Actually, we do have an idea, but it's beside the point. He cheated in the midst of "achieving" his .346 average.(*) You don't reward cheating. You penalize it -- harshly. This is understood in practically every other sport.

Gaylord Perry got caught cheating in 1982. I don't remember any rush to have his name removed from the "300 game winner" list, which he achieved that same year.

Is the corked bat that breaks upon contact the only example of cheating in baseball where an on-field result is actually reversed? It seems every other example involves ejection/suspension, but the results that have been achieved to that point are allowed to stand (and obviously that's the case with all at bats prior to the one where the illegal bat was revealed).

The worst cheating that ever happened in major-league baseball remains the 1919 World Series, though since the Black Sox were trying to lose and achieved their aim, the results, logically enough, still stand.

I do expect Bud to rule any day now that the 1951 Giants should be expunged for stealing signs, though. THE DODGERS WIN THE PENNANT!

Right. In baseball, no one's expunging. In other sports, they are.

And as I said before, baseball is the superior sport. Regardless of the sanctimonious press corps or even a commissioner wanting to put an asterisk* by a record, it has never gone back and rewritten history. It's smart enough to know that people aren't complete idiots and can contextualize anything within their own personal viewpoint.

Results are results, you don't remove results after the fact. You make sure as much information sees the light of day and let the individual fans decide how much weight to put on the results. Heck even in the Pete Rose discussion about his hits record, people to this day, still like to point out that if he wasn't the manager he probably doesn't break the record**.


*I know that wasn't actually what he was trying to do, but it fits the narrative to just say put an asterisk next to it.

** again, I know this isn't probably true as any team would have kept him on the roster for the attendance boost his chase gave.

The only logical solution is to change a few dozen of Melky's hits to reached-on-errors.

You make sure as much information sees the light of day and let the individual fans decide how much weight to put on the results.

If baseball is the responsible social institution it claims to be, it will educate fans that cheaters and cheating should not be rewarded. This was a good step in that effort.

I wish the Pirates could withdraw from the September pennant chase.

They did. (I fear the Tigers are right behind them...)

The only logical solution is to change a few dozen of Melky's hits to reached-on-errors.

It would only take seven (plus the one 0-fer) to get his BA down to .330, which would place him 4th, as of today...

Anyway, the real irony here is that he tested positive in July, but wasn't suspended until mid-August. Had MLB suspended him immmediately, his 0-fer numbers would make all of this irrelevant.

Anyway, the real irony here is that he tested positive in July, but wasn't suspended until mid-August. Had MLB suspended him immmediately, his 0-fer numbers would make all of this irrelevant.

But then he'd be back to playing already. The suspension would have been the same length either way.

But then he'd be back to playing already. The suspension would have been the same length either way.

No, he only missed 45 games of the regular season. He would have missed five additional regular season games, meaning about 16 theoretical additional outs (and he actually had 21 AB's, and 5 hits, in his last 5 games played)

#60 - Ah, that's right. My bad.

Sugar Bear since you applaud the Wolverines. Is it your view that the Giants deserve punishment beyond Cabrera's 50 games and should have to forfeit all games he played in, because that is what Michigan did.

Also, should a team who has a player caught with a corked bat immediately have to forfeit the game? It seems like you are applying retroactive penalties which as best I can tell is something that MLB has never done.

If baseball is the responsible social institution it claims to be, it will educate fans that cheaters and cheating should not be rewarded. This was a good step in that effort.

No one does more to encourage the use of PEDs than the anti-PED zealots. By perpetuating the idea that PEDs are a magic pill that can turn the proverbial 98 pound weakling into a handsome superstar who becomes insanely famous and rich beyond all possible comprehension the most vehement anti-PED foes encourage that which they in fact oppose. A more nuanced view that acknowledged how limited our knowledge is about how much or how little these things help plus a healthy dose of recognition of the dangerous side effects ("hey, watch your nuts shrivel up for no perceivable gain!") would go a lot further to combating PED use.

Sugar Bear since you applaud the Wolverines. Is it your view that the Giants deserve punishment beyond Cabrera's 50 games and should have to forfeit all games he played in, because that is what Michigan did.


It's not workable, so I don't worry about it. It's not relevant, in any event, to the proper stance toward the player, which is to not reward his cheating.

EDIT: I wouldn't be averse to significant sanctions against teams that use 'roiders.

EDIT: I wouldn't be averse to significant sanctions against teams that use 'roiders.

Cool. Let's dock everyone 10 wins.

EDIT: I wouldn't be averse to significant sanctions against teams that use 'roiders.

Cool. Let's dock everyone 10 wins.

As a Cubs fan, I have to ask... what if we don't have enough wins to dock?

EDIT: I wouldn't be averse to significant sanctions against teams that use 'roiders.

At which point, the interest in the league plummets, as who would be interested in following a divisional race where the team can lose 10 games overnight as some retarded penalty?

At which point, the interest in the league plummets, as who would be interested in following a divisional race where the team can lose 10 games overnight as some retarded penalty?

I never signed up for games. I was thinking of dollars.

I never signed up for games. I was thinking of dollars.

That is about the only way to truly punish the teams to the point that they would care. Awarding losses after the fact doesn't mean anything to a team.

That is about the only way to truly punish the teams to the point that they would care. Awarding losses after the fact doesn't mean anything to a team.

Dollars and/or draft picks.

Of course, if you're going to punish the teams, you need to allow them to do their own PED testing, above and beyond the MLB testing. Otherwise, it's not really fair.

Hiller's record of 38 "saves" that stood for several years would be less under today's save rule. Save #37 is probably the worst example of the old rule.

Just because it's awesome, the clutchiest save in baseball history.

That is about the only way to truly punish the teams to the point that they would care. Awarding losses after the fact doesn't mean anything to a team.

You could make them play a man short for the length of the suspension (or the playoffs). Two men short, in the Giants' case.

You could make them play a man short for the length of the suspension (or the playoffs). Two men short, in the Giants' case.

At which point you've destroyed the league.

For all of the silly outrage over steroids expressed by the Lupicas and Sugar Bears and Andys of the world, it didn't hurt the bottom line one bit.

But retarded penalties most certainly would.

At which point you've destroyed the league.

How would making one team to play a man or two short "destroy the league"?

Well, I interpreted it as having the team field 8 players, not playing one man short on the 25-man.

I agree the latter wouldn't have an effect.

Just because it's awesome, the clutchiest save in baseball history.

To be fair, when Wes Littleton came into the game, his team was only ahead 14-3.

You could make them play a man short for the length of the suspension (or the playoffs). Two men short, in the Giants' case.

At what point on a 25-man roster would reduction of roster really make enough of an impact to act as a deterrent? Just curious...

If a player is suspended and you make the rule that the team cannot replace him (25-man roster goes down to 24) - other than the loss of a key player - does this really hurt the team that much? Didn't seem to impact the Giants that much to lose Melky.

What if it was some kind of $$$/Roster mix on the penalty? For each $5M of salary, for example, you lose an additional roster spot along with the player suspended. If a player is a decent star and is making $10M/yr, the team loses him and two additional roster spots for the duration of the suspension, or maybe make it applicable to the postseason? But I don't even know if that would be enough of an impact on a team to make them really think about cracking down on the juicers on their squad.

Fact is, for someone like a Barry Bonds - the records are already on the books and aren't going away, despite some people's efforts otherwise. Plus he got paid a zillion dollars that he doesn't have to give back. I think there's just too much upside on a "risk/reward" assessment when players think about whether they want to juice or not. I can see why players still take that risk.

Of course, if you're going to punish the teams, you need to allow them to do their own PED testing, above and beyond the MLB testing. Otherwise, it's not really fair.

Unfortunately, I've got a bad feeling that allowing teams to police themselves won't yield the desired results (see history of Wall Street meltdowns, banking industry, etc.)

You have absolutely no idea about that. None.

Can you share with the class what you think the P and E in "PED" stand for?

Can you share with the class what you think the P and E in "PED" stand for?

"Penis enlargement"?

Can you share with the class what you think the P and E in "PED" stand for?

They stand for B and S.

Nobody knows that steroids use enhances baseball performance. At best it's plausible. But the counter arguments are very strong.

And the idea that Melky Cabrera found 60 points of BABIP through steroids is particularly suspect.

#81 Or that if this is something you can attribute to steroids it'd be dead easy to identify users.

If a player is suspended and you make the rule that the team cannot replace him (25-man roster goes down to 24) - other than the loss of a key player - does this really hurt the team that much?

You could require any team that had a player suspended to put Manny Alexander in their starting lineup for 50 games. That'd fix 'em.

Nobody knows that steroids use enhances baseball performance. At best it's plausible. But the counter arguments are very strong.

Nobody can or ever will know it in a scientific sense because repeatable, controlled experiments are impossible. Nobody will ever be able to prove it in a statistical study because we will never know which buckets to put the samples in, so to speak. Any discussion on the topic is a little like the soft social sciences. You can find correlation but never prove causation.

Anyway, if we can agree that this is one of those things that can't be proven, even if true - I think the circumstantial evidence leans heavily toward the idea that they do provide a benefit, doesn't it? Certainly goes beyond "plausible at best".

If large percentages of professional baseball players started wearing flowers in their hair because Mike Trout and Miguel Cabrera wear flowers in their hair and they are Da Bomb, the benefits of flowers would be "plausible at best" because there is no logical chain of thought connecting the flowers to the Bomb-ness. Hundreds if not thousands of the best baseball players in the world obviously think that steroids provide a benefit, because they take them solely to provide that benefit. That isn't a end-of-argument smoking gun, but it has to be assigned significant weight. In contrast to the flower example, it follows that steroids provide strength/energy/recoverability. Strength/energy/recoverability can all be reasonably (if not unanimously, I guess) thought of as good things for any athlete. Baseball players are a niche subset of athlete, to be sure, but does anyone really question the idea that improving one's strength and athleticism would help them play baseball better? It is generally acknowledged that weight training helps athletes, including baseball players, and that steroids to a large extent amplify those benefits. Why do we suddenly doubt the connection? In this one case only?

(ANECDOTE ALERT!!!) My son's high school has three very gifted baseball/football two-sport guys. One is a fairly standard quarterback/pitcher combo, but the other two are the fairly rare lineman/corner infielder. These guys are both about 250 pounds and can hold their own with any high school kid in the weight room. Guess which two guys hit the ball the hardest/farthest on the team? Granted, they were both very good baseball players before they started lifting weights, but is there any reasonable doubt that the added strength gives them an advantage? Or that even more strength (whether gained from steroids or simply more training - ignoring for a moment that the two go together) would add to that advantage?

I'm not one of the holy crusaders who want to make moral judgments on PED's. Serious athletes have always sought an edge, and will always do so. I don't care to start calling PED users cheats and frauds because I don't know where that stops. (Caffeine and ibuprofen are also performance-enhancing by the simplest definition.)

The simple fact that professional baseball players absolutely beieve (and act on that belief despite serious consequences) that PED's do, in fact, enhance performance is very strong evidence. NFL wide receivers all wear gloves, believing that they help them catch the ball. I think most people accept this, despite a lack of studies proving that gloves help you catch the ball or anyone jumping up and down screaming "You could give my Aunt Flo three pairs of gloves and she couldn't catch the ball!!!!"

Hundreds if not thousands of the best baseball players in the world obviously think that steroids provide a benefit, because they take them solely to provide that benefit. That isn't a end-of-argument smoking gun, but it has to be assigned significant weight.

Not necessarily:

Q. How many legs does a dog have if you call a tail a leg?
A. Four, because calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one.

-- MWE

Never mind. I'm just not gonna give that the answer it deserves.

To handle this, we’ve decided to list ERA Leaders and BA leaders as they currently are in the leaderboard pages. These will be updated and change as new data becomes available and we will be apolitical as much as possible in how we draw these leaderboards. This is essentially the status quo.

So since Melky will finish the year with less than the required number of PA to qualify, then he wouldn't be listed in either place, right? He didn't qualify for the title and he's not being recognized by MLB.

If large percentages of professional baseball players started wearing flowers in their hair because Mike Trout and Miguel Cabrera wear flowers in their hair

I can only see this happening on road trips to San Francisco.

So since Melky will finish the year with less than the required number of PA to qualify, then he wouldn't be listed in either place, right? He didn't qualify for the title and he's not being recognized by MLB.

He'll be listed where he'd have finished with an 0-for-1 added to his stats, just like the rule says. Same as any player who "failed to qualify" in any other season.

Don't forget Votto. He's currently at .338, but his 0 fers bring him down below Braun. But because of that, even a 1 for 5 brings his qualifying average up.

...

"I am grateful that the Players Association and MLB were able to
honor my request by suspending the rule for this season. I know that changing the rules mid-season can present problems, and I thank the Players Association and MLB for finding a way to get this done."

Did they really suspend the rule about adding at-bats? Because that would make Votto ineligible too. Doesn't exactly seem fair.

Olympic GAMES, like track or swimming, or professional cycling, can expunge records because an individual's performance does not affect anyone else.

Marion Jones' relay teammates say hello. Again.

Is the corked bat that breaks upon contact the only example of cheating in baseball where an on-field result is actually reversed?

Maybe not what you meant by cheating, but interference and obstruction. And if you want to get really obscure, hidden ball trick if the pitcher stepped on the rubber without having the ball.

Did they really suspend the rule about adding at-bats? Because that would make Votto ineligible too. Doesn't exactly seem fair.

Oh, I'm really hoping Votto goes on a tear the last week. If he plays every game, it looks like he will fall about 24 PAs short of qualifying. he's currently at .342. he'll need to get up to about .350, and McCutchen drop a bit for his 0 fers to keep him ahead.

If Votto goes 11-22 with 10 walks in his last 7 games, he'll finish with a BA of .351, and 24 PAs shy of 502. Adding in those 0fers, puts him at a .330 qualifying average. Long shot, but doable.