It has not been proven that Jon Heyman is a rapist, but his picture suggests that he is. His refusal to deny it doesn't help, either.

The only good part of this was the ad on the right that linked to pictures of "Ice Girls." Check out the expression on the kid's face in this pic.

Hilarious.

Why does rape get such a bad rap? It wasn't always this way. Cultural mores shift and sway. I mean, it's just sex. Americans are too hung up on sex. If Heyman wants to rape Sammy Sosa, who am I to say he can't?

This article is in fact rather boring, and I have a feeling that his Yes and No votes would track those of most fans and probably even those of Primates pretty closely.

Why does rape get such a bad rap?

Indeed. I mean, what else are you going to do if you want to have sex with someone and they don't want to have sex with you? Not have sex with them? That's insane.

The greatest tragedy of the steroids era is not that the hallowed records have been tainted, but that articles such as this are written.

"it hasn’t absolutely been proven that he took steroids, his expanded size and outrageous productivity suggest that he did"

Love it. Babe Ruth was taking steroids before there were steroids. Of course he only had outrageous size and expanded productivity.

Love it. Babe Ruth was taking steroids before there were steroids. Of course he only had outrageous size and expanded productivity.

Don't forget, he had a corked bat as well!

Don't forget, he had a corked bat as well!

I really don't need to know about his sex life.

I don't think I need to read anything more than the intro to declare this Worst. Column. Ever.

Votes made sense. I agreed with all of them.

I love the Sosa portion in comparison with some of Heyman's other votes:

Mike Piazza: In terms of his credentials it isn't close; he's a clear Hall of Famer. But there has been a fair amount of suspicion raised in recent years, and Jeff Pearlman quotes Reggie Jefferson in his new book, The Rocket that Fell to Earth, as saying that everyone knows Piazza was a steroid man. I could guess on this, but I still think I'm going to need more proof.
My vote: Yes.

Ivan Rodriguez: Like Palmeiro, he made Canseco's first book, Juiced. But Canseco's record isn't perfect, and Pudge has never been caught. It didn't look good when he shrunk to the point where the name "Pudge'' became a joke, but I am still going to need more.
My vote: Yes.

Alex Rodriguez: He admitted to taking a steroid in the period he was with Texas from 2001 through '03 after Selena Roberts reported on SI.com that he failed the 2003 survey test. Roberts strongly suggested in her book A-Rod that he has taken steroids since he's been a Yankee. But I am going to need something more substantial than a continued association with Angel Presinal and other circumstantial evidence.
My vote: Yes.

What happened to the Lord Haw Haw name? I liked it.

We have players who stonewalled Congress over steroid usage.

So Heyman decides that these players are guilty and therefore decides that they "stonewalled Congress."

And I have no problem with this hard-line stance. But I'm at the point where I would put Pete Rose in the Hall of Fame. He broke a sacred rule, and I would still put him in. And we already have Gaylord Perry, a confessed cheater, in the Hall.

He's batty on Rose, but the Perry comparison is reasonable.

I am not comfortable eliminating a vast majority of players from this era. Maybe I am too much of a softie, but I just don't think I can do it. What would the Hall be like without an entire era, or most of an era?

Precisely, and the ARod revelations brought the house down on the writers who were prepared not to vote for McGwire and Bonds and Clemens. You can't not vote for all of these players, plus ARod, plus Manny, plus whoever else we learn about.

Roger Clemens: I believe he is the creep of the Steroid Era since he is willing to drag down anyone in his path. What kind of person would sue someone for telling the truth under oath?

The "drag down anyone in his path" is Heyman's bizarre attack on Clemens. Heyman has stated on more than one occasion that Clemens "dragged Andy Pettitte's father into this." It's insane, as is his "sue someone for telling the truth" line.

You can think Clemens is guilty, but blaming Clemens for "dragging Andy Pettitte's father into this"? Surreal.

Sammy Sosa: I loved the way he ran to the outfield and the way he played to the camera. He was great for baseball at the time. And while it hasn't absolutely been proven that he took steroids, his expanded size and outrageous productivity suggest that he did. His lack of a clear message before Congress didn't help, either.

"He hit lots of home runs."

I wonder how many other people in the BBWAA differentiate the alleged steroid users, deciding to vote for some but not others. My guess would be that as more players become "tainted", more writers will see voting in some of them as being increasingly necessary, which obviously helps Bonds, Clemens, and ARod.

I wonder how many other people in the BBWAA differentiate the alleged steroid users, deciding to vote for some but not others.

It's likely the tainted stars will hover on the ballot, creating a golf ball in the pipeline.

The quotes in #11 are hysterical when contrasted with his paragraph on Sosa. Nice work.

creating a golf ball in the pipeline.

I like to think of it more as a kidney stone in the urethra.

This article is in fact rather boring, and I have a feeling that his Yes and No votes would track those of most fans and probably even those of Primates pretty closely.

If you ranked the players he lists from best to worst, you could basically order them pretty reasonably such that you would be able to draw Heyman's HOF in/out line through the list. So, in that sense, his specific positions here are defensible and, as you say, kind of boring.

That said, two quotes struck me.

First, on Sosa, "while it hasn’t absolutely been proven that he took steroids, his ... outrageous productivity suggest that he did.... My vote: No." In other words, he's planning to vote no on Sosa because he was <u>too good</u>. What!?

Second, on Ivan Rodriguez, "Like Palmeiro, he made Canseco's first book, Juiced. But Canseco's record isn't perfect, and Pudge has never been caught." With respect to naming players who Canseco claimed to have first-hand knowledge of their steroid use, what exactly is the imperfection in Canseco's record?

A very strong case can be made that I. Rodriguez has a better Hall-of-Fame case than Sammy Sosa or Mark McGwire or Raffy Palmeiro, so, as I say, one can certainly draw one's in/out line for the HOF below I-Rod and above the other three and be consistent. But if you're going to bring steroids into the equation and you have some interest in trying to do so in a fair, rational way, I don't see how you get to say that Sosa is a user because he was too productive, but Rodriguez isn't a user because he "has never been caught."

The quotes in #11 are hysterical when contrasted with his paragraph on Sosa. Nice work.

And note that Heyman's "logic" in voting YES on ARod utterly makes no sense. Heyman's analysis on ARod boils down to "I don't see enough evidence that ARod took steroids with the Yankees." Well, sure. But what the heck does that have to do with the price of tea in China? ARod already admitted to using steroids. So what does it matter whether he used with the Yankees? Why does Heyman's analysis turn on that point?

Had Heyman justified a YES vote for ARod on the Clemens/Bonds grounds ("they were HOFers anyway") I could see it. But by his twisted logic, he winds up voting YES for ARod because he doesn't see enough evidence that ARod used while with the Yankees, while at the same time voting NO on Sosa because Heyman kind of thinks the weak evidence maybe points towards usage for Sosa.

So Heyman has proof that ARod used, but lets him in anway, since Heyman can't be sure ARod used with the Yankees. Heyman doesn't have proof that Sosa used at all, but he denies Sosa anyway.

I read Heyman's list, and his choices coincide 100% with the "steroid discount" theory of selection. IOW he calculates whether or not a juicer would have been a HoFer without steroids. It's more of a statistical than a moral judgment about steroids. My only reaction is that he's got a right to his opinion, though the one thing that I didn't like was his judgment of Sosa without any real evidence other than visual and inferential. I'm not sure what he means by Sosa's "lack of a clear message" before Congress, since he denied juicing quite explicitly.

But Andy, he did it with an interpreter!

But Andy, as I pointed out, Heyman's logic on ARod does not turn on a "steroids discount," but, rather, on the lack of proof that ARod used while with the Yankees.

It's more of a statistical than a moral judgment about steroids.

Which, again, shows that the moralists have been forced to get down from their high horses as they've realized the problem with holding all of this era's tainted stars -- including the all-time greats -- out of the Hall of Fame.

There's a case to keep Sosa and Sheffield out of the Hall of Fame based on merit alone.

So basically his votes are

Bonds: yes
Clemens: yes
Sosa : no
Sheffield : no
Palmerio : no
Piazza : yes
I-rod : yes
A-rod : yes
Manny : yes

isn't it ironic that this ballot make a ton more sense sabremetrically than a lot of his past votes?

Hey people would you stop looking for logic with heyman?

There's a case to keep Sosa and Sheffield out of the Hall of Fame based on merit alone.

Just looking at Sheffield, it's hard to see that case. 2500 games of a 141 OPS+ from a corner OF, with several really outstanding years in there. (I won't give him any extra credit for 550 games at 3B/SS since he generally sucked defensively there, from what I can tell, and there's also the tanking issue which, though overblown because there's little evidence for it, certainly isn't something that favors Sheffield.)

Tony Gwynn has a 132 OPS+ in 2440 games, and nobody suggests that he's not a HOFer. (Using EqA to take into account steals, Sheffield still has Gwynn beat .315 to .307.)

All ten players on Sheffield's sim list are either HOFers, are going there, or should be there:

McGriff
Griffey
Jackson
Mantle
B. Williams
Ott
Mathews
Thomas
Schmidt
Bagwell

Four of those players are contemporaries of Sheffield.

He also scores quite well on the HOF Standards and HOF Monitor, and well enough on gray ink. What's the case against, on merit? That he scores poorly on black ink?

But Andy, as I pointed out, Heyman's logic on ARod does not turn on a "steroids discount," but, rather, on the lack of proof that ARod used while with the Yankees.

Ray, you're right about what Heyman wrote about A-Rod. That really is kind of weird. I got so wrapped up in the best one day run of TCM movies ever (eight classic early 30's pre-codes and murder mysteries in a row) that I rushed through what he said in between movies without picking up on that. But if it comes down to Heyman vs the early Barbara Stanwyck and Myrna Loy, Heyman's probably going to come out a loser every time.

Tony Gwynn has a 132 OPS+ in 2440 games, and nobody suggests that he's not a HOFer. (Using EqA to take into account steals, Sheffield still has Gwynn beat .315 to .307.)

Tony Gwynn was also generally considered to be a plus fielder, and was good enough to rack up 5 Gold Gloves. Between him and Sheffield, over their respective careers, that adds up to a ton of difference - AROM's analysis has the difference between the two of them defensively at somewhere in excess of 150 runs. Overall, Gwynn likely generated more value that Sheffield during their respective careers, and has a better case as being deserving of the Hall.

Also, the 3000 hits and .338 BA wasn't going to hurt.

What's the case against, on merit? That he scores poorly on black ink?

I'd go with "metrics show him to be an extremely poor fielder, no matter where he played, reducing his value" and "in-season durability issues (only 5 seasons with 150 or more games in a 22 season career, only 9 over 140).

That being said, I'd still place him on the right side of the in/out line, despite not liking him at all. Simply put, whenever he was in the lineup, the guy hit.

I think you have more of a point with respect to Sosa, baudib. Absent the steroids issue (which is bizarrely applied to Sosa), he would go in without a doubt on the wave of his 600 home runs including 60+ three times. But what if we convert some of Sosa's home runs into other events while giving him equivalent value? Would he still be a deserving HOFer then?

He has a 128 OPS+ in 2354 games. Rice -- who most people here, including me, don't think is a deserving HOFer -- has a 128 OPS+ in 2089 games. So that seems dangerously close, except that Sosa has 267 more games -- which is not an insignificant number.

But on peak value, Sosa has Rice easily beat. Sosa's five-year peak is broader and higher than Rice's. Here are their best five OPS+s:

SOSA 203
SOSA 161
SOSA 160
S0SA 160
Rice 157
Rice 154
S0SA 151
Rice 147
Rice 141
Rice 130

Therefore, Sosa is ahead of Rice in career value and easily ahead on peak value. (I think it's necessary -- though not enough -- to show that a player is clearly better than Rice in order for that player to be a serious candidate for the HOF.) Sosa probably slots into the bottom third of HOF corner outfielders on career value, which isn't good. But what drives Sosa's case is really peak value: his five year peak is outstanding, and probably slots him in to the middle tier of HOF corner OF as far as peak goes.

Ten HOFers and Sheffield on Sosa's comps list, though when you hit 600 home runs, that's the way your list will read, and we're trying to get away from the home runs in and of themselves and look more at value.

In short, I think you're closer here than with Sheffield, but I think Sosa's peak deservingly ushers him in to the Hall on merit. Is there a case against him, as you say? Sure. If one is more of a career guy than a peak guy, one probably won't like Sosa as much.

Gywnn is my idea of a solid, mid-tier HOFer. This comparison shows that Sosa is behind on career value:

Gwynn: 2440 games, 132 OPS+, .307 EqA
Sosa: 2354 games, 128 OPS+, .292 EqA

Therefore, Sosa is ahead of Rice in career value and easily ahead on peak value. Sosa probably slots into the bottom third of HOF corner outfielders on career value. But what drives Sosa's case is really peak value; his five year peak is outstanding, and probably slots him in to the middle tier of HOF corner OF.

Sammy Sosa is a corner outfielder who played 10% of his games in center. Rice is a corner outfielder who played 25% of his games at DH.

Are you saying that the 6 innings Rice spent in center don't count, David? :-)

Anyway, yes, that does widen the gap between the two more than I stated.

Reading that was like trying to find meaning in a Pauly Shore movie.

The case is that while both are qualified, neither are obviously inner circle. or ever average when it comes HOF sluggers. add on top to the potential PED suspicion and it is at least reasonable case.

I guess if I were voting I'd personally take the "penalization approach" that i would still vote in obvious no -brainer guys (Bonds A-rod Piazza Clemens etc) without a thought, but would give more serious consideration for more borderline guys.

Without any steroids taint/suspicion, I'm sure Sosa would skate in quite easily, while Sheffield would have some trouble.

Sheffield's problems are:
A. He has very little value outside of what he does in the batter's box. And while acknowledged as a great hitter, he's still probably underrated by those who aren't familiar with advanced batting metrics.
B. Related to point A., a lot of voters were well aware of the fact that 500 homers in this era isn't as fantastic an achievement as in past eras. Outside of 500 homers, he doesn't have traditional stats that scream for induction.
C. Sheffield doesn't have a lot of traditional, ginormous seasons. In a period of great offense, Sheffield has no 50+ homer seasons, no MVP awards. He hasn't been particularly durable.
D. His vagabond/mercenary image doesn't help. A lot of teams have decided they were better off without him. He's very much the Dick Allen of his time. Allen was an even better hitter AND he has an MVP award, and didn't come close to the HOF. Of course, Sheffield has a ring, and a longer career. But they're basically the same player.

Despite this, I think Sheffield is probably the more deserving candidate of the two, unless you put an unusual amount of weight on peak value.

Sosa has one amazing Bonds/Pujols/Gehrig-type season, and four other very good/great years. Outside of that, he has very little in the way of true Hall of Fame credentials for the knowledgeable sabermetrically inclined voter. He has only 4 other seasons with an OPS+ above 120, which is nothing for a corner outfielder, and even then it's a heavily SLG weighted OPS; his career OBP is very poor for HOF standards (.344). Even though he started very young and was very durable, his career is not exceptionally long -- there are plenty of outfielders with 10 good-great years who aren't nearly HOF worthy.

I'd put Raines in ahead of both of them, and he's not even close to getting voted in.

Sosa has one amazing Bonds/Pujols/Gehrig-type season, and four other very good/great years. Outside of that, he has very little in the way of true Hall of Fame credentials for the knowledgeable sabermetrically inclined voter.

TotalZone rates Sosa as a +120 defensively. About 75 runs of that comes between 1993-97, which is enough to make him a very good player over that span. He's got 10 seasons of 3 WAR or more, 6 seasons of 5+. I would say he's pretty comparable to Norm Cash, except with better defense and a better ridiculous peak season.

Even using my defensive numbers, which quite frankly surprised me on Sosa, he doesn't look like a slam dunk case. I'd vote for him, but not before I put Raines and Edmonds in.

Sosa though age 28 season... 5 years under 100 for OPS+, a 111 and 3 in the 120's. Age 29-33 OPS+ of 150+ for 5 years, 4 over 160 with one of those over 200. 133 at 34 (2003) then back to 113 and under for his last 3 seasons. Hmm... what happened in 2003... oh yeah, the drug testing started with the infamous survey then penalties.

Now, this all could be coincidence. He could've just had a killer 5 year peak vs the rest of his career with a very rapid decline phase that just happened to hit at the point testing began. After all, his age 28 comp was Dale Murphy who also had a very rapid decline. Still, a 106 OPS+ through age 28 then a 145 from 29 on is just a bit odd especially with how it hit dead on the years generally viewed as the peak for steroids.

In the end I really don't care much one way or the other on steroids, but Sosa has a lot of circumstantial evidence around him.

Rafael Palmeiro had his big jump at 26 but had hinted at it at age 22 (543 slg%). His case, outside of the positive test, is a lot weaker than I thought it was when I looked at his B-R page. An increase in patience at the plate leading to more doubles which shifted to more home runs. However, again, a big drop from 2002 to 2003 (146 OPS+ to 117 then 108 then 108 then out of baseball).

In the end I really don't care much one way or the other on steroids, but Sosa has a lot of circumstantial evidence around him.

No, he doesn't. His career path and statistics do not add up to "a lot of circumstantial evidence." Mark McGwire is a guy with "a lot of circumstantial evidence." Sosa has had literally nobody claim even second-hand knowledge of steroid use. All he has is "got big and hit a lot of home runs."

Sosa though age 28 season... 5 years under 100 for OPS+, a 111 and 3 in the 120's. Age 29-33 OPS+ of 150+ for 5 years, 4 over 160 with one of those over 200. 133 at 34 (2003) then back to 113 and under for his last 3 seasons. Hmm... what happened in 2003...

He turned 34. Was there some other explanation needed? I thought that not getting worse after age 34 was supposed to be proof of steroid use. Now getting worse after age 34 is?

He turned 34. Was there some other explanation needed? I thought that not getting worse after age 34 was supposed to be proof of steroid use. Now getting worse after age 34 is?

David, David, David. We've been over this before.

Circumstantial evidence of steroid use consists of:

- Sudden improvement
- Gradual improvement
- Sudden decline
- Lack of decline
- Durability
- Injury-proneness

What about this isn't clear?

In the end I really don't care much one way or the other on steroids, but Sosa has a lot of circumstantial evidence around him.

If this is a solid circumstantial case for Sosa, then the circumstantial case for Maris is even stronger:

- Went from 16-39-61 home runs immediately after the introduction of Dianabol, the first widely available anabolic steroid is brought to the US market.

- Physical breakdown, done as a regular player before his 30th birthday.

- Developed reputation for being a malingerer and flipped off the crowd at a Twins game.

- Died at age 51 from a one of the cancers that steroid abuse has been linked to.

Steroids probably weren't the PED of choice that early, but that's a much stronger case than Sosa.

Plus, Maris was losing chunks of his hair during that 61-homer season. If that's not a sign of steroid use, it ought to be.

Hmm... what happened in 2003... oh yeah, the drug testing started with the infamous survey then penalties.

My recollection is that Sosa also got beaned in the head that year. I don't think he was quite the same hitter after that.

What happened to the Lord Haw Haw name? I liked it.

I think it's one of those things that show up every once and a while. I generally always use the Haw-Haw Heyman moniker for him, but Repoz doesn't as much (if at all). There is a unspoken science without rhyme or reason.

Sosa though age 28 season... 5 years under 100 for OPS+, a 111 and 3 in the 120's. Age 29-33 OPS+ of 150+ for 5 years, 4 over 160 with one of those over 200. 133 at 34 (2003) then back to 113 and under for his last 3 seasons. Hmm... what happened in 2003...

Wait! I know! I know!

He stopped taking steroids, right?

I think Heyman started out with the intention of saying "Yes" for guys that were HoFers before they likely, in his mind, used. And then he didn't really hold that theme in mind as he actually wrote each individual comment (such as ARod's). In Sosa's case, since the "evidence" against him is pretty much that he very suddenly started hitting 60+ HRs, and he was no one's idea of a HoFer-in-the-making before then, Heyman says no, regardless of the actual value of the evidence.

beaned in the head

This is redundant.

/pedant

IOW he calculates whether or not a juicer would have been a HoFer without steroids. It's more of a statistical than a moral judgment about steroids

Indeed, and though I can see the logic in this, I don't agree with the ethical stance. To me, if steroid-enhanced performance is not eligible towards the HOF, then it's turpitude in some sense, and activates the character clause. If steroid use is not turpitude, then why discount the performance?

beaned in the head

This is redundant.

Probably. I started off saying hit, then clarified with in the head, then changed it to beaned. Oh well.

That said, I don't understand the dislike for Sosa by the media. I think this article lists the sum of all the "evidence" against Sosa for using. Even A-Rod gets treated better in this article.

IOW he calculates whether or not a juicer would have been a HoFer without steroids. It's more of a statistical than a moral judgment about steroids

Indeed, and though I can see the logic in this, I don't agree with the ethical stance. To me, if steroid-enhanced performance is not eligible towards the HOF, then it's turpitude in some sense, and activates the character clause. If steroid use is not turpitude, then why discount the performance?

I completely agree, for two reasons. First, if one takes steroids to enhance performance---and if a HoF voter believes that it did---it really shouldn't matter whether or not you were "good enough to make the HoF anyway." What did Mark McGwire do that's any worse than Barry Bonds? If in effect McGwire's being punished for his juicing, why not Bonds or A-Rod? And if not Bonds or A-Rod, then why McGwire?

But beyond that, how in the hell can anyone make any precise "steroid discount" to begin with? How can we ever calculate whether Bonds would have hit 43 or 73 home runs in 2001 without the aid of The Juice, or whether McGwire would have hit 40 or 70 (or 59 or 64) in 1998? It may have added 20 or 30 home runs to their totals, or it may not have added a damn one. I want to know what kind of baseball scientist is smart enough to sort this out, or rather dumb enough to pretend that he is.

But that's exactly what the "steroid discounters" are doing. They're not nearly as smart as they think they are.

The only two logical moral positions on steroids are either "steroid disqualification," or "no steroids penalty, just stick to the numbers you see." The "steroid discount" position, popular as it may be, is little more than a combination of moral equivocation and scientific pretension. It's one thing for the Hall of Merit, where the moral factor doesn't really apply, but for the Hall of Fame it's simply a copout.

It's one thing for the Hall of Merit, where the moral factor doesn't really apply, but for the Hall of Fame it's simply a copout.

I agree with every word of your post until this final sentence. If indeed the moral factor doesn't really apply for the Hall of Merit, then what purpose would be served by either a "steroid disqualification" or a "steroid discount" by a HOM voter? The latter is, as you say, nonsense on its face, and the former is invoking a "character clause" that's beyond the HOM's charter.

The only two logical moral positions on steroids are either "steroid disqualification," or "no steroids penalty, just stick to the numbers you see." The "steroid discount" position, popular as it may be, is little more than a combination of moral equivocation and scientific pretension.

Andy, I essentially agree with you that a "steroids discount" makes no sense. But I also think it makes no sense, on many levels, to apply a "steroids disqualification." I'm quite comfortable concluding that "no steroids penalty" is the clear way to go.

It's one thing for the Hall of Merit, where the moral factor doesn't really apply, but for the Hall of Fame it's simply a copout.

I think what we've seen here is that as push (McGwire, Palmeiro, Sosa) has come to shove (Clemens, Bonds, ARod, Manny), voters are admitting that the steroids issue isn't as important to them as they've been pretending it was.

If steroids are a pox on the game, if they're cheating, if they reveal something Evil about a player's character, if they force others to use to keep up, if they make the playing field uneven, if they skew the numbers and make a mockery of the records........ Well, why in the world would someone who holds this view vote for any player they believed used?

It's one thing for the Hall of Merit, where the moral factor doesn't really apply, but for the Hall of Fame it's simply a copout.

I agree with every word of your post until this final sentence. If indeed the moral factor doesn't really apply for the Hall of Merit, then what purpose would be served by either a "steroid disqualification" or a "steroid discount" by a HOM voter? The latter is, as you say, nonsense on its face, and the former is invoking a "character clause" that's beyond the HOM's charter.

By that I only meant that the "character clause" is there in the HoF's guidelines, and IMO you either see juicers as being disqualified by it or you don't. The HoM doesn't have the same sort of standard, and IIRC there have been those who argued for either a one-year delay before inducting a juicer, or those who have attempted to discern what McGwire's statistics would have looked like in the absence of steroids.

And even though I think that it's mathematically impossible to do that (as I stated above), the fact that the moral factor doesn't carry the same force in the HoM means that at least on that level (i.e. the moral level) there's more of an argument for introducing a steroid discount into HoM debates than in those about the HoF.

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

The only two logical moral positions on steroids are either "steroid disqualification," or "no steroids penalty, just stick to the numbers you see." The "steroid discount" position, popular as it may be, is little more than a combination of moral equivocation and scientific pretension.

Andy, I essentially agree with you that a "steroids discount" makes no sense. But I also think it makes no sense, on many levels, to apply a "steroids disqualification." I'm quite comfortable concluding that "no steroids penalty" is the clear way to go.

Yeah, Ray, somehow I think I knew that this was your position. (smile) Though I disagree with it completely, there's nothing logically inconsistent about it. And if public opinion evolves to the point that it comes around to your take, I can live with it. I know that it may be hard for some people to believe, but my main interest has always been to air out all sides of this issue and let the marketplace of ideas determine the outcome. And by this time I don't think that any side can fairly say that their views have been suppressed.

I think what we've seen here is that as push (McGwire, Palmeiro, Sosa) has come to shove (Clemens, Bonds, ARod, Manny), voters are admitting that the steroids issue isn't as important to them as they've been pretending it was.

You're the Swami here, Ray, not me. [Insert "tomorrow's newspaper" cliche.] I have no clue whatsoever as to how all this will eventually sort itself out, but I think we can all agree that the Bonds / Clemens first ballot year is going to make things a lot clearer.

If steroids are a pox on the game, if they're cheating, if they reveal something Evil about a player's character, if they force others to use to keep up, if they make the playing field uneven, if they skew the numbers and make a mockery of the records........ Well, why in the world would someone who holds this view vote for any player they believed used?

I have no idea, and that was my point about the steroid discounters. Seems to me that on the moral question they're trying to have it both ways.

the fact that the moral factor doesn't carry the same force in the HoM means that at least on that level (i.e. the moral level) there's more of an argument for introducing a steroid discount into HoM debates than in those about the HoF.

Sure, but since we agree that on an empirical basis, the steroid discount is complete idiocy, I'd say that the issue is a moot point within the HOM.

You're the Swami here, Ray, not me. [Insert "tomorrow's newspaper" cliche.] I have no clue whatsoever as to how all this will eventually sort itself out, but I think we can all agree that the Bonds / Clemens first ballot year is going to make things a lot clearer.

Well, I think the Bonds/Clemens second ballot year will be the telling one. In the first year we'll probably see a lot of the "I fully plan to vote for him, but bizarrely not on the first ballot" silliness.

Well, I think the Bonds/Clemens second ballot year will be the telling one. In the first year we'll probably see a lot of the "I fully plan to vote for him, but bizarrely not on the first ballot" silliness.

I was really surprised that there seemed to be absolutely none of this in the case of McGwire. His 2nd-year vote total was something like 1 vote less than his first year total.

EDIT: Actually, his vote total was the exact same his first two years (128) and dropped by 10 his third year (2009).

I was surprised as well, Kiko; though I think the dynamic with Bonds/Clemens could be different.

I was really surprised that there seemed to be absolutely none of this in the case of McGwire. His 2nd-year vote total was something like 1 vote less than his first year total.

yep this surprised the crap out of me, I fully expected him to move to the 40% range after the first year vote.

Either you take the HOF character clause (or whatever it is) seriously or you don't. To deny some cheaters and allow others because they were really good before they cheated makes no sense to me. We'll reward Bonds because he was great when he was clean? Sure he was. But he's a dirty cheater too (if you're into righteous indignation anyway). For me, there are two intellectually honest positions here: 1) If you cheated, you're out; and 2) I don't care if you cheated or not. What Heyman is doing is arbitrary and silly.

Well, I think the Bonds/Clemens second ballot year will be the telling one. In the first year we'll probably see a lot of the "I fully plan to vote for him, but bizarrely not on the first ballot" silliness.

But for the steroids issue, Bonds and Clemens would have been first ballot locks, with over 90% of the vote.

So the issue is whether anyone will not vote for them only the first year, to penalize them for steroids, and then vote them in the next year? I don't see the psychology there.

I think that there might be a few possible converts, if it looks like most of the other writers vote for them. Over 15 years, there could also be some turn over in the voters, with the internet crowd coming in and some of the dinosaurs fading out. But if they don't pull a hell of a lot more votes than McGwire did the first year, then that means there is a great deal of anti-steroid sentiment in the writers and they may never make it.

The calculus on all this could change, depending on the outcome of the government's case against Barry -- an acquittal would help some, but a conviction [which would of course be a gross miscarriage of justice and a stain upon our justice system forever] would render him toast. The same is true to a lesser extent for Clemens' civil case -- but if the government comes after him, the parallel with Bonds becomes complete.

For me, there are two intellectually honest positions here: 1) If you cheated, you're out; and 2) I don't care if you cheated or not.

Except, of course, that knowing cheaters have already been elected to the Hall. You just find their cheating more palatable than steroids, even if it was actually more clearly against the rules.

I was really surprised that there seemed to be absolutely none of this in the case of McGwire. His 2nd-year vote total was something like 1 vote less than his first year total

McGwire had the misfortune of being eligible during the shvtstorm that was the Bonds and then Clemens/Bonds steroid saga. There is virtually no way McGwire's vote total would go up during all of that. His only real hope is to hang out on the ballot for 5 or so more years and have the steroids saga die down.

Good to see the circle jerk's still going on. Keep it up, boys; the world's not watching.

Either you take the HOF character clause (or whatever it is) seriously or you don't. To deny some cheaters and allow others because they were really good before they cheated makes no sense to me. We'll reward Bonds because he was great when he was clean? Sure he was. But he's a dirty cheater too (if you're into righteous indignation anyway). For me, there are two intellectually honest positions here: 1) If you cheated, you're out; and 2) I don't care if you cheated or not. What Heyman is doing is arbitrary and silly.

I think the character clause is being taken seriously. Just that everyone has a different opinion on how much to apply it. I have no problem applying it as a small percentage positive or negative(hurts Allen, helps others), but I do have a problem using it as a wholesell rejection of a player. If they aren't specifically banned then I don't think there is any reason to automatically exclude them from the vote.

Good to see the circle jerk's still going on. Keep it up, boys; the world's not watching.

well you seem to be coming in here to enjoy watching the circle jerk, glad to see people that like baseball so much that they enter a thread to complain about other people who like talking about the game.

If someone had told me that a seldom noted side effect of steroid usage was increased stupidity in those that cover the user's profession for a living, I'd have been complaining about it years ago, too.

Is there some way I can just make it stop?

Can I flog myself once for every fond memory of 1998 I still hang onto?

What penance can I perform for not caring about steroids as much as I should?

I think that there might be a few possible converts, if it looks like most of the other writers vote for them. Over 15 years, there could also be some turn over in the voters, with the internet crowd coming in and some of the dinosaurs fading out.

It's not clear to me that the general consensus of the internet crowd is much different from that of the dinosaurs on this issue, actually. Neyer, for example, has said that he probably will not force himself to make a decision on McGwire until McGwire's 15th turn on the ballot; on the other hand, Neyer plans to vote for ARod. I don't see any difference between Neyer's conclusion and Heyman's conclusion with regard to the two players.

the fact that the moral factor doesn't carry the same force in the HoM means that at least on that level (i.e. the moral level) there's more of an argument for introducing a steroid discount into HoM debates than in those about the HoF.

Sure, but since we agree that on an empirical basis, the steroid discount is complete idiocy, I'd say that the issue is a moot point within the HOM.

I'd say more "should be" rather than "is," at least in the minds of some HoM voters. Not that it was a majority sentiment, to be sure, but I'm pretty sure I recall at least a few people invoking the "one year penalty" rule, and a few others arguing the merits of a (non-judgmental) steroid discount.

Good to see the circle jerk's still going on. Keep it up, boys; the world's not watching.

So is this a case of JC's being in the world, but not of it? Or are you just getting BTF updates from the Baseball Padre over at L'Observatorio Romano?

EDIT: Of course I'm not sure whether L'Observatorio Romano would ever be covering circle jerks of any kind, so let's scratch that one.

Can I flog myself once for every fond memory of 1998 I still hang onto?

I'm with you, Zonk. I loved the HR chase of 1998, I see absolutely no reason to be bitter about it now, and I don't apologize for that.

Same with Bonds 73 and Bonds 755/756. And with watching Clemens put up amazing performances into his 40s. I like watching great players do great things; it's one reason why I follow the game. There is no logical basis -- just speculation -- for concluding that those events would not have happened if not for S-T-E-R-O-I-D-S. If others want to rob themselves of the enjoyment that was and is derived from such events, be my guest; I choose not to engage in such silliness.