Wow.

Vaux is Bill James?

Please RTFA. The excerpt doesn't give the nuances of James' arguments justice. He actually expresses well a lot of my own thinking about this. His one whopper is assuming Andy Pettite will be a HOFer. Other than that, well thought out and provocative, but not in the sensational sense.

Here, here.

from TFA: "No one-including me- wants to play the role of persistently denigrating Dick Allen; in fact, I'm pretty sure you can go to hell for that."

This in the context of 'history is forgiving' and James' reasons why PED users will end up in the HOF, as will Dick Allen apparently, acc. to James.

His one whopper is assuming Andy Pettite will be a HOFer.

Which could happen - he's got a chance to finish with 100 more wins than losses, and to push his career totals into the 250s. He's also likely to benefit from the four rings, and the association with the recent Yankees dynasty.

If Pettitte gets to 250 wins he will, eventually, go into the Hall of Fame by dint of his association with The Dynasty™.

I'm more interested in reading about Bill James the statistician (i.e., can we statistically detect a sigificant effect of steroids use on delaying the aging process) than Bill James the philosopher/moralist (i.e., "if steroids help keep you young, what’s wrong with that?"). Regarding the former, I would like hear more about the evidentiary base in which he makes his claim that "steroids keep you young." He mentions that "several dozen players who continued to improve beyond the normal aging time frame." Wouldn't we expect a small sample of players to play beyond the normal aging time frame anyways? I'm sure James rests his argument on sound empirical proof. I just want to hear more about it.

James underscores at the very end, that he isn't advocating for or against inclusion to the HOF of the usual suspects (McGwire, Bonds, etc.) I suspect some (not here) will misinterpret his comments to say "James supports PED users for HOF."

I for one have always enjoyed reading the work of Bill James the philosopher/moralist, even on the occasions I don't agree with him. The man is a gifted communicator.

I for one have always enjoyed reading the work of Bill James the philosopher/moralist, even on the occasions I don't agree with him. The man is a gifted communicator.

Me, too. The stats stuff is good, but I wouldn't read through the Abstract in one sitting without all the other stuff, as well.

If Pettitte gets to 250 wins he will, eventually, go into the Hall of Fame by dint of his association with The Dynasty™.

Shouldn't he have to wait behind Posada and Bernie for Dynasty Residue Hall of Fame coupons?

It means that steroids keep you young.

Well, partly true, yes. But what do you say when someone hits 24 more homers at age 37 than he ever did before? And when he had his best years in chronological old-age? That's more than keeping you young--that's Twilight-Zone-style-making-you-young again. And not only that: you are better by a good bit than you were when you were young the first time--that clearly means, I guess, that you can amalgamate the experience you gained through aging with the newly-gained youth. You can repeat history--but better. Now, that's something to ponder.

But it wasn’t really an issue of some players gaining an advantage by the use of Performance Enhancing Drugs; it is an issue of many players using Performance Enhancing drugs in competition with one another. Nobody knows how many. It would be my estimate that it was somewhere between 40 and 80%.

How did he arrive at that number? And how are we defining "use"? Are we distinguishing between one time users and chronic users?

If Pettitte gets to 250 wins he will, eventually, go into the Hall of Fame by dint of his association with The Dynasty™.

While Jack Morris and his 76 inning, 9th game of the World Series, perfect game...as he battled severe diarrhea gets forgotten about?!

For shame!

If Pettitte gets to 250 wins he will, eventually, go into the Hall of Fame by dint of his association with The Dynasty™.


Shouldn't he have to wait behind Posada and Bernie for Dynasty Residue Hall of Fame coupons?

Yes, and it's not even particularly close. I don't think either of Posada or Bernie are HoFers are currently constructed, but with the right set of pinstriped glasses, or a couple more good years from Posada, I think there's at least an argument for them both. Andy Pettitte has NO argument whatsoever.

Then again, neither does Jack Morris...

I for one have always enjoyed reading the work of Bill James the philosopher/moralist, even on the occasions I don't agree with him. The man is a gifted communicator.

I also agree.

Well, if steroids help keep you youn! g, what’s wrong with that?”

"He's alive! Alive!!!"

If Bill James made these same arguments as an anonymous poster here he'd be eviscerated from all sides. This is more a comment on here than on Bill James.

Shouldn't he have to wait behind Posada and Bernie for Dynasty Residue Hall of Fame coupons?

Yes, but he won't. What will happen is Williams and Posada will both be passed over by the BBWAA, and then somewhere down the line someone responsible for HoF selection will say 'hey, remember that great Yankee Dynasty™ in the 1990s? Only Jeter and Rivera are in the Hall of Fame! That's not right!' And then they will elect Pettitte, because truth be told, more modern pitchers with 250+ wins eventually make it than not.

I for one have always enjoyed reading the work of Bill James the philosopher/moralist, even on the occasions I don't agree with him. The man is a gifted communicator.

Yes, I agree. I liked his bit on Will Clark and Raffy. But given the choice, I would rather read Bill James with his statistician first. In this article, his statistician hat is on for about 3 sentences and then the philosopher hat comes on for the rest of the article.

In the interest of a non-strawman-y thread, reposting with small alternations my earlier summary:

1. In the future, steroids, or something like them, will be standard medical treatment for regular people. Direct, Khruschev-esque quote: "Your grandchildren are going to be steroid users." Once that's the norm, those folks will inevitably not view use of steroids as a big deal.

2. Because the HOF isn't essentially going to skip a generation, a couple of PED users are bound to get in, at which point the issue will be defused, and the others will then go in too.

3. "History is forgiving. Statistics endure." He points to the revisionism around Dick Allen and Shoeless Joe.

4. Ex-players aren't going to be PED hardliners, especially with respect to their former teammates. This is presumably most important once the Veterans' Committee consists of players from the era in question, but could also play a role before that.

5. A rule that was broken by the vast majority and was nonetheless not enforced isn't likely to carry any sort of longstanding moral authority.

(He wraps up as mrams describes in post #9.)

Are we distinguishing between one time users and chronic users?
Weren't they all one-time users? And don't forget that they did it to help their teams, and not because they were afraid of losing their jobs and mega-paydays.

If Bill James made these same arguments as an anonymous poster here he'd be eviscerated from all sides. This is more a comment on here than on Bill James

why? what is to be eviscerated?

People may agree or disagree about Pettittes hof chances, personally I would take Pettitte before Allen, Belle or Edgar Martinez and all of those guys are considered very favorably around here. Disagreements happen or different opinions, the difference between a James comment and say a Plashke comment is that James has a history of admitting he doesn't know everything and is willing to be swayed with reason, Plashke on the other hand feels he knew everything he needed to know since he was 7 years old.

As Shooty says (#3), RTFA. The very next sentence after the quote:

What’s wrong with that is that steroids may help keep players “young” at some risk to their health, and the use of steroids by athletes may lead non-athletes to risk their health as well.

If Bill James made these same arguments as an anonymous poster here he'd be eviscerated from all sides. This is more a comment on here than on Bill James.

Maybe from the radicals on each side, but a lot of us have more conflicted feelings about steroids. This piece by James gives a pretty good, non-hysterical perspective. I don't expect this thread to remain civil or anything, of course. What most interested me in this essay is the funereal tone of it, though that may be just me projecting my own feelings onto James' words. The steroid era has led to a fundamental shift in the way I view sport, one that feels poorer to me now. Maybe that feeling will evolve over time, but the PED genie is out of the bottle and no amount of hand wringing will change it.

A cogent (if repetitive) passage:
"But rules, in civilized society, have certain characteristics. They are agreed to by a process in which all of the interested parties participate. They are included in the rule book. There is a process for enforcing them. Someone is assigned to enforce the rule, and that authority is given the powers necessary to enforce the rule. There are specified and reasonable punishments for violation of the rule. The "rule" against Performance Enhancing Drugs, if there was such a rule before 2002, by-passed all of these gates. It was never agreed to by the players, who clearly and absolutely have a right to participate in the process of changing any and all rules to which they are subject. It was not included in any of the various rule books that define the conduct of the game from various perspectives. There was no process for enforcing such a rule. The punishments were draconian in theory and non-existent in fact. It seems to me that, with the passage of time, more people will come to understand that the commissioner's periodic spasms of self-righteousness do not constitute baseball law."

There's also an interesting conclusion in this article that we are now in the "post-steroids" era when players may have simply moved on to another drug.

What’s wrong with that is that steroids may help keep players “young” at some risk to their health, and the use of steroids by athletes may lead non-athletes to risk their health as well.

This exact sentiment has been ridiculed here many, many times. Also, according to some, there was no such thing as "normal" aging patterns. It only proved that Cy Williams and Norm Cash must have been on steroids!

Sorry - not trying to start a fight. This is a thoughtful piece, and I'm glad he did it.

Weren't they all one-time users?

Maybe, I don't know, I just want to know how James is defining "user" if he's going to make a claim that 40 to 80 percent of palyers have used performance enhancing drugs. Not to mention, I would want to know how he's defining PED as well.

Except of course, Gonfalon Bubble, it's a false passage.

Except of course, Gonfalon Bubble, it's a false passage.

"But rules, in civilized society, have certain characteristics. They are agreed to by a process in which all of the interested parties participate. They are included in the rule book. There is a process for enforcing them. Someone is assigned to enforce the rule, and that authority is given the powers necessary to enforce the rule."

This is Bill James with his sociologist hat on and it's a bit naive... very 8th grade civic classish.

I wonder if the Allen advocates realize that James is basically stating that they will succeed because they engage in revisionism and most folks are too polite to protest in a vigorous nature?

Which, of course, has been my contention for some time. Younger folks just have to believe that the world was an evil place for Allen so nothing was really Dick's fault and by gosh and by golly they are going in some small way correct this injustice.

Bah.......

What most interested me in this essay is the funereal tone of it, though that may be just me projecting my own feelings onto James' words.

I didn't see it as "funereal." It was kind of detached, and as noted, James doesn't say "I think Barry Bonds should/should not be in the HoF." I speculate that some people (not here necessarily) will draw their own conclusions about that based on James' tone, etc.

The DA's summary in #22 is good. I agree with James' points in #2 and #3--not sure about 1,4 and 5. James says he guesses that "40-80%" of players used PEDs. Doesn't say whether that includes amps. Given the article's subject, I assume not. He also posited a possible scenario such that someone gets in to Cooperstown, then admits that he used PEDs. I think that may well happen in the next 5-10 years.

Reading the Allen piece made me think of HW combating the Allen supporters on BBTF. I'm glad to see you haven't swayed, HW. :)

"But rules, in civilized society, have certain characteristics. They are agreed to by a process in which all of the interested parties participate. They are included in the rule book. There is a process for enforcing them. Someone is assigned to enforce the rule, and that authority is given the powers necessary to enforce the rule. There are specified and reasonable punishments for violation of the rule. The "rule" against Performance Enhancing Drugs, if there was such a rule before 2002, by-passed all of these gates. It was never agreed to by the players, who clearly and absolutely have a right to participate in the process of changing any and all rules to which they are subject. It was not included in any of the various rule books that define the conduct of the game from various perspectives. There was no process for enforcing such a rule. The punishments were draconian in theory and non-existent in fact. It seems to me that, with the passage of time, more people will come to understand that the commissioner's periodic spasms of self-righteousness do not constitute baseball law."

Seems about right to me, except for one thing: the punishments weren't, even in theory, draconian.

Even if Fay Vincent's memorandum were magically considered baseball law despite all the procedural flaws in that, here's what the penalty for a first offense was: paid leave, and counseling/treatment.

This is Bill James with his sociologist hat on and it's a bit naive... very 8th grade civic classish.

agree somewhat, but i think he's on more solid ground if you just temper 'civilized society' and say something like 'modern sports rulebooks' or something. he's trying too hard when he uses words like civilized society; its too western-centric.

I wonder if the Allen advocates realize that James is basically stating that they will succeed because they engage in revisionism and most folks are too polite to protest in a vigorous nature?

IMO That's not quite it. He implies strongly "denigrating" someone over a long period of time is a little more than "impolite." (Unless the denigratee is Hitler, Manson or Chris Truby).

Younger folks just have to believe that the world was an evil place for Allen so nothing was really Dick's fault and by gosh and by golly they are going in some small way correct this injustice.

I wasn't around for most of it and was a wee lad during the parts that I do remember, but based on what I have read, Allen brought a lot of it on himself--after all, Bob Gibson and a lot of other black guys played at the same time, and there was only one Dick Allen. And Allen also was in some respects screwed over perception-wise by the times/places he lived in.

BLB:

I have stated numerous times that Dick Allen was a great hitter.

He was an average fielder who over the years became less so.

He was a good baserunner.

Injuries ate into his value.

His teams' records were nothing extraordinary.

He was part of one of the worst late season meltdowns in history as well as one of the biggest surprise teams of the last 40 years (1972 White Sox)

He had a string of notable incidents that were of a less distinguishing nature not the least of which was saying "so long" with a month left in a season.

You can OPS+ that all day long, and it's a borderline Hall of Famer. Being a smaller Hall guy and having WITNESSED Dick's behavior both on and off the field I am quite comfortable in openly mocking those who insist he is worthy of induction.

I would support Gary Sheffield's induction into the HOF before Allen.

And anyone who has read my posts THAT should tell you all you need to know.

Gary has been something of a jack*ss. But he was minor league compared to Allen.

Gary is an Allen wanna-be in all facets.

Yeah, but with gazillion dollar contracts and agents and publicists and free agency, isn't it easier for Sheffield to get away with being a jackass? I think we need to timeline jackassery.

shooty:

Sure. But even then Allen would have a large advantage over Gary. Ruthian almost.

You can OPS+ that all day long, and it's a borderline Hall of Famer. Being a smaller Hall guy and having WITNESSED Dick's behavior both on and off the field I am quite comfortable in openly mocking those who insist he is worthy of induction.

Well, Harvey, you know I'm always quick to join you in berating the revisionist historians regarding Allen. But if he's a borderline Hall of Famer, then it really isn't appropriate to "openly mock" those who insist he's worthy of induction, is it? Can't reasonable people, who are properly aware of the baggage Allen created for himself, perhaps decide that he was such a force of nature in the batters' box that he belongs in the HOF, anyway?

Steve:

Poor wording on my part.

Borderline in the sense of a large Hall and ignoring everything but offense.

Basically the HOM approach.

(Sorry John, had to take the cheap shot)

Borderline in the sense of a large Hall and ignoring everything but offense.

Basically the HOM approach.

Well, hang on: the HOM most definitely does NOT ignore everything but offense (they've elected Ozzie Smith, Nellie Fox, Edd Roush etc.), and moreover one of its fundamental organizing principles is to be just exactly the same size as the HOF.

If Bill James made these same arguments as an anonymous poster here he'd be eviscerated from all sides. This is more a comment on here than on Bill James.

CONCUR, because PED arguments have been had so many times over that the moment someone offers an opinion -- regardless of how well or poorly thought out -- that persson is going to get eviscerated here.

For very good reasons, we do not nurture hatred. We let things pass. This leads history to be forgiving.

Bill doesn't frequent internet forums often, does he?

Bill used to. I don't know how much he bothers with sites like this anymore, but I remember James posting in the early days of the internet (it was on AOL baseball forum), getting into a heated argument, and getting very frustrated with the process.

You have some people who will defer to him and give him more leeway because he's Bill James. For others, the fact that he's Bill James makes him a bigger target.

1. In the future, steroids, or something like them, will be standard medical treatment for regular people. Direct, Khruschev-esque quote: "Your grandchildren are going to be steroid users." Once that's the norm, those folks will inevitably not view use of steroids as a big deal.

Well, according to our libertarian friends, Khrushchev was right when he said in 1956 that the grandchildren of the generation then in power would be living under Communism!!! So you never know....

Heh, AROM. I was referring to some of the feuds in the sabersphere that seem to be ongoing for a few years, if not the USENET days. I see Bill on some SABR e-lists on occasion.

CONCUR, because PED arguments have been had so many times over that the moment someone offers an opinion -- regardless of how well or poorly thought out -- that persson is going to get eviscerated here.

I think they've mellowed with age (and without kevin). Bill really would have been eviscerated five years ago.

Steve:

It was MEANT as a dig hence my comment directed to John Murphy.

Before I die, I want to hear Harveys talk about Dick Allen in person...

Shock:

Your mother wouldn't approve of such language....................

It was MEANT as a dig hence my comment directed to John Murphy.

OK. I guess I'm being dense or something, but I don't get the point of a dig that goes 2-for-2 in presenting misstatements.

Anyway, regardless of the HOM, I'm still wondering if you think that everyone who would favor Allen for the HOF, even those of us who fully comprehend the tonnage of his self-created baggage, deserve to be "openly mocked." Isn't there room for respectful disagreement on the question, assuming everyone's in command of the facts?

Just read the article, and as usual, James states his case as best he can. And since he's making a prediction rather than a personal judgment, and a prediction for "2040, perhaps 2050" at that, it's kind of futile to argue with him one way or the other.

The one part of his essay I did find curious, though, was his analogy with Joe Jackson, in this passage:

The same thing has happened, more slowly, with the
Black Sox. In 1950 no one thought Joe Jackson should be
in the Hall of Fame. Now it is a common opinion—perhaps
a majority opinion—that he should. People question
whether he “really” did the things that he clearly admitted
doing. His virtues are celebrated; his sins are minimized.
Perhaps this is right; perhaps it is wrong. It is the
way of history.

History will rally on the side of the steroid users in the
same way that it has rallied on the side of Dick Allen, Joe
Jackson, Orlando Cepeda, Hack Wilson and many others.

Funny, but here it is 90 years after the Black Sox, and other than a few Hollywood sentimentalists, who in the hell is favoring Joe Jackson's belated Hall of Fame induction? Maybe he's talking about the sort of vague "public opinion" that supposedly is also behind Pete Rose, but within the only world that matters---the baseball world---neither Rose nor Jackson has any support worth mentioning. James's crystal ball aside, whether or not the steroid users will ever gain eventual public acceptance or not is an open question, but I'm pretty sure that if this ever does come about, they'll make it into the Hall of Fame long before Joe Jackson or Pete Rose.

Steve:

If that keeps folks from advocating Allen's candidacy then my plan to silence his supporters has succeeded!

(Insert evil laugh soundtrack)

Of course, you are free to play Dudley Do-Right and against all odds get out the right message

(Insert galloping hoofbeats/calvary bugle soundtrack)

Who will win out in this struggle for "The True Baseball Life of D*ck Allen"?

Tune in next week......................

(Sponsored by Ovaltine)

But rules, in civilized society, have certain characteristics. They are agreed to by a process in which all of the interested parties participate. They are included in the rule book

Apparently, nobody ever bothered to inform the TSA.

Perhaps this is right; perhaps it is wrong. It is the
way of history.

What did someone once say about someone's views on something: "the very pefection of rottenness"? The problem with this attitude is that it totally fatalistic. How is history changing our view if no one can do anything about it. There's a contradiction there he apparently can't see. Culture will determine how history is read, and we all have input in making that culture.

Alll righty then.

There's also this passage:

1) Eventually, some players who have been associated
with steroids are going to get into the Hall of Fame.
This is no longer at issue. One cannot keep Barry Bonds,
Roger Clemens, A-Rod, Manny Ramirez, Mark McGwire,
Sammy Sosa and all of the others out of the Hall of Fame
forever. Some of them have to get in. If nothing else,
somebody will eventually get in and then acknowledge
that he used steroids.

2) Once some players who have been associated with
steroids are in the Hall of Fame, the argument against the
others will become un-sustainable.

No question that (2) would follow from (1), but I think that the idea that "somebody will eventually get in and then acknowledge that he used steroids" is about as likely---less likely, in fact---as a reigning triple crown winner coming out of the closet and admitting he's gay.*** The sort of bravado that it would take to make such an after-the-fact admission is not exactly the sort of character trait that usually goes along with HoF level baseball players, especially considering that they would have absolutely nothing to gain by such a confession other than a lifetime job with some "nutrition supplement" company, and possibly a fair amount to lose.

***In both cases, the only way that these scenarios might come to pass would be if there were a blackmailer (with well documented evidence) behind the scenes, and the player figured that it was better to break the news directly rather than have it all come out in the National Enquirer or The New York Times.

Andy you can't have hung out on the intertubes in the 90s. No shortage of people (most of whom seemed to have been getting their info from the movie) advocating Jackson. And linking Jackson with Rose. Jackson just might have been the 4th most common topic on RSB (behind Rose, Joe Carter and the strike)

It was sufficiently common that the HOF actually had a Rose and Jackson FAQ.

Jackson's Grand Jury testimony was frequently re-posted on RSB.

Perhaps this is right; perhaps it is wrong. It is the
way of history.

What did someone once say about someone's views on something: "the very pefection of rottenness"? The problem with this attitude is that it totally fatalistic. How is history changing our view if no one can do anything about it. There's a contradiction there he apparently can't see. Culture will determine how history is read, and we all have input in making that culture.

I might have said something about this myself, except that it's already been said a thousand times. I agree with Morty's point (and note that many aspects of "inevitable" and "history" get stopped in its tracks about every other generation), but AFAIC we've had way too many flame wars here about this already. I'm quite content to let the BBWAA speak for me with the only voices that matter---their votes. They've heard all the arguments and are collectively no less qualified to weigh the moral issues than Bill James or anyone else, in spite of all the predictable snarking here.

I'm quite content to let the BBWAA speak for me

If only that were true ...

;-)

Andy you can't have hung out on the intertubes in the 90s. No shortage of people (most of whom seemed to have been getting their info from the movie) advocating Jackson. And linking Jackson with Rose. Jackson just might have been the 4th most common topic on RSB (behind Rose, Joe Carter and the strike)

No, I didn't hang out on the intertubes, but I've never doubted that there aren't a few million Rose supporters out there, or a few million Fields of Dreams lovers who get their ideas of baseball history by the same method as some people get their political views from Oliver Stone. But again, within the real baseball world, these views are totally marginalized, and for good reason.

i don't buy your reasoning, andy. a hofer admitting ped use isn't going to be some defiant volunteering 'yeah, i did it and i endorse it' but more of a drawn out admission along the lines of 'i was trying to keep up, and only did this much' or something like that. once the guy is in, there won't be any penalty, so he'll be a lot more relaxed about talking freely. i don't think the hall would throw him out. i can see a good interviewer dragging the admission out of say jim thome (just to pull a random name, i'm not accusing him) ...

I'm quite content to let the BBWAA speak for me

If only that were true ...

;-)

Not 100% sure what you mean by that, Steve, but all I mean is that in the case of the Hall of Fame's character clause, if 75% of the BBWAA writers decide that steroids aren't a HoF disqualifier, by that point I think that it would reflect a genuine consensus***, and believe it or not, that sort of a consensus would be good enough for me. You know how us old line Commies feel about democratic centralism and all that. (smile)

***as opposed to a lot of randomly thrown out jibberish about greenie use and attendance figures, which to date has convinced nobody but the people doing the talking. As for 2013 or 2040 or 2050, I'll let the geniuses here put their money down on that.

i don't buy your reasoning, andy. a hofer admitting ped use isn't going to be some defiant volunteering 'yeah, i did it and i endorse it' but more of a drawn out admission along the lines of 'i was trying to keep up, and only did this much' or something like that. once the guy is in, there won't be any penalty, so he'll be a lot more relaxed about talking freely. i don't think the hall would throw him out. i can see a good interviewer dragging the admission out of say jim thome (just to pull a random name, i'm not accusing him) ...

Of course you could be right, but I don't buy it. And what on Earth do you mean by "there won't be any penalty"? Do you really think that HoF inductees want to see their plaques diminished with a giant unwritten (but sure as hell not unspoken) asterisk? What would they have to gain by this?

I would like hear more about the evidentiary base in which he makes his claim that "steroids keep you young." He mentions that "several dozen players who continued to improve beyond the normal aging time frame." Wouldn't we expect a small sample of players to play beyond the normal aging time frame anyways? I'm sure James rests his argument on sound empirical proof. I just want to hear more about it.

In order to have empirical proof you need to know who used PED and who didn't. You provide that information and he will provide the proof you seem to need.

Alll righty then.

So, don't give up until you drink from the sliver cup.

Ron, that's why some old timers spell his name P*** R***, isn't it?

In order to have empirical proof you need to know who used PED and who didn't. You provide that information and he will provide the proof you seem to need.

I'm not looking for failed drug tests since that data is obviously not available. I'm just asking to see how he did his analysis. How did he establish a normal aging time frame and then test that against players in the "steroids era" in order to find significant difference? If he found a small sample of players that beat the normal age curve in the "steroids era", I'm inclined to say that's not compelling evidence because I'm guessing that true in any era. His analysis will need to be more sophisticated than just finding a group of players who beat the normal aging curve to be convincing. I don't think there is any methodological approach that could be used to show strong evidence of steroids usage improving performance, but hey, Bill James is obviously talented as hell so I wouldn't put it past him to find a way.

as a reigning triple crown winner coming out of the closet and admitting he's gay.***

We'll see an openly gay player long before we see a triple crown winner again.

Yes, I am expecting Albert to come out of the closet before October, why do you ask? :-)

I didn't read the article but James' stance seems mostly reasonable. As to what I would 'eviscerate' him on, there would be two points:

1. I want to see the empirical evidence on aging curves. I'd especially like to see the evidence that the curve has gone back to "normal" in the "post-steroid" era. No way is the sample size of the last 2-3 seasons large enough to detect such a change.

2. Steroid use was widespread by kids and non-professional athletes long before baseball was the cause celebre of the anti-steroid crowd. You need look no further than GNC stores with god knows what in their "supplements" in every mall and "sculpting" supplements available at the supermarket to know that this has little or nothing to do with the influence of professional athletes and everything to do with society's obsession with youth, beauty, strength, etc.* Those who want to reduce the use of steroids generally should stop worrying about pro sports and instead lobby Congress to bring supplements under strict FDA regulation.

* As I've mentioned before, I was surprised to notice that the energy gel I use when cycling has a "guaranteed tested doping free" label on it -- I get this at the supermarket (in New Zealand), it never occurred to me it wouldn't be. And do I need to be concerned about the stuff that doesn't carry that label (the label is not required by law to my knowledge)?

Bill (James) used to. I don't know how much he bothers with sites like this anymore,

Oh, Bill reads...but usually when I mention Richard "Iceman" Kuklinski.

What says Bill re Pavement?

Not 100% sure what you mean by that, Steve

I'm yanking your chain, Andy. For someone who claims to be "content to let the BBWAA speak for me," you sure do a lot of yakking on the subject.

:-)

I want to see the empirical evidence on aging curves. I'd especially like to see the evidence that the curve has gone back to "normal" in the "post-steroid" era. No way is the sample size of the last 2-3 seasons large enough to detect such a change.

Big time.

What says Bill re Pavement?


Not sure...but his quickie essay "Unseen Power of the Hunter Pence" was terrific!

I'm yanking your chain, Andy. For someone who claims to be "content to let the BBWAA speak for me," you sure do a lot of yakking on the subject.

:-)

But of course. How in the hell else are they going to get their marching orders?

Ron, that's why some old timers spell his name P*** R***, isn't it?

Yeah. Ditto for J** C*****.

Don't think it ever got that bad for Jackson. Most of the people involved in those discussions weren't emotionally invested in their position. Outside of the guy who ran the Black Betsy site. (And he's still around)

[Allen] was part of one of the worst late season meltdowns in history as well as one of the biggest surprise teams of the last 40 years (1972 White Sox)"

Well, hold on, Harveys. It must have been a shock to see the Phillies phaint like that, but they had no business being up by 6½ games with 12 to go. Their pitching staff was a 2 great starters, 2 good relievers, and nothing else. Probably the main reason they blew the lead was Mauch riding Bunning and Short into the ground the last two weeks because he had no other good starters. Dick Allen was a big reason the Phillies stayed in front as long as they did, hitting .341/.434/.618 in September and October while playing every game. I don't see how you can ding him for '64.

About your larger point. I see Allen a borderline HoFer. It wouldn't bother me if he got in, or if he's kept out. He's kind of a poor man's Hornsby: great hitter, indifferent fielder, pain in the ass, frequently traded for inferior players. I suspect Allen was the victim of discrimination from time to time. But I think he also was a selfish malcontent who lost a couple of seasons at the end of his career due to poor conditioning. No Allen apologist here. ;)

And what on Earth do you mean by "there won't be any penalty"? Do you really think that HoF inductees want to see their plaques diminished with a giant unwritten (but sure as hell not unspoken) asterisk? What would they have to gain by this?

you're assuming that a steroid admission is going to be greeted by a chorus of approbrium. maybe it will now, at this moment, but the point of james' thesis, which i think is accurate, is that it won't be that big a deal eventually. already you're seeing manny ramirez not exactly paying much of a price in the court of public opinion. what james is saying is that the indifference will migrate to the rest of the baseball world.
i honestly don't think the first HOFer who is linked to steroids is going to pay much of a price.

I was merely pointing out Allen's association with semi-famous teams.

One good, one bad

Do you really think that HoF inductees want to see their plaques diminished with a giant unwritten (but sure as hell not unspoken) asterisk? What would they have to gain by this?

Good question; maybe a clear conscience? I think it's more likely that there's a scenario along the lines of what happened to Milli Vanillia after they won their Grammy.

I think it's more likely that there's a scenario along the lines of what happened to Milli Vanillia after they won their Grammy.

well, except that what MV did was bad enough for them to have to return the grammy. there's just no way a HOFer is going to lose his membership if he admits taking steroids, unless the hall makes it a rule sometime soon. which they won't.

I was merely pointing out Allen's association with semi-famous teams.

One good, one bad

Sure, but neither has any meaningful bearing on Allen's HOF worthiness. Allen, even with his injuries and other absences and issues, was the best player or close to it on every team he played for from 1964-74. The fact that most of those teams were so-so overall is neither to Allen's debit nor credit; that goes in the category of "things beyond his control."

I consider everything. Otherwise risks ignoring inconvenient facts

I consider everything. Otherwise risks ignoring inconvenient facts

Relevant facts should all be considered, of course. Irrelevant ones add no illumination.

#27-31-32: As it applies to MLB, false how? If anything, Fay Vincent's original "spasm of self-righteousness" was shouted into a paper bag inside an empty room. For all the impact it had, Vincent's memo could have been a verse from "Eleanor Rigby."

I think it's more likely that there's a scenario along the lines of what happened to Milli Vanillia after they won their Grammy.

I've always been confused by that situation, why it was such a big deal. The music was still recorded and sung by people.

I either wasn't born, or was still in diapers, so maybe I'm missing something context dependant?

Luis Gonzalez
popping his pills
that he keeps
in a jar by the door.
What were they for?

All the homerun hitters
Where do they all come from?

Yes, and people are so proficient at distinguishing one from the other.

Better for me if I sit and ponder.

But feel free to mock me. Ha!

I remember that Allen when he was in Philadelphia toward the end of his career would write with his shoe in the dirt while at first base, "Trade Me." This was a team that had given him a "last chance" after he had been declared a pariah by practically every other team.

If the rule is, as it should be, that the next player who goes into the HOF should be the one best qualified, what would make him that player?

Often, too much is made of intangibles, true, but that is usually when it is in the nature of how much positive weight to give to them. The only value Allen had was as a hitter. Period. That was considerable, but it was for a relatively short time. He was mediocre to bad on defense and lackadaisical on the base path, plus he was, as they say, a cancer in the clubhouse. There are others (and there will be more) comparable to him as a hitter, plus they have other things going for them that makes up their shortfall as hitters. Y'all were talking about a couple of them recently: Lynn and Evans. Edgar Martinez, soon Larry Walker. P*ss on Allen.

If you want to elect a Ty Cobb-like hitter and headcase, fine, but (and then Cobb could field and was a great baserunner) he better have about 13000 PAs like Cobb. 7000 don't cut it.

If he hadn’t bailed out, or been made to walk the plank, if he had had, say, 2 or 3000 more PAs, would anyone here be taking him seriously as a candidate? His rates as hitter are excellent—that’s his case, and that's all of his case--and they are short-term rates. What would some projection system, such as James’s Brock2, have his OPS+ at with a couple-three thousand more plate appearances, given what those last three seasons were, which in conglomerate are decidedly unimpressive. The only thing he’s got is those high rates, and they would have all gone down precipitously. Yet, people want to pretend he was Willie Mays or Stan Musial--when they had 7000 PAs they were just warmed up. Besides, his career wasn’t cut short like Koufax’s or because he wanted to spend more time with his wife and kids or join a Free Tibet guerilla movement. Why give him any credit. I know--because somebody somewhere at sometime got in and they weren't any better. Now, that's something to rally around. No, the next who goes in should be the best player not yet in. That ain't him and it never will be. But keep the Cable Sports talkfest going.

I think it's more likely that there's a scenario along the lines of what happened to Milli Vanillia after they won their Grammy.

I've always been confused by that situation, why it was such a big deal. The music was still recorded and sung by people.

Yeah, this bothered me too. The Grammys pretend that they're about "music" (not image, hype, marketing, etc.) and then they make a big stink about this studio group using fake frontmen in its videos and lip-synced "live" appearances. That shouldn't have made any difference in the music.

If the Grammy voters thought Milli Vanilli's music was good enough to deserve a Best New Artist Grammy, then that shouldn't have changed when they discovered that "Milli Vanilli' wasn't really two weird guys with dreadlocks. They should have just taken the trophies away from Fab and Rob and given them to whoever was really behind those award-worthy Milli Vanilli recordings.

Heck, were people in the '60s outraged when they found out that "Sugar, Sugar" wasn't really sung by cartoons?

I remember that Allen when he was in Philadelphia toward the end of his career would write with his shoe in the dirt while at first base, "Trade Me." This was a team that had given him a "last chance" after he had been declared a pariah by practically every other team.

Allen wrote in the dirt around first base in 1969, before he'd ever played with any other ML team, not toward the end of his career.

I think that the idea that "somebody will eventually get in and then acknowledge that he used steroids" is about as likely---less likely, in fact---as a reigning triple crown winner coming out of the closet and admitting he's gay.***

I think Gary Sheffield will get elected. I think it's pretty kooky to think one of these players will always be kept out.

Harveys Wallbangers Posted: July 22, 2009 at 07:44 PM (#3263654)

I was merely pointing out Allen's association with semi-famous teams.

Why, what is the point. The two examples you chose only served to add to Allen's credentials. His proponents thank you.

2. Steroid use was widespread by kids and non-professional athletes long before baseball was the cause celebre of the anti-steroid crowd. You need look no further than GNC stores with god knows what in their "supplements" in every mall and "sculpting" supplements available at the supermarket to know that this has little or nothing to do with the influence of professional athletes and everything to do with society's obsession with youth, beauty, strength, etc.* Those who want to reduce the use of steroids generally should stop worrying about pro sports and instead lobby Congress to bring supplements under strict FDA regulation.

How will bringing supplements under strict FDA regulation reduce steroid use? Your own argument is that steroid use has to do with society's obsession with youthful beauty. Steroids, supplements, botox injections, facelifts, etc, are all in the ends means to achieve the ends of youthful beauty.

What says Bill re Pavement?

They could have used steroids so that their later albums (including SM's jam session solo ones) more closely matched their earlier ones.

Allen wrote in the dirt around first base in 1969, before he'd ever played with any other ML team, not toward the end of his career.

That's not how I remember it. But perhaps you could tell us why you think he couldn't have done it at both times.

If you want to read something that puts Dick Allen in the best light, I recommend Jim Kaat's piece in Cult Baseball Players, edited by Danny Peary. Really a nice tribute.