something. Also keep in mind that there were some things that were actually legal to get over the counter that were later considered steroids by the FDA.

[History Of Baseball Fan]

George Bernard Shaw was right; youth is wasted on the young. But be that as it may, it's great to see another young pup join the site. Particularly one with so much enthusiasm for our favorite pet forum. Personally, I'm thrilled anyone under 30 has even heard of the greatest comedian in American history, much less is familiar with him. I have only two words to say to you, Shea Knight: Hail Freedonia!

Addressing the larger subject of your post...

The voters have already made clear - at least for the forseeable future - that any admitted or proven PED user isn't getting 75% of the vote. At present, I believe, this now covers Bonds, Caminiti, Canseco, Clemens, Gagne, Giambi, Glaus, McGwire, Palmeiro, Ramirez, Rodriguez, Sheffield, Sosa and Tejada.

While it remains to be seen whether the Shoo-in-Without-Steroids caucus is enough to push Bonds or Clemens over the edge in a couple of years, it's questionable whether or not attitudes will remain as hardened towards these individuals by the time Alex Rodriguez hits the ballot. One hopes that the Not-In-My-Lifetime voters soften their approach by that time; else the Hall will virtually exclude a whole gener be excluding an entire generation of all-time greats.

As for the other names you mentioned:

Ivan Rodriguez - Accused though not largely suspected; barring him moving into the above group, however, he's a shoo-in for election.

Mike Piazza - Also accused and also not suspected by the public at-large; also a shoo-in barring more revelations coming out.

Chipper Jones - Never heard his name come up in these discussions before. Shoo-in.

Derek Jeter - See "Chipper Jones".

Greg Maddux - See "Derek Jeter".

Craig Biggio - General public tends to not look at "small ball" guys as potential roiders. 3,000 hits says Hall of Fame barring scandalous revelations between now and his first ballot election.

Jeff Kent - He did it ugly and it might take a few ballots for the voters to rally a consensus, but he's accomplished enough to merit induction. Hard to see the BBWAA not putting him in, barring (of course) revelations of PED usage.

John Smoltz - Never been too big on the "combined" candidacy, but he's actually got a better case than Eckersley, IMHO and he's just surpassed 3,000 strikeouts; prolly the last to do so for quite a while. Shoo-in.

Ken Griffey Jr. - I've always been a little curious why his name doesn't pop up in PED discussions more often considering the way his body "suddenly" broke down mid-career. Nevertheless, like I-Rod, he's a shoo-in so long as he didn't fail one of those "anonymous" tests.

Tim Salmon - Don't recall him mentioned in these PED discussions, but then again that's because he's no closer to election than Ross Grimsley is. Might garner a few votes his first time out but almost certainly a one-and-done candidate when his name is called.

Jason Kendall - Tim Salmon, but with a better case.

Tim Raines - Best 80's superstar not in the Hall. Extremely deserving. Questionable whether or not he'll be elected. Has nothing to do with steroids scandals.

Darryl Strawberry and Dwight Gooden - Two very talented, very troubled players who were briefly superstars of the game. Neither deserve election. Neither's case has anything to do with steroids.

Hard to tell someone's a Met fan, huh? ;)

Roughly around the same time McGwire and Sosa were smashing out 60+ HRs illegally, Griffey put up 49, 56, 56 and 48... those 56 kind of sound fishy to me...

In fact, all of the supposed best HR hitters in the "steroid era" all had their breakout years in the same 5-7 year span where McGwire, Sosa and Bonds were putting up over 60 HRs as well as .360-ish batting AVG out of nowhere. I think every or 90% of the 500+ HR hitter who has played most or all of their entire career in the "steroid era" were not legit and its only a matter of time before ALL of their names are leaked just like A-Roid and Sosa. As far as i'm concerned, they're all guilty unless they can prove that they are innocent.

Now, some of the supposed "clean" players who never tested positive doesn't mean that they are clean because many teams were getting tipped off weeks in advance that certain players were going to be tested. If all of the samples the players give in their tests are saved, maybe in 10 years from now every illegal substance that was used in the "steroid era" will be detected. Hopefully ALL of the PED users were NEVER make it to the Hall of Fame. Its bad enough that the Hall has lowered their standards and having cheaters in the hall would make it worse.

[Shea Knight]

It's Chico, during the trial scene in Duck Soup. But I can see how you'd confuse it with the scene in Animal Crackers. :)

I thouht the comment was a reference the "elephant" line in the Captain Spalding monologue in "Animal Crackers." :)

To who asked- Gooden's eligible in 2021 for the Veteran's Comittee ballot, and so that's 11 or so year from now.

Anywhoo....




I think a Congressional ban should be considered- this is not just another sport we are talking about- this is our national pastime. To have it tainted is to have one of our most precious cutural traditions tainted.

However, while I'm hard on the PED issue, I would not go so far as to blanketly say "guilty until proven innocent"- again, this is our national game, and "innocent until proven guilty" is the national way of justice (in theory, at least.) If there is proof (Sosa, McGwire) or reasonable doubt a player is clean (Bonds with the Mitchell report, production spikes, growth, and everything else) then the player should be barred from the Hall (and I realize that "reasonable doubt" is a HUGE grey area, but so is this topic in a way.)

If, however, a player has been HOF worthy and clean/there is no evidence, or not enough evidence (another grey area, but what I mean here is that just because a player was muscular for most of his career, like Piazza was or Big Papi is, or somthing lik that..... this IS a VERY grey area) then he should not be banned and allowed in.


Really, this will e taken on a case-by-case basis in reality; I think/hope that users lik McGwire and Sosa and Bonds and Canseco are banned; players like Griffey, Jr., Piazza, Maddux, Randy Johnson, Big Papi someday, Jeter- those types get in.

[Ace Venom]

I think a Congressional ban should be considered- this is not just another sport we are talking about- this is our national pastime. To have it tainted is to have one of our most precious cutural traditions tainted.

Congress did their part in making sure the law of the land was being recognized by the union. Baseball or no, asking Congress to take more action than that is interfering with business practices. The penalty system in MLB is now the toughest of the major American sports. I don't care if baseball is our national pastime. Asking Congress to get further involved in MLB business practices is asking for trouble. I dispute that it's tainted. It's just a bunch of stupid records. No one can break Cy Young's wins record, which is practically unbreakable. Who's to say some player won't get lucky some day with a longer season and hit 74 home runs? It's entirely possible.

[jalbright]

Congress did their part in making sure the law of the land was being recognized by the union. Baseball or no, asking Congress to take more action than that is interfering with business practices. The penalty system in MLB is now the toughest of the major American sports. I don't care if baseball is our national pastime. Asking Congress to get further involved in MLB business practices is asking for trouble. I dispute that it's tainted. It's just a bunch of stupid records. No one can break Cy Young's wins record, which is practically unbreakable. Who's to say some player won't get lucky some day with a longer season and hit 74 home runs? It's entirely possible.

Amen, Ace--and with the economy, health care, education and whatever other national issues you want to talk about, micromanaging baseball's business lags way behind--or should.

[Shea Knight]

Amen, Ace--and with the economy, health care, education and whatever other national issues you want to talk about, micromanaging baseball's business lags way behind--or should.

It does lag behind and should, but I would argue that the records of baseball are not "just" records. If baseball is moe than a game and rather part of our culture, as I believe it is, baseball and it's stories become something of a mythos for America.

The Greeks had their heroes that they told stories about; the Romans borrowed the Greek heroes and added a few tales of their own, King Arthur's legend, Robin Hood's ballads and stories-

All Western cultures have a disticnt mythos that they can call their own (ex. Greeks have Heracles and the Greek legends, England and France have King Arthur and Robin Hood, and on and on.)

What other stories does America have that are solely and uniquely "American" and are handed down from gneration to generation? Paul Bunyan, John Henry? Not so much, those "tall tales' are small, not a whole mythos like Arthur or Robin Hood or Heracles' Labours or the Aneid for the Romans.

American fathers and grandfathers tell their sons of Babe Ruth, how powerful he was and how he "called his hot" (or not.) They tell of Joe DiMaggio and his 56 game hitting streak, of Jackie Robinson's heroics, of the Era of Willie, Mickey and the Duke, of the Boys of Summer and Mickey's Yanks and Willie making The Catch, or they tell later stories such as Sandy passing up a World Series start for Yom Kippur, then coming out and winning the next game, of the Miracle Mets and Fisk's homer and Buckner's boot and I have no doubt fathers of the future will tell of Piazza's homer post 9/11 and that year's World Series with the Yankees an Diamondbacks, or of the Bartman Ball and the Sox finally Reversing the Curse.

These are our stories, tales that link son an father and grandfather alike. Do we want to have our stories in the future filled with cheaters- do e want to pass down tales of artificial msucles and numbers, of roid rage and bats being thrown at players (I didn't like Clemens before that; I loathe him after that), of surly Bonds and Clemens and cheaters and how our game became so morally damaged that we as Americans began to honor cheaters, rewarded cheating?

That's not what I want to have to tell my kids someday......

(Granted that rant may have been a tad bit overly-dramatic, but I love this game, I hate the steroid scandal- and I am a theatre "kid" with all-theatre friends.) ;)

[Ace Venom]

I don't consider a single one of those men you mentioned heroes. Apparently I just have a different definition of what makes a hero.

[AG2004]

These are our stories, tales that link son and father and grandfather alike. Do we want to have our stories in the future filled with cheaters- do e want to pass down tales of artificial msucles and numbers, of roid rage and bats being thrown at players (I didn't like Clemens before that; I loathe him after that), of surly Bonds and Clemens and cheaters and how our game became so morally damaged that we as Americans began to honor cheaters, rewarded cheating?

That's not what I want to have to tell my kids someday......


The Hall of Fame was honoring cheaters way back in 1936. The inaugural class included someone who used an illegal substance in order to improve his performance.

The honoree was Babe Ruth, and the illegal substance was called booze. Ruth believed that the alcohol provided him with the energy that enabled him to hit all those runs.

In some cases, alcohol has improved player performance. In 1945, Dodgers manager Leo Durocher discovered that, if he gave pitcher Tom Seats some brandy before a game, Seats' pitching improved. (By 1945, alcohol was legal again.) If all the alcohol Ruth consumed kept him from getting into fights and getting suspended, then the alcohol improved Ruth's record.

[Shea Knight]

I don't consider a single one of those men you mentioned heroes. Apparently I just have a different definition of what makes a hero.

Jackie Robinson doesn't qualify as a hero? He broke he color barrier, which historians generally acknowledge as one of the precursory steps towards the Civil Rights Movement?

And Pee Wee Reese, for living up to his role of captain of the Brooklyn Dodgers by befriending Robinson, trying to hel him out, standing for integration and eqaulity?

Sandy Koufax, for getting priorities straight by not pitching on Yom Kippur, the Dayof Atonement, the holiest day in the Jewish Year? (I'm Jewish, and I recognize that as heroic and bold, given the time period, and certainly a good role model for kids.)


None of those three strike you as heroes?


And to who said alcohol was equivalent to steroids as a cheating substance, and thus the "those who use PED's are cheaters" would make the Babe a cheater:

The fault with that argument is alcohol doesn't in actuality enhance performance (guzzling a beer wouldn't have given the Babe 25 lbs. more muscle, a la Sammy Sosa with his PED) and thus the most it would do would be to actually hurt the player's coordination (as Mickey Mantle happened to him) and, at best, would be a psychological boost, and if we are going to outlaw psychological boosts, then every player who has ever given or recieved a high-five is guilty. ;)

[Ace Venom]

Jackie Robinson doesn't qualify as a hero? He broke he color barrier, which historians generally acknowledge as one of the precursory steps towards the Civil Rights Movement?

Someone had to let Jackie Robinson in the door. He certainly gets my respect for playing like he did when racism was rampant and his impact on the Civil Rights movement, which makes him a hero of the Civil Rights movement for his part in integrating baseball. However, I'm not out to consider baseball players heroes for simply playing baseball, especially now when there's no segregation. If I want a good role model, I'm going to look to someone I actually know. If I want a hero, I'm going to look to people like veterans, people in law enforcement (a thankless profession if there ever was one), fire fighters, medical doctors, lawyers, etc.

Ball players? Nope. I'll respect them and the fact that you play professional baseball. I'd never tell my kids to look up to a ball player unless we're talking about stuff off the field.

[Los Bravos]

I'd never tell my kids to look up to a ball player unless we're talking about stuff off the field.I think that's pretty much what he is talking about.And Pee Wee Reese, for living up to his role of captain of the Brooklyn Dodgers by befriending Robinson, trying to hel him out, standing for integration and eqaulity?I agree with the main thrust of your points here, but you might want to read Jonathan Eig's recent Opening Day, chronicling Robinson's first year. That oft-described incident w/ Reese embracing Robinson doesn't look as if it happened quite as early as it's often believed to have. Not that Reese didn't eventually embrace Jackie, literally and figuratively alike.

Just a small quibble.

[Shea Knight]

I think that's pretty much what he is talking about.I agree with the main thrust of your points here, but you might want to read Jonathan Eig's recent Opening Day, chronicling Robinson's first year. That oft-described incident w/ Reese embracing Robinson doesn't look as if it happened quite as early as it's often believed to have. Not that Reese didn't eventually embrace Jackie, literally and figuratively alike.

Just a small quibble.

I was talking off the field, mainly (Robinson, Reese, and Koufax were all obviously great on it as well) and yes, I agree, mostly our kids' heroes should be the kinds you mentioned, Ace Venom; but some players are great heroes too, for whatthey do on and (especially) off the field, like the three I mentioned.

Also............

I know the Reese-Robinson thing most likely didn't happen quite as immediately as is usually thought; however-

1. Like you said, it did still happen eventually

And

2. Even if the version most folks know is exaggerated/a bit off, that's OK, because like I said in the first place baseball is our mythos, our stories share some of our values, and myths do not have to e, and are often not 100% or even close to 100% correct- they just serve to heighten what the culture deems important, and sometimes exaggerates the point (ex. Trojan War teaches many virtues but is exaggerated, same with Reese-Robinson.

[AG2004]

And to who said alcohol was equivalent to steroids as a cheating substance, and thus the "those who use PED's are cheaters" would make the Babe a cheater:

The fault with that argument is alcohol doesn't in actuality enhance performance (guzzling a beer wouldn't have given the Babe 25 lbs. more muscle, a la Sammy Sosa with his PED) and thus the most it would do would be to actually hurt the player's coordination (as Mickey Mantle happened to him) and, at best, would be a psychological boost, and if we are going to outlaw psychological boosts, then every player who has ever given or recieved a high-five is guilty. ;)

Three points:

(1) In some cases, the use of alcohol did increase performance. As noted earlier, Leo Durocher noted that Tom Seats pitched better when he had some brandy to drink before a game than he did when he was completely sober. This is why Durocher would give Seats some brandy before a game -- to calm him down. (Former NFL player Dave Meggyesy recalls that his coaches would give him sedatives before a game for the same reason; without the pills, he would get too excited to play well.)

(2) A psychological boost is still a boost. If a substance enhances performance by working on the brain rather than the muscles, it's still a performance-enhancing substance.

(3) If we're going to outlaw physical boosts, then every player who engaged in weight-training is guilty.

One difference between steroids and weight-training is that the former is illegal and the latter is not. Hence, by your reasoning, only steroid use would count as cheating.

However, during the 1920s and early 1930s, there was something called Prohibition. Alcohol was illegal during that era -- and that was the time Ruth was setting all those records for hitting. Ruth said that the alcohol use was improving his performance.

Therefore, by his own admission , Ruth was using an illegal substance to enhance his performance. It wasn't banned by baseball, but it was illegal to use it at the time. Thus, its use as a performance enhancer, by your logic, should also be classified as cheating.

As for McGwire's use of androstenedione in 1998? At the time, it wasn't on MLB's use of prohibited substances. Nor was it illegal to use it within the United States -- that didn't happen until 2004. The Olympics did prohibit andro, but McGwire wasn't competing there. Since McGwire was neither breaking baseball's rules nor America's laws, his use of andro at the time doesn't qualify as cheating.

[Brad Harris]

Jackie Robinson doesn't qualify as a hero? He broke he color barrier, which historians generally acknowledge as one of the precursory steps towards the Civil Rights Movement?

And Pee Wee Reese, for living up to his role of captain of the Brooklyn Dodgers by befriending Robinson, trying to hel him out, standing for integration and eqaulity?

Sandy Koufax, for getting priorities straight by not pitching on Yom Kippur, the Dayof Atonement, the holiest day in the Jewish Year? (I'm Jewish, and I recognize that as heroic and bold, given the time period, and certainly a good role model for kids.)


None of those three strike you as heroes?

A Baseball Hall of Fame should honor the best hitters, pitchers, fielders, etc. and not the best men who happened to play baseball. Those men are famous for heroic deeds in the sense of their superior play on the field. That Pee Wee Reese was a nice guy is just icing on the cake.

[Los Bravos]

I know the Reese-Robinson thing most likely didn't happen quite as immediately as is usually thought; however-

1. Like you said, it did still happen eventually

And

2. Even if the version most folks know is exaggerated/a bit off, that's OK, because like I said in the first place baseball is our mythos, our stories share some of our values, and myths do not have to e, and are often not 100% or even close to 100% correct- they just serve to heighten what the culture deems important, and sometimes exaggerates the point (ex. Trojan War teaches many virtues but is exaggerated, same with Reese-Robinson.All things considered, I like reason #1 better.

But to your basic point...yeah, I like it when great players are great men, as well.

[Brad Harris]

But to your basic point...yeah, I like it when great players are great men, as well.
As do we all, but it's not necessary to their having been a great ballplayer and it's not necessary to them being honored as such.

[Ace Venom]

Well, what can you do? The BBWAA and certain people are riled up about steroid use to the point where they want to throw certain people under the bus. Meanwhile, Don Fehr gets off clean for practically being an enabler. That's nice to know.

[PVNICK]

Meanwhile, Don Fehr gets off clean for practically being an enabler. That's nice to know. That's true, but ironic, since in light of his retirement they bring up that Marvin Miller heavily criticized Fehr for allowing the tesitng or something close to that effect.

[Los Bravos]

As do we all, but it's not necessary to their having been a great ballplayer and it's not necessary to them being honored as such.Fair enough. I don't believe I ever suggested the two things needed to be.

Having said that...I'm glad there is language in the Hall's rules about sportsmanship and good character and they've never had to write a specific provision to judge people only for their on the field activities and to literally ignore off the field criminality, like a certain Hall in Ohio that looks like a giant juicer has.