At least three players who were almost certainly steroid users have already been elected to the Hall of Fame.

What? Who is he talking about? Robby Alomar? Nolan Ryan? Cal Ripken?

Babe Ruth, Mickey Mantle, and Pud Galvin are all known to have taken steroid injections. Maybe "used" is wrong because it's unclear they derived any benefits from them (indeed, at least in Ruth's case, it seems to have poisoned him pretty badly).

In all serious, Fisk is almost certainly one of the ones James is thinking off. Don't know about the other two.

Don't know about the other two.

Puckett?

Puckett has always been my 'eyeball test' case as he muscled up drastically in one offseason, jumped from 0-4 HR his first 2 years to over 30 and moved from solid player to super-star. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if Rickey Henderson did, he was extremely chiseled physically and played a long, long time with his 2nd & 3rd Oakland stints being during the period that steroids would've ruled the clubhouse. Given various banned substances are supposed to help you stay on the field one cannot help but put a question mark beside Ripken. Fisk and other catchers who lasted a long long time are also in question due to that factor. Nolan Ryan with his obsession with fitness, weights, and ability to play much longer than anyone thought (a 140 ERA+ at 44, 116 ERA+ from 40 on vs his 110 ERA+ before that) puts a question mark up. Paul Molitor before age 34 had one season over 135 for OPS+, after had 4 of them. Just a few guys who would've drawn very suspicious looks now who were ignored in the past.

In all serious, Fisk is almost certainly one of the ones James is thinking off. Don't know about the other two.

Henderson? Eckersley? If you think the late 80's / early 90's A's were a team full of users during a time when it wasn't clear how it might be viewed, then these two would have to be prime candidates.

Reggie. Didn't a steroid dealer surf his couch for a while?

Oh heck, I'll go with Sutter, Perez and Perry. What do I win?

I would be shocked if Rickey used steroids. Reggie would not surprise me at all.

C—Open to Suggestions

Most games caught in the millennium so far is, I believe, A.J. Pierogi, with Jason Kendall a close second. The actual best catcher is clearly Joe Mauer, unless you're very intent on weighing total games caught over quality (in which case Jorge Posada would be as good a suggestion as any).

Paul Molitor, Rickey, and Fisk would be my guess

Rickey's not one of them, so there's only 2.

Rickey's not one of them, so there's only 2.

Well done. :)

Most games caught in the millennium so far is, I believe, A.J. Pierogi, with Jason Kendall a close second. The actual best catcher is clearly Joe Mauer, unless you're very intent on weighing total games caught over quality (in which case Jorge Posada would be as good a suggestion as any).

A follow-up e-mail to James suggested Mauer and James admitted he had overlooked him in a "senior moment".

Obviously this is all speculative (for me, at least), but Nolan Ryan lines up pretty well with what we "know" (think we know) about steroid users:

1. Eric Gagne: Threw really hard his entire career, with a very slow decline in velocity. Steroids supposedly give you a few extra mph.
2. Barry Bonds: A great player who became an even better player at an age where he's supposed to be declining. Ryan's best ERA+ years came at 34, 40, 30 and 44. (WAR looks more kindly on his "prime," due largely to the number of IP thrown, but his #5-7 seasons in WAR came at ages 40, 44 and 42.)
3. Roger Clemens: Pitched deep into his 40s with very few health problems.
4. Ken Caminiti/Jose Canseco: Spent much of his career with the two Texas teams, which seem to have reputations as steroid havens.
5. Rafael Palmeiro: Lucrative pharmaceutical sponsorship shows he is not globally anti-drug.

It is not my position that you can’t discount the accomplishments of steroid users. I think it is entirely fair to apply a discount, if you choose to do so, to the things done by Jason Giambi or Manny Ramirez or any other pill popper.

It is my view, however, that attempting to apply that discount traps you into an ultimately unsustainable balancing act. At least three players who were almost certainly steroid users have already been elected to the Hall of Fame. In five years that will be ten players, or 20.

So IOW until that time that the HoF decides to induct known steroid users, let's cast suspicion over the broadest possible number of players. Hell, since he's not naming anyone, I'm surprised he stopped with only three---oh, but wait, in five years the HoF will have inducted 5 more, or maybe even 15, according to Bill James's Secret Sources or something.

At that point

Assuming we accept James's assertion as fact, without any proof or evidence beyond hearsay....

you will be drawing a line between those who were credibly accused of using steroids—who you want to keep out of the Hall of Fame

IOW known steroid users

—and those who merely have all the characteristics of steroid users, but who have somehow escaped the accusations.

IOW players with no actual evidence against them other than speculation and hearsay.

As time passes it is going to become progressively more difficult to sustain that distinction.

Of course it might help separate fact from fiction if James provided a few actual names of some of these players that he's so sure about, but then again Gods don't have to answer either letters or questions.

Well, now that James is working for a MLB team he probably does have insider info on who did/did not do steroids. Henderson seems very possible as I am Canadian and we all went through the nightmare of Ben Johnson in 1988 and how our country went nuts navel gazing over it. Sprinters are notorious for taking drugs (iirc all but one of the finalists in the '88 Olympics were eventually caught for some banned substance, including Carl Lewis) so why wouldn't a guy who counts on his speed to a large degree be using steroids if there was no testing and no penalties if you did somehow get caught?

In truth, any MLB player who didn't at least look into using steroids in the late 80's/1990's was being foolish as they clearly helped you train and build muscle thus not using was writing off wins for your team and millions of dollars for yourself.

Well, now that James is working for a MLB team he probably does have insider info on who did/did not do steroids.

Maybe or maybe not, but the effect of what James is doing is taking those 3 unnamed names and effectively inviting everyone to start speculating about every possible player for nearly any possible reason that might occur to them. It's barely one step removed from what that NY Times reporter did in that Sammy Sosa story.

If James has actual proof that those 3 unnamed players took steroids, he should name them and be ready to back up his claims with credible evidence, not this "not sayin', just sayin'" BS. Of course that assumes that he's actually got some sort of principle behind his innuendo, and that he's just not just playing the concern troll in a particularly smarmy manner.

In truth, any MLB player who didn't at least look into using steroids in the late 80's/1990's was being foolish as they clearly helped you train and build muscle thus not using was writing off wins for your team and millions of dollars for yourself.

That's certainly one possible take that's got many adherents among the libertarians, but it's not the one that James is making.

Since it's almost certain that there are several players in the Hall of Fame who threw games for monetary compensation, does James think the Black Sox are being punished unfairly?

Anyone who believes there aren't yet any steroid users in the Hall of Fame is almost laughably naive.

Agreed, what James is doing is NO different than what the writers are doing.

The best possible outcome at this point is that everyone who's held a baseball since 1980 is taken to be a suspected steroid user - no way 25% of writers are willing to send in blank ballots year after year. Deluding themselves into thinking there are "clean" players on the ballot is what leads them to not vote for Bonds, Clemens, et al. If it was common knowledge that Morris, Biggio, Smith, et al. were also using steroids, that intransigence would have to dry up.

Since it's almost certain that there are several players in the Hall of Fame who threw games for monetary compensation, does James think the Black Sox are being punished unfairly?

Yeah. I mean, I do think that in reality, if it were revealed that a current HOFer used steroids, it'd drastically change the conversation. But it's not clear to me that it should. There are a lot better arguments to be made; I'm surprised James focused on that one.

Anyone who believes there aren't yet any steroid users in the Hall of Fame is almost laughably naive.

There were also many known Communist spies within the State Department in the 1940's. So should those known spies have been given a pass because we couldn't identify others who may have also been spies? Or should we have just started throwing out innuendo at the 99% of the employees who were loyal, simply because there may have been some undetected spies among them?

And no, I'm not equating steroid users with Communist spies, but the principle is identical: Why are we obliged to lump everyone in a group together simply because we don't possess full information about everyone within the group? We don't do that in our criminal justice system, and we don't do that in our everyday lives. Why do we "have to" do it in this case?

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

Agreed, what James is doing is NO different than what the writers are doing.

Agreed, and what they're both doing is shameful, even if both of them would likely try to claim some higher moral ground over the other.

If James were more forthright, he could just say "Let's just vote for players on the basis of their records, since cheating is cheating and IMO steroids are no different than amps or spitters." And that would be a coherent POV, but that's not what he's doing.

The best possible outcome at this point is that everyone who's held a baseball since 1980 is taken to be a suspected steroid user - no way 25% of writers are willing to send in blank ballots year after year. Deluding themselves into thinking there are "clean" players on the ballot is what leads them to not vote for Bonds, Clemens, et al. If it was common knowledge that Morris, Biggio, Smith, et al. were also using steroids, that intransigence would have to dry up.

Sure, and if it were common knowledge that Obama was really a Kenyan, that might have changed the outcome of the election. But perhaps you have some inside information about "Morris, Biggio, Smith, et al" that you'd like to share with the rest of the world and take us out of our state of illusion.

There were also many known Communist spies within the State Department in the 1940's. So should those known spies have been given a pass because we couldn't identify others who may have also been spies? Or should we have just started throwing out innuendo at the 99% of the employees who were loyal, simply because there may have been some undetected spies among them?

And no, I'm not equating steroid users with Communist spies, but the principle is identical: Why are we obliged to lump everyone in a group together simply because we don't possess full information about everyone within the group? We don't do that in our criminal justice system, and we don't do that in our everyday lives. Why do we "have to" do it in this case?

Great. Now I'll have to cope with the image of Roger Clemens dressed as Ethel Rosenberg for the rest of my years.

But perhaps you have some inside information about "Morris, Biggio, Smith, et al" that you'd like to share with the rest of the world and take us out of our state of illusion.

It seems likely, which is the origin of the irremovable suspicion on almost everyone else.

Great. Now I'll have to cope with the image of Roger Clemens dressed as Ethel Rosenberg for the rest of my years.

You do know, don't you, that one of Julius Rosenberg's last known questions before he was executed was "How did the Dodgers do?"

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

But perhaps you have some inside information about "Morris, Biggio, Smith, et al" that you'd like to share with the rest of the world and take us out of our state of illusion.

It seems likely, which is the origin of the irremovable suspicion on almost everyone else.

Yeah, that's almost as convincing as real physical evidence like this.

Yeah, that's almost as convincing as real physical evidence like this.

It's confusing that you're phrasing that like you disagree with my point, but I don't think you've actually presented any reason that you do. If I write everyone's name on the fence, they have to give up on the fence evidence. Why would you prefer Joe Zilch go to jail?

Andy's just in denial.

What else is new.

Catchers by WAR 2000-2009

1. Jorge Posada 34.8
2. Ivan Rodriguez 28.4
3. Joe Mauer 26.0
4. Jason Kendall 23.4
5. Victor Martinez 18.6

4. Jason Kendall 23.4

Yeah, but the stubble accounts for half of that.

If James has actual proof that those 3 unnamed players took steroids, he should name them and be ready to back up his claims with credible evidence, not this "not sayin', just sayin'" BS. Of course that assumes that he's actually got some sort of principle behind his innuendo, and that he's just not just playing the concern troll in a particularly smarmy manner.

Did you constantly fail reading comprehension in school?

Bill's point was that over time HOF voters are going to elect players from this era who are worthy on the basis of their accomplishments, who are also almost certainly steroid users. He sees three inductees who match that criteria now, in the future there will be far more.

Drawing a line and keeping out the McGwires and ManRams because they got caught or confessed, while allowing in others who were lucky enough to escape the testing era, is the logical conundrum you don't want to face, maybe because logic itself is a conundrum to you.

Who is Dirty Rotten?

I find it interesting that A-Rod had 36 fWAR at shortstop from 2000-2009, despite never playing the position after 2003. I wonder where he ranks for the decade among shortstops.

Who is Dirty Rotten?

Jeter.

Yeah, that's almost as convincing as real physical evidence like this.

It's confusing that you're phrasing that like you disagree with my point, but I don't think you've actually presented any reason that you do. If I write everyone's name on the fence, they have to give up on the fence evidence. Why would you prefer Joe Zilch go to jail?

Sorry, I guess I should have put "(sarcasm alert)" in front of that post, but I kind of thought that the nature of that "evidence" spoke for itself.

Of course "Morris, Biggio, Smith, et al" have about as much real evidence against them as Joe Zilch of Herblock fame, but for whatever reason you seem to consider the evidence against Morris & Co. to be more compelling, even though it consists of exactly nothing.

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

Did you constantly fail reading comprehension in school?

Bill's point was that over time HOF voters are going to elect players from this era who are worthy on the basis of their accomplishments, who are also almost certainly steroid users. He sees three inductees who match that criteria now, in the future there will be far more.

Drawing a line and keeping out the McGwires and ManRams because they got caught or confessed, while allowing in others who were lucky enough to escape the testing era, is the logical conundrum you don't want to face, maybe because logic itself is a conundrum to you.

No, Bill's point is that he wants to see known steroid users in the Hall of Fame, and the best way to accomplish this is by lumping them with players about whom no compelling evidence has been presented. Nice move, but it's a bit transparent.

Again, if either you or Bill James or the ####### Man in the Moon have actual evidence you wish to present against any player you want, please do so. But until that great day in the future, you might want to consider the evidence we actually have on hand right now, and leave the forecasting to Kehoskie's unskewing pollsters.

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

Andy's just in denial.

What else is new.

If a refusal to rush to judgment on the basis of hearsay and speculation is being "in denial", then fine, call it whatever the #### you want. I can live with that.

Of course that assumes that he's actually got some sort of principle behind his innuendo, and that he's just not just playing the concern troll in a particularly smarmy manner.

The principle is that steroid usage isn't some kind if hideous moral failing that requires its practitioners to be banned from polite society. And even if this has become the principle now, it surely wasn't when the extant Hall of Famers were using steroids.

Consider for the sake of argument that Carlton Fisk started using steroids as a way to enhance his workout regimen back in 1982. (His manager at the time was Tony LaRussa, by the way.) How was he supposed to know that, 20 years later, this would become a baseball crime on a par with throwing the World Series?

Sorry, I guess I should have put "(sarcasm alert)" in front of that post, but I kind of thought that the nature of that "evidence" spoke for itself.

I think the problem is your reading comprehension that everyone else has already complained about. Piazza has probably already been convicted on "Seems like it" evidence. Ditto Bagwell. Sosa on "Well, my friend's uncle's roomate's podiatrist heard it". None of them have any chance of a pardon or appeal. If you recognise that everyone is guilty of seeming like it, you can abandon the idiocy. Why you insist on sticking to the idiocy of the idea that you can determine guilt just by looking at them is beyond me.

Of course that assumes that he's actually got some sort of principle behind his innuendo, and that he's just not just playing the concern troll in a particularly smarmy manner.

The principle is that steroid usage isn't some kind if hideous moral failing that requires its practitioners to be banned from polite society. And even if this has become the principle now, it surely wasn't when the extant Hall of Famers were using steroids.

Consider for the sake of argument that Carlton Fisk started using steroids as a way to enhance his workout regimen back in 1982. (His manager at the time was Tony LaRussa, by the way.) How was he supposed to know that, 20 years later, this would become a baseball crime on a par with throwing the World Series?

Fine, then be like Treder and just say that we should treat the Hall of Fame like the Hall of Merit, and let statistics alone determine 99% of your vote. That's a perfectly defensible and honorable position.

But if you don't think that steroid users belong in the Hall of Fame, then I would think you'd have an obligation to try to sort them out to the best of all available knowledge, and not on the basis of hearsay and speculation.

And if by some chance, 1 or 3 or 15 or 20 now-unknown users turn out later (after their election) to have juiced, then at that point you can always vote in the Bondses and the McGwires. But unless you don't care about the issue in the first place, I don't see the point in getting ahead of yourself, which is essentially what James is telling us to do.

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

Sorry, I guess I should have put "(sarcasm alert)" in front of that post, but I kind of thought that the nature of that "evidence" spoke for itself.

I think the problem is your reading comprehension that everyone else has already complained about. Piazza has probably already been convicted on "Seems like it" evidence. Ditto Bagwell. Sosa on "Well, my friend's uncle's roomate's podiatrist heard it". None of them have any chance of a pardon or appeal. If you recognise that everyone is guilty of seeming like it, you can abandon the idiocy. Why you insist on sticking to the idiocy of the idea that you can determine guilt just by looking at them is beyond me.

I've never had any problem "comprehending" the POV that since "Piazza has probably already been convicted", that therefore we should just say The Hell With It and vote in players about whom the evidence is----let's say a lot more convincing. You can call that an argument, but it doesn't amount to anything more than a backhanded way of admitting known steroid users.

I think what you (and James) really want to say is "cheating is cheating, and the hell with it, let's just vote on the basis of the record book". And that's a perfectly honest and logical position. You might consider just sticking with it, rather than trying to pretend that everyone who played in the pre-testing era is somehow equally tainted for HoF voting purposes.

You do know, don't you, that one of Julius Rosenberg's last known questions before he was executed was "How did the Dodgers do?"

That was his problem then, if he had been a Yankees fan he likely would have been pardoned.

Reggie. Didn't a steroid dealer surf his couch for a while?

Didn't Reggie first bring the doctor that supplied the A's with steroids into the clubhouse?

Consider for the sake of argument that Carlton Fisk started using steroids as a way to enhance his workout regimen back in 1982. (His manager at the time was Tony LaRussa, by the way.) How was he supposed to know that, 20 years later, this would become a baseball crime on a par with throwing the World Series?

Fine, then be like Treder and just say that we should treat the Hall of Fame like the Hall of Merit, and let statistics alone determine 99% of your vote.

Do you have an answer for my question? Or do you think it's justifiable to penalize Fisk on the basis of attitudes that didn't appear until long after he was retired?

Drawing a line and keeping out the McGwires and ManRams because they got caught or confessed, while allowing in others who were lucky enough to escape the testing era, is the logical conundrum

And it does seem a circuitous line to draw. I'd be more sympathetic to a line that excluded only those who were caught breaking rules that were being enforced when they broke them (if that makes sense): i.e. Bonds and McGwire in, Palmeiro and M.Ramirez out. I don't agree with that line, but it puts things on a consistent level and asks for proof rather than making WAGs.

You do know, don't you, that one of Julius Rosenberg's last known questions before he was executed was "How did the Dodgers do?"

That was his problem then, if he had been a Yankees fan he likely would have been pardoned.

And as an 8-year old Yankees fan, my reaction at the time was "That'll learn 'im."

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

Consider for the sake of argument that Carlton Fisk started using steroids as a way to enhance his workout regimen back in 1982. (His manager at the time was Tony LaRussa, by the way.) How was he supposed to know that, 20 years later, this would become a baseball crime on a par with throwing the World Series?

Fine, then be like Treder and just say that we should treat the Hall of Fame like the Hall of Merit, and let statistics alone determine 99% of your vote.

Do you have an answer for my question? Or do you think it's justifiable to penalize Fisk on the basis of attitudes that didn't appear until long after he was retired?

I wouldn't remove his plaque, if that's what you mean, just as I wouldn't remove the plaques of any other players with post-induction revelations. I would think that the stain on their reputation would be far greater (with some people, anyway) than any such nominal retroactions.

Again, if at some point down the road, current HoF members get outed, that will obviously affect the cases of the Bondses and the McGwires----as it should, out of fairness. All I'm saying, though, is to wait for those revelations to come (if and when they will), rather than merely act on the assumption that they we already "know" that they're coming.

I think either:

(1) Bill was saying the probability is that at least three HOFers used steroids, not that he knows for sure which three it is, but taking into account the era, most likely three did use; or

(2) Bill casually tossed that out to see people scramble to guess who it was to prove some sort of point about witchhunts.

'There is a second reason to avoid stacking up liabilities in the field, which is the curvature of the lines. If you increase hits by 10%, you increase runs by 20%. If you increase runs by 20%, you increase losses by 44%. When you stack up parallel liabilities in the field, there may be a more-than-proportional cost because of the curvature of the lines.'

I thought this line was hugely powerful, a piece of information that no one has commented on yet. Is this just general knowledge that I missed through the years?

There were also many known Communist spies within the State Department in the 1940's. So should those known spies have been given a pass because we couldn't identify others who may have also been spies? Or should we have just started throwing out innuendo at the 99% of the employees who were loyal, simply because there may have been some undetected spies among them?

I've always thought that if you cut Kirby Puckett's head open, there would be microfilm inside it.

I think either:

(1) Bill was saying the probability is that at least three HOFers used steroids, not that he knows for sure which three it is, but taking into account the era, most likely three did use; or

(2) Bill casually tossed that out to see people scramble to guess who it was to prove some sort of point about witchhunts.

Don't discount:

(3) Bill says a lot of stupid #### these days.

I wouldn't remove his plaque, if that's what you mean,

No, that's not what I mean at all. What I mean is, How was Carlton Fisk supposed to know that, 20 years later, steroid usage would become a baseball crime on a par with throwing the World Series?

Again, I have no way to know that Fisk used steroids; he's just here for the sake of argument.

There were also many known Communist spies within the State Department in the 1940's. So should those known spies have been given a pass because we couldn't identify others who may have also been spies? Or should we have just started throwing out innuendo at the 99% of the employees who were loyal, simply because there may have been some undetected spies among them?

I've always thought that if you cut Kirby Puckett's head open, there would be microfilm inside it.

I'd love to top that one, but I know when I'm beat.

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

Don't discount:

(3) Bill says a lot of stupid #### these days.

Given his recent political rantings, that'd be the last thing I'd rule out.