Friday, May 24, 2013
MLB: Don Sutton never shy about voicing his opinion
(mlb.mlb.com)
Sutton: Because that’s where the defaced money is.
Read More...The outspoken Sutton—who came up with the Dodgers in 1966 and pitched with them for 16 of his 23 seasons—has his own opinion about everything.
He said in an interview last week that he hates pitch counts.
“I say it with a laugh in my voice when I broadcast: ‘That’s 100 pitches. On the next one, he’s going to turn into a troll.’ At 101, you just disappear. Poof, you’re gone,” Sutton said.
...MLB.com: Did you cheat?
Sutton: No, I never got ...
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Page 2 of 4 pages
< 1 2 3 4 >There have been plenty of writers who claimed that "Vitamins" was a widely accepted code for roids in articles that they wrote.
I find your countergument, that PED use wasn't specifically illegal and therefore PED users do belong in HOF, to be a piece of hairsplitting sophistry. Adultery isn't illegal in most states, either, but no one in their right mind would support an adulterer for a Spousal Hall of Fame because of the character issues, even if the immoral acts were legal. That's a relevant comparison because of that pesky but existing HOF character clause: "Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character and contribution to the team(s) on which the player played."
Integrity. Sportsmanship. Character. None of which PED users had or have.
You now have my logical argument and the HOF rules which back it up. If you don't like it or them and like your hairsplitting and technicalities better, that's your right and privilege. Personally I find your views outrageous, but you have every right to have and express them. But don't ever dismiss my view of this or my entire side of this issue, including Goose Gossage, as not being logical or valid or supported by the HOF's own rules, because it's all three.
Now go back to defending cheaters for admission to the HOF, and I'll go back to attacking them.
Of course there are other arguments about why ban them from the hof that you would have to overcome to argue for a permanent ban, but at least your argument starts from a point of reasonable differences. Wolf has said the same thing over and over in every thread he's on... "It's cheating, ban them"...
If PED use wasn't against the rules, then why was it an affront to integrity, sportsmanship and character?
And if it was the clean living hall of fame, I would support you on your ban of players... It's not, it's the baseball hall of fame. What is the difference between all the different supplements? Some are legal, some are not legal? Where is the line to be drawn? Without someone putting forth a document saying this is the line, there cannot be a line.
Integrity is about cheating, I agree.. Kick out all the cheaters in the hof. Character is not about cheating, it's about other crap, and fine, kick out the Cap Anson's, Kirby Puckett's and Ty Cobbs of the world too. ...The point is you can't say Cheating is banning, only for roiders and ignore the rest of the people who cheated. You can't say it's a character issue and ignore all the other character issues in already. You need to differentiate the two and why one is worse than the other. And on top of that you need to draw the line. And on top of that you need to come up with a level of certainty in order to convict. You don't. You just say "ban all the cheaters"
So, no adulterers in the Baseball Hall of Fame, right? That should thin out the herd.
Your logical argument is..... still not seeing it. You have a piss poor analogy that doesn't work, and you continue to say it's cheating even if it's not against the rules, but that you don't want to keep actual cheaters (like Willie Mays) out of the hall because they only cheated on the field?
I mean, seriously you aren't really this stupid are you? If you believe that it's wrong come up with a reason that people can understand and explain why it's wrong, but Mays/Anson/Puckett/Cobb/Perry etc are allowed to be in? And explain the level of certainty needed to not vote for a guy? After all, multiple court cases have exonerated Clemens...
I hear ya on that, but it's still fair to say that the spirit of Woodward & Bernstein didn't really exist among BBWAA types on the Major League Baseball beat until Caminiti took Verducci's phone call.
Oh. Now they HAVE to do this.
Point # 1 - Please preface "PED's" with illegal. If it wasn't a controlled substance (as the "clear" was not an FDA designated Schedule III substance until well after 2003), it wasn't illegal. Criminalizing (and moralizing) ex post facto is truly fascist.
Point # 2 - The only fascism I see is the rumor mills that connect players to illegal substances without enough proof to get an indictment, let alone a conviction. The same rumor mills tied me to cocaine in the 80's and helped end my career. If there was a Mitchell report on cocaine use in the 80's, my name would have erroneously surfaced as a user due to my time with the Giants and Royals. Unless there is a positive test or admission, you are slandering and libeling people without hard fact. "The court of public opinion" is truly fascist
Point # 3 - BBTF is a home for facts beyond the quantification of player's value. "I think someone used" isn't good enough - as I demonstrated in # 2. Any argument that does not cite evidence or quote facts is doomed to failure here.
If you want to play in absolutes, you can only do so after 2003 if and when a player tested positive.
Sorry, that argument makes no sense. What's the difference between a "permanent" enhancement of performance and a "temporary" enhancement of performance that you use every game? What is the difference between a "temporary" enhancement via greenies and using PEDs to recover more quickly from injury?
Greenies enhance performance. Greenies enhance performance beyond what a person is "naturally" capable of. There's simply no way around the fact that there is as much or more evidence supporting greenies as PEDS as steroids and that the expected boost in performance is as much or more.
And ... you aside, all this vitriol here and in the media over a thin, technical distinction between "temporary" and "permanent" performance enhancement? Really? And does anybody think this is the distinction Gossage is making?
Anyway, since you raised it I'll say this. Even granting your unwarranted assumption, the notion that there is a distinction between taking yourself from 90% to 100% vs. taking yourself from 100% to 110%, between "daily enhancement" vs. "permanent enhancement", that only the latter two are "cheating", that only the latter two are "performance enhancement" is moral sophistry at its most obvious. It's an empty argument whose sole purpose is to protect players you admire.
At least have the ####### balls to admit that Aaron and Mays cheated under your standard. At least have the ####### balls to say that it was a mistake to induct them. At least have the ####### balls to not be a hypocrite and apply the same standard to all. That's a position I can at least respect.
More simply, if you stop taking amphetamines, they stop working. If you stop taking steroids, they stop working. I can't fathom how steroids can be classified as permanent.
Let this be your epitaph. Summarizes most of what you have to say.
Silly Goose got mad at Smith because Smith indicated that the team would not sign free agents with a drug history or those who refused testing. Gossage got even madder when Smith banned beer in the Padre clubhouse in early July.
So Gossage called Smith "spineless and gutless."" 9/3/1986, "Goose's Specialty Isn't Golden Eggs, Nor Golden Arches," LA Times, Scott Ostler
You presented a distinction without a difference. It's ridiculous on its face.
I disagree, the argument makes sense when he's talking about changing the baseline. I fully understand that argument, don't agree with it, but at least it makes sense. From what I can gather his point is that without roids, a player who works out as hard as he can has a finite cap where he can reach physically, that the roids, raise the potential cap, so the player is no longer using his "god given natural ability or potential". With amps the most common use was to compensate for hangovers, long flights etc to allow the player to get to the level of play that he can do normally/healthy.
It's of course a slippery slope argument, as where would Lasik fit into this situation? The eyesight limitation is a physical limitation of that particular player etc... but for the most part I understand where he is coming from with his argument. It's coherent if not something I agree with. (As I would argue that Amps take you beyond your baseline)
And if you stop working out, steroids stop working. Amphetamines have no such requirement.
So much more heat than light. Internet tough guys shouting declamations at one another. The antithesis of what this place ought to be about. And it's because I've come to believe that this particular subject is so emotionally fraught for some people that they cannot conduct themselves in a discussion without falling into that pattern of behavior (online at least) that I decline to engage further. In a way it's actually a fairly close analogue to my attitude towards political threads around here -- why bother?
Again: I recognize that my view is in the distinct minority around here. I don't look down upon people who feel the other way. I don't think I'm 'morally superior' or somesuch bullshit. I just think the only workable solution at this point is to, after having stated one's case, agree to disagree.
And why do you not understand the "entire game of baseball"? PEDs, of course, are the essence of baseball: trying to maximize what one gets out of one's talent. That's not "subverting" anything.
"Legal technicalities" are what determine whether it's cheating.
This, more or less. What bothers me about Mr. Wolf isn't that he's anti-steroids. I disagree with him, but I don't get annoyed when Andy or Esoteric or someone argues against PEDs. This site is much better off with intelligent people arguing against the groupthink. However, if Wolf is intelligent, he does a superb job hiding it. Righteous indignation is his response to every topic (not just PEDs), with his range seemingly limited to inanity, stupidity, or a combination of the two.
I never thought JR Wolf was kevin. I assumed he was Joey B.
Hence my contempt for the Murray Chasses of the world, who would convict Mike Piazza on nothing more than "ZOMG I SAW BACNE IN THE MID-'90S." And also, hence my refusal to credit the persistent whispers about Bagwell: do I think there could well be something there? Yeah, my horse sense tells me there's a reasonably solid chance. But nothing that deserves to have any effect on his public reputation or his viability for the Hall of Fame!
Clemens, of course, is the big grey area case where this policy is tested. For example, Andy (who near as I can tell is roughly of the same POV as me on these matters) would say that the evidence against Clemens was sufficiently impeached that there aren't grounds to deny him admission to the HOF. I would weigh the evidence differently.
Without a doubt it's a messy (and subjective! life is not always simple and reducible to binarism!) process, and I think a properly humble approach acknowledges that reasonable people can reach reasonably different conclusions on cases like Clemens.
The why on earth would you defend the J.R. Wolfs of the world? They certainly don't grant that there can be any messiness or subjectivity. Clemens quacks like a duck (or something) so we must agree to burn him or we're all just a bunch of group-thinking apologists for those no-good cheating cheaters.
In some respects I agree with him on it. I understand the thinking that Roids is a different type of wrong than others and that it's tough to put a finger exactly on why, so then it seems that the logic follows and things that contradict that logic are not relevant.
I find it hard to imagine that someone first came up with the definition of how something like roids is wrong, and then managing to neatly fit roids into that definition. It has to follow that people first think of roids as wrong, and then work the logic into why it's wrong, there is no other way the thought process could have happened.
To which the only sensible reply is,
@cardsfanboy: Actually, I have. But if you want it again, here it is. There's two kinds of cheating, inside the lines and outside the lines. Both are bad but inside the line cheating - scuffing, greaseballing, etc. - takes place on the field and is all but impossible to detect by the umps. It's designed to subvert the entire game of baseball, and goes generally undetected.
Cheating outside the lines - taking bribes, betting on games, using PEDs - takes place off the field, away from the game, typically through suppliers, in front of witnesses, with paper trails, and not only does not interfere with the play by play, the soul of the game, but is much easier to catch.
Greaseballing, stealing signs, scuffing balls, and corked bats all work to destroy the basic concept of baseball: that it is a fair game of skill, the outcome of which is to be determined by talent and managerial decisions as impacted by chance. This is why the likes of Gaylord Perry and Don Drysdale should never be enshrined by the game; they all did their best in their own ways to destroy it. Whereas Barry Bonds, whom I don't approve of either, at least did what he did on the field in plain sight in the context of the game while trying to win games entirely by the rules, not in secret in some clubhouse, gluing sandpaper to his cap or sharpening the buckles on the straps of his shin guards.
--My point is obvious. You haven't made arguments, held together by reason. You've only made lists, held together by conjunctions; of what you like, here, and what you don't, over there.
this
It's hairsplitting without a difference, though. What difference does it make if it alters the baseline permanently, versus altering the baseline from 7pm through midnight? It makes no difference in performance, it makes no difference to the competition, to the record books, to the outcome of games.
Assuming night games, I see no appreciable difference between
Amps: boost performance 7pm to midnight.
PEDS: boost performance 7pm to midnight, and midnight to 7 pm.
That makes no difference to what matters, which is what happens on the field.
Isn't that an example of someone deciding it's wrong, and then trying to come up with a definition to match?
They aren't arguing that it boosts performance, they are arguing that it(Roids...sorry but calling it ped's clouds the issues, so I use roids for all peds that anti-ped people are referring to) exceeds the max capabilities of the athlete. Otherwords, if the player is only capable of lifting 400 pounds, roids make them capable of lifting 500 pounds. Meanwhile all amps do is return you to your actual peak ability. If you can swing the bat at 100mph, but because you are tired you are swinging at 90 mph, amps return you to that 100 mph ability. (note using these numbers for shorthand, the 100mph could be taken as your overall skill to recognize a pitch and make contact, so a combination of reaction, alertness etc)
It's a logical argument. I don't agree with it, as I honestly think that amps actually do allow you to exceed your ability, but it's still a logical argument from anti-roiders point of view.
it is THE reason that the steroid mania started--anyone who disagrees wasn't paying attention
Well, sure, but then that wasn't really the best illustration of your point. A head shot would have been more apt.
Personally, I'd have just posted: 73
EDIT: and of course, Andy would have said 73*
The mistaken assumption that jumps out at me is that an athlete has some sort of fixed natural performance level. "Potential performance level" varies with physical condition, and lots of things allow a player to affect that performance level.
Thanks for the summary, cfb. I will mull it over.
Just as background, fwiw, I came to this a few months ago with "hey, it's cheating. That's pretty simple. Cheaters shouldn't prosper, especially since baseball is essentially a zero-sum game." Reading (and staying out of most of) the threads here have moved me tentatively into the "It's unfortunate, but PEDS haven't always been against the rules; amps were a common thing, once; cheating throughout baseball history is very, very common."
EDIT: and of course, Andy would have said 73*
Only on the Ecko ball, not in any record book. Sublime performance art shouldn't be mistaken for statistics, and passing judgment on the moral validity of a feat isn't the same as denying that feat's existence---as difficult a distinction as that may be to grasp.
Actually, Kiko has laid out a pretty compelling case how the steroids in baseball timeline doesn't involve Bonds much, if at all. Sadly, it has generally been refuted by the evidence-free but apparently strong argument, 'but you know it was REALLY about Bonds."
It's probably not worth rehashing.
Not at the time, at least not to hear the contemporary media tell it. The Associated Press article was typical, not even alluding to PEDs and making a single mention of Bonds having "eventually bulked up." The other coverage also mentioned nothing. The less enthusiastic reaction was because Bonds was much more disliked than McGwire, and because of "history fatigue" just three years later. The press proved they didn't have their heads in the sand by not writing about opposing players "giggling" at Bonds' batting practices, and not writing love letters to Bonds' muscles or hugging his son at home plate.
You are totally pro-PED users. I get it. You have too much invested in that to ever admit that you are wrong, so you spilt hairs.
You do realize that (1) you are a minority - not here, but in all the places that matter - and that (2) you are defending grossly immoral acts?
Laugh at me all you want, but I'm not only part of the greater majority but I'm on the side of the angels, and I'm not talking about Anaheim.
So snark some more and throw some more insults (they don't do anything but make me laugh) so that you feel better about your bad moral position and don't think too hard about what side you're actually on.
And the arrogant idea that no one new ever wanders in here is just hysterical. Everyone must be someone who was here before! Actually, new people do wander in, but given the nature of this place it's easy to see why they'd wander out quickly, too.
Agreed, all these pro-amp guys are just ridiculous.
There's an argument that cost would then differentiate haves from have-not's, but that's already happening in sports development anyway, isn't it? No one seemed to care about that during the Olympics (last time I paid attention to them), that's for sure.
Edit: I mean, there's plenty of experimental "rehabilitative" therapy going on (see Kobe, Bynum knee-magic stuff). Again, I don't know that you can draw that line between rehabilitative and enhancing treatment is.
I guess at the end, its all subjective, with one limit point being a sprinter voluntarily amputating their legs for "blades" that are better at sprinting than their natural legs. But to say that there's a clear, fixed, moral line between rehabilitation, risky rehabilitation, enhancement and risky enhancement seems clearly incorrect to me.
OK, this was 80+ posts ago and the thread has swerved a bit. But here is Wilbur Wood's 1975 with Goose Gossage's 1975 removed:
149.2 IP, 210 H, 116 R, 104 ER, 23 HR, 22 BB, 10 K, ERA 6.25, ERA+ 62.
That's quite horrible. Kaat-Gossage (162 IP of 4.22 ERA, good for an ERA+ of 93) is at least worth talking about; Kaat is probably ahead if you don't believe in accounting for leverage.
Page 2 of 4 pages
< 1 2 3 4 >You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.