Why such references? Fat Elvis left the building at the 2010 trade deadline.

Or have their been negotiations on a reunion tour?

Who other than someone writing for the Houston Litter Liner is suggesting Biggio used?

ETA: Jeff Pearlman. Quel surprise!

FYI, John Rocker is a much better writer than Jeff Pearlman, and probably no worse a human being.

mayor

there have been a few - there was a guy named caputo a few weeks back semi-accusing biggio. and am not surprised about pearlman. i would very much like to know how he decides who is "clean" using the same criteria to decide who is "dirty"

biggio DID have a dead cat bounce in 04 after he changed his stance/swing. i guess he must have been able to pass those drug tests. i wonder how it was that bagwell wasn't able to persuade him to start shooting up until the 03 offseason. unless it was pettitte/clemens, who he wasn't exactly pals with.

pearlman has a problem with athletes because he wanted them to treat him as something special instead of a nuisance.

Well...

If you're going to use Bagwell's career arc as justification for Bagwell using, then Biggio's career arc (which is in many ways similar to Bagwell's at a lower level) provides just as much reason to believe that Biggio used.

-- MWE

If you're going to use Bagwell's career arc as justification for Bagwell using, then Biggio's career arc (which is in many ways similar to Bagwell's at a lower level) provides just as much reason to believe that Biggio used.

Well, I guess if you say that Hillary killed Vince Foster, you might as well say that Obama was born in Kenya while you're at it. In for a dime, in for a shelter full of bottled water.

Well, I guess if you say that Hillary killed Vince Foster, you might as well say that Obama was born in Kenya while you're at it. In for a dime, in for a shelter full of bottled water.

That'll keep this right on track. Thanks.

Well, I guess if you say that Hillary killed Vince Foster, you might as well say that Obama was born in Kenya while you're at it. In for a dime, in for a shelter full of bottled water.

That's not the same. I think a similar argument would be that Hilary was first lady and killed Vince Foster therefore Laura Bush must have killed someone too. If "player has spike in power" is proof of steroid usage then apply the "test" evenly.

My issue with the line of thought on Bagwell or Piazza is that these theories are not applied across the board. It's fine if you want to say steroids are a possible reason for such a spike but if you definitively say it's "proof" then you need to apply that proof to all. Biggio was Bagwell's teammate and Bagwell used thus Biggio used. Fine. But Jeter was Clemens' teammate and Clemens used thus Jeter used. It's a consistency of the "logic" being applied but it doesn't get done that way.

Laura Bush did kill someone.

I think a similar argument would be that Hilary was first lady and killed Vince Foster therefore Laura Bush must have killed someone too.

Probably not the best example, since Laura Bush actually DID kill someone.

Edit: Coke for the DA.

"Both sides do it!"

pearlman has a problem with athletes because he wanted them to treat him as something special instead of a nuisance.

I wonder whether he's considered not acting like a huge flaming #######. Maybe he never realized that's why people dislike him - someone should tactfully call it to his attention, just in case.

It is silly isn't it? If someone confesses (Canseco), has some evidence (Palmeiro failing test) or someone who should know speaks out (the Clemens case) or there is something 'weird' (backne) I can see why someone would withhold their vote. Don't agree in all cases, but at least there is some logic. But Bagwell & Biggio are so odd to be doing it with - no accusations while they played, no failed tests, no accusations post-playing except by sportswriters saying 'seemed too muscular' or 'played with guys who did them'. Using those standards you have to eliminate everyone who played in the 90's pretty much.

hillary didn't someone, but the cattle trade conducted on her behalf in the late 70s was likely illegal.

oh, here's one example link .

pearlman = awful, as usual.

Using those standards you have to eliminate everyone who played in the 90's pretty much.

Which I suspect is the idea.

-- MWE

Which I suspect is the idea.

Yep. Baseball has been on a long downhill slide since Mike Lupica was twelve years old!

Well, I guess if you say that Hillary killed Vince Foster, you might as well say that Obama was born in Kenya while you're at it. In for a dime, in for a shelter full of bottled water.

That's not the same. I think a similar argument would be that Hilary was first lady and killed Vince Foster therefore Laura Bush must have killed someone too. If "player has spike in power" is proof of steroid usage then apply the "test" evenly.

That assumes that Hillary did kill Vince Foster, and that Bagwell was juicing. And if you're going to start out with those two baseless assumptions, then hell, why not go whole hog and make a complete jackass of yourself?

My issue with the line of thought on Bagwell or Piazza is that these theories are not applied across the board. It's fine if you want to say steroids are a possible reason for such a spike but if you definitively say it's "proof" then you need to apply that proof to all. Biggio was Bagwell's teammate and Bagwell used thus Biggio used. Fine. But Jeter was Clemens' teammate and Clemens used thus Jeter used. It's a consistency of the "logic" being applied but it doesn't get done that way.

Just to be clear, I'm no more in favor of applying such dubious "standards" to Bagwell or Piazza than I am to Biggio or Jeter or anyone else whose "guilt" consists of nothing but observation or association.

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

It is silly isn't it? If someone confesses (Canseco), has some evidence (Palmeiro failing test) or someone who should know speaks out (the Clemens case) or there is something 'weird' (backne) I can see why someone would withhold their vote. Don't agree in all cases, but at least there is some logic. But Bagwell & Biggio are so odd to be doing it with - no accusations while they played, no failed tests, no accusations post-playing except by sportswriters saying 'seemed too muscular' or 'played with guys who did them'. Using those standards you have to eliminate everyone who played in the 90's pretty much.

Which I suspect is the idea.

Right, but then there's also the equally dubious argument which says "since we'll never know for sure who juiced, let's just forget about it, even in cases where there is actual proof or overwhelming evidence." It's a Bizarro World form of guilt (or innocence) by association, and it comes packed with every bit as much of an agenda as the one that John referred to in # 13.

This thread has led me to the inescapable conclusion that Hillary Clinton was on steroids.

First they came for Mark McGwire, and I didn't speak out, because that guy wasn't a teammate. Then they came for Ken Caminiti, and I didn't speak out, because that guy was totally a roider. Then they came for Jeff Bagwell, and I didn't speak out, because yeah that guy had crazy forearms and hit home runs.

Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.

This thread has led me to the inescapable conclusion that Hillary Clinton was on steroids.

Given her age and her schedule, I'd say that amps are the far more likely suspect.

The sportswriter's intellectual process for this year's HOF ballot:

Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: [uncomprehendingly] Thanks, honey.
Lisa: By your logic, I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Hmm. How does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work; it's just a stupid rock!
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
Homer: (pause) Lisa, I want to buy your rock.

That assumes that Hillary did kill Vince Foster, and that Bagwell was juicing. And if you're going to start out with those two baseless assumptions, then hell, why not go whole hog and make a complete jackass of yourself?

Why is a forged birth certificate the more out there position than murdering someone?

Hillary ... Vince Foster ... Laura B ... forged birth certificate

Please, for the love of all that is good and holy, take this to the OTP: Politics thread.

Right, but then there's also the equally dubious argument which says "since we'll never know for sure who juiced, let's just forget about it, even in cases where there is actual proof or overwhelming evidence." It's a Bizarro World form of guilt (or innocence) by association, and it comes packed with every bit as much of an agenda as the one that John referred to in # 13.

It's not that dubious, it's just a not clearly articulated point of view. Since we'll never know for sure who juiced, or the percentage, we don't know how much the level of competition was affected. I mean if 100% of the players juiced, then it's all even(theoretically) so why punish one guy who is a confirmed juicer, when he was doing the norm?

Bizarro only applies if a person says he refuses to vote for juicers, then pulls out the we don't know who juiced so might as well forget cases in which you have a confirmed juicer. I don't think anyone is taking that road.

I know, I got it - anyone who played well during the Clinton years must have been on steroids thus is not qualified for the HOF.

There we go, merged the threads in this discussion. :)

Or you could just say that once Jim Rice couldn't put TEH FEAR into everyone they jumped onto drugs and were no longer worth putting into the HOF.

Or you could just say that once Jim Rice couldn't put TEH FEAR into everyone they jumped onto drugs and were no longer worth putting into the HOF.

Or it's all about Jack Morris. Clemens et al knew there was no way they could be as good as the great Jack Morris without roids, so roids it was. But the hitters realized how horribly unfair this was to Jack and roided up to raise the run-scoring environment high enough that Jack's ERA wouldn't look so bad.

So a vote for Bonds is a vote for Morris!

By the way, I'm not convinced Bagwell's being held out for steroids. Obviously there are some who aren't voting for him for that reason but I'm not sure it's a high enough percentage to keep him out. As somebody pointed out here a few years ago, Bagwell is the type of candidate the voters almost always "underrate" on the first few ballots for whatever silly reason. Yes, by our standards, he's a no-brainer, first ballot guy. But he has no milestones, 1 short-season MVP, and was a good all-around player. He has fewer hits, HR and RBI than Fred McGriff. He's the Sandberg-Larkin of 1B and, so far, he's on a pretty similar HoF path:

RS 49% 61% 76%
BL 52% 62% 86%
JB 42% 56% ??

The roids rumors might only be responsible for that 5-7% gap between those guys. If so, it's not nearly high enough to keep him out of the Hall even if it takes him longer than Sandberg-Larkin.

I would have said this year will give us a better idea of how much of the Bagwell non-vote is roids blackballing but with so many (normally) slam-dunk candidates joining the list, it's hard to say how much of a jump we would expect. Normally having Bonds, Clemens, Biggio, Sosa and Piazza joining the list would pretty much guarantee everybody else stagnates or drops. That probably won't happen this year but they'll still be eating up a lot of votes. And assuming he doesn't make it this year, next year's batch of "clean" slam-dunk guys (Maddux, Glavine and Thomas) will stagnate/drop pretty much everybody else.

Among the players on the ballot, Biggio is 11th in career WAR. Given that you can only vote for 10, and that many people prefer to vote for fewer, it is not clear that he would make it on the first ballot even with zero suspicion. Probably would. Throw in a few doubters, and he is DOA. Next year there will be four more people above him, none with drug stories (though Thomas might have the "look at those muscles" problem). Biggio is going to wait awhile.

Frank Thomas is a funny one. He was a college football player, then a big strong power hitter during the steroid era. Yet because he spoke up against PED's he is viewed as non-suspicious. But... if I was using PED's I think the best way to cover it would be to say 'lets test, test, test' and then stop if they actually did start to test.

In short, there is no such thing as 'above suspicion' when a witch hunt is on. What would be great fun is if Maddux gets in next year and in his speech says 'you bet I did PED's...any I could get my hands on...see, you cannot tell by body type'.

'you bet I did PED's...any I could get my hands on...see, you cannot tell by body type'.

Well, he's got no chance of ever being considered for HOF, but didn't Bartolo Colon prove this beyond all doubt last year?

Right, but then there's also the equally dubious argument which says "since we'll never know for sure who juiced, let's just forget about it, even in cases where there is actual proof or overwhelming evidence." It's a Bizarro World form of guilt (or innocence) by association, and it comes packed with every bit as much of an agenda as the one that John referred to in # 13.

It's not that dubious, it's just a not clearly articulated point of view. Since we'll never know for sure who juiced, or the percentage, we don't know how much the level of competition was affected. I mean if 100% of the players juiced, then it's all even(theoretically) so why punish one guy who is a confirmed juicer, when he was doing the norm?

Or maybe we could just label a player as a juicer only when there's some credible concrete evidence that he really juiced, like failing a test or having physical evidence or credible witnesses who will testify (and be willing to be cross-examined) that he did.

Apparently that's a radical concept in some parts, where you either have to label people on the flimsiest of conjectures or you have to forgive the players we actually know about. It's the baseball version of "Negroes all look alike, and none of them are ever up to any good" on the one hand, and the "Turn 'em loose Bruce" theory of justice on the other. Perish the thought of trying to think through individual cases and come up with a rational opinion that's based on the preponderance of real evidence.

To be precise, People think that a certain body type (Canseco, Bonds, McGwire), especially compared to that same person before packing on all the muscle, is proof positive. But no body type can prove that you didn't use steroids.

no body type can prove that you didn't use steroids

I used to see Ivan Rodriguez and Rafael Palmeiro in various states of undress (don't worry, I was an accredited sportswriter :) Pudge looked like a human ninja turtle. Palmeiro looked like me, kind of scrawny. Just going by the contrast alone, I had my doubts about Pudge but was pretty much convinced that Palmeiro never juiced. Oh well.

Perish the thought of trying to think through individual cases and come up with a rational opinion that's based on the preponderance of real evidence.

Unfortunate, yes, but the rationality left the door the minute someone got the idea that any use of a steroid drug must result in a complete ban for the HOF. The punishment is way out of proportion to the crime.

Or maybe we could just label a player as a juicer only when there's some credible concrete evidence that he really juiced, like failing a test or having physical evidence or credible witnesses who will testify (and be willing to be cross-examined) that he did.

That is one viewpoint. I just don't see why the other viewpoint is dubious or bizarro world. If we don't know who juiced, you have three options 1. Refuse to vote for those who get reasonably caught 2. Ignore who did under the pretense that if you can't know who did, it's unfair to punish those who did while rewarding those who didn't get caught 3. Vote for nobody.

Those are the only three rational ways I see it. You also have the 4. Make assumptions based upon whatever criteria you as a writer want to create to determine if someone did roids and not vote for them.

#32 Particularly since there have been sprinters, cyclists, biathlon participants, tennis players, soccer players, swimmers ... who have failed drug tests for steroids. (Allegedly a snooker player, but that may be an urban legend based on the fact that three players failed tests of some kind and the governing body refused to confirm what they'd tested positive for. Seems that the "steroids" may have started as a joke)

Perish the thought of trying to think through individual cases and come up with a rational opinion that's based on the preponderance of real evidence.

Andy, you always say you respect the BBWAA voters' collective wisdom, and accept their decision, even though a large percentage of them are not thinking through individual cases, and some are crowing about not doing so. These two things are a bit incompatible. I know that F. Scott Fitzgerald said, "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function," but when we look at this stretch of Hall of Fame debating, "first-rate intelligence" isn't the first literary quote that applies.

Pudge looked like a human ninja turtle.

So, he was... shredded?

Biggio killed Vince Foster! Wake up, sheeple...!

Or maybe we could just label a player as a juicer only when there's some credible concrete evidence that he really juiced, like failing a test or having physical evidence or credible witnesses who will testify (and be willing to be cross-examined) that he did.

That is one viewpoint. I just don't see why the other viewpoint is dubious or bizarro world. If we don't know who juiced, you have three options 1. Refuse to vote for those who get reasonably caught 2. Ignore who did under the pretense that if you can't know who did, it's unfair to punish those who did while rewarding those who didn't get caught 3. Vote for nobody.

Those are the only three rational ways I see it. You also have the 4. Make assumptions based upon whatever criteria you as a writer want to create to determine if someone did roids and not vote for them.

Well, unless you've decided to ignore juicing altogether (which is perfectly defensible), then obviously your option 1 provides the best balance of fairness and rational judgment. Option 2 is a copout, and option 3 is the equivalent of a #### strike. The worth of option 4 depends on what criteria you're using, which you don't spell out.

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

Andy, you always say you respect the BBWAA voters' collective wisdom, and accept their decision, even though a large percentage of them are not thinking through individual cases, and some are crowing about not doing so. These two things are a bit incompatible. I know that F. Scott Fitzgerald said, "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function," but when we look at this stretch of Hall of Fame debating, "first-rate intelligence" isn't the first literary quote that applies.

Gonfalon, when I say I respect the collective wisdom of the BBWAA, I say that in the same sense that I respect the collective wisdom of the American voters when Republicans win elections. It doesn't mean I agree with all of their choices, it merely means I respect the process. Two distinct things. I've often expressed disagreement with specific HoF choices, and I've often expressed ridicule and / or contempt for individual writers, most specifically those who vote against players on the basis of such dubious criteria as being on the wrong team at the wrong time. In fact you might even note I've expressed far more contempt for them than I have against writers (or Primates) who hold the honest belief that the Hall of Fame should be based on the record book alone. I obviously don't agree with that POV, but I don't go around pretending that my view is the only permissible or "logical" one.

Pudge looked like a human ninja turtle.

So, he was... shredded?

Nah, he just wore his catcher's gear all the time.

Jeter also had his 2nd best season at age 35. STEROIDS

I've often expressed ridicule and / or contempt for individual writers, most specifically those who vote against players on the basis of such dubious criteria as being on the wrong team at the wrong time. In fact you might even note I've expressed far more contempt for them than I have against writers (or Primates) who hold the honest belief that the Hall of Fame should be based on the record book alone.

Yes, I have, but you might note that this group (the individually dubious and contempt-worthy writers) is substantially larger than a splinter of the overall voting body, and has disproportionately dominated the conversation. When a fourth or a third or half the trees in the orchard are rotten, "a few bad apples" ceases to apply. The Tea Party isn't the GOP, either, and reality TV isn't television, and al-Qaeda isn't Islam, and Justin Bieber isn't popular music, but they sure are f-cking things up.

A vote against Bonds is a vote for Bieber!

Well, unless you've decided to ignore juicing altogether (which is perfectly defensible), then obviously your option 1 provides the best balance of fairness and rational judgment. Option 2 is a copout, and option 3 is the equivalent of a #### strike. The worth of option 4 depends on what criteria you're using, which you don't spell out.

You like option one because it aligns with your viewpoint on it. I agree option 3 is messed up, but I can see someone having that opinion. Option 2 makes a ton of sense, it is basically saying "we know people cheated, we do not know to what extent everyone else cheated, so we aren't going to hold anyone, regardless of the evidence to a standard that makes us potentially putting one roider in while keeping one out.

The first option can come back to bite you, if you want to claim morality. You make one mistake and put a guy in who is later found to have cheated(and since there is no mechanism for removing a guy from the hof) then you have allowed a precedent of "it's cool if you don't get caught within five years of your retirement". Or the other argument(the Ty Cobb/OJ Simpson argument) "If so and so is in, and he did this, then why should so and so be blocked?"

Well, unless you've decided to ignore juicing altogether (which is perfectly defensible), then obviously your option 1 provides the best balance of fairness and rational judgment. Option 2 is a copout, and option 3 is the equivalent of a #### strike. The worth of option 4 depends on what criteria you're using, which you don't spell out.

You like option one because it aligns with your viewpoint on it. I agree option 3 is messed up, but I can see someone having that opinion. Option 2 makes a ton of sense, it is basically saying "we know people cheated, we do not know to what extent everyone else cheated, so we aren't going to hold anyone, regardless of the evidence to a standard that makes us potentially putting one roider in while keeping one out.

I misread what you meant in option 2, and the way you now express it is identical to what I said in the parenthetical part of my first sentence above. With that reading, then option 2 is fine.

Anyone who seriously opts for option 3 should just resign his voting membership out of principle and let someone else have a ballot, if that's his sincere belief.

The first option can come back to bite you, if you want to claim morality. You make one mistake and put a guy in who is later found to have cheated(and since there is no mechanism for removing a guy from the hof) then you have allowed a precedent of "it's cool if you don't get caught within five years of your retirement".

By this sort of reductionist logic, let's never put anyone in jail again as long as there are criminals who've escaped punishment. I can live with a case like you describe, especially since the implicit honor surrounding such a dubiously attained HoF plaque would quickly become meaningless in any real sense. In many ways, such an inductee would be even worse off in the eyes of the world than a known juicer who never got elected in the first place.

Or the other argument (the Ty Cobb/OJ Simpson argument) "If so and so is in, and he did this, then why should so and so be blocked?"

Because Cooperstown's character clause almost exclusively relates to the game on the field, and because O.J. Simpson was elected to the PFBHoF nine years before he murdered his wife. Lack of a character clause or not, do you really think that O.J. could have been inducted into Canton in 1995, rather than in 1985?

Toward the end of his career, it seemed to me that Biggio developed a special skill in using the short LF Crawford Boxes. I haven't seen any Astros' hitter who was as proficient at converting medium fly balls into HRs, with balls landing in the first or second row of the Crawford Boxes. It doesn't require an amazing amount of power to hit the ball 315 feet. I often wondered how much Biggio practiced that swing for the Crawford Boxes, because he seemed to be able to do it at will.

Because Cooperstown's character clause almost exclusively relates to the game on the field, and because O.J. Simpson was elected to the PFBHoF nine years before he murdered his wife. Lack of a character clause or not, do you really think that O.J. could have been inducted into Canton in 1995, rather than in 1985?

It doesn't negate the argument. People say it all the time now. There are racist, murderers and other cheaters in the hof, why is this different? (Note I'm not asking you why this is different, this is the argument people give, it doesn't matter if the knowledge of their crimes happened before they went in or after they went in, the argument is that they are in and that it lowers the standards for the morality concept of the hof voting.)

Chewbacca.

By the way, I'm not convinced Bagwell's being held out for steroids. Obviously there are some who aren't voting for him for that reason but I'm not sure it's a high enough percentage to keep him out. As somebody pointed out here a few years ago, Bagwell is the type of candidate the voters almost always "underrate" on the first few ballots for whatever silly reason. Yes, by our standards, he's a no-brainer, first ballot guy. But he has no milestones, 1 short-season MVP, and was a good all-around player. He has fewer hits, HR and RBI than Fred McGriff. He's the Sandberg-Larkin of 1B and, so far, he's on a pretty similar HoF path:...

Walt makes a good point. It's easy to forget how much voters miss.



FTFA that was linked:

She and a girlfriend were hurrying to a drive-in cinema when, driving her father's car, she ran through a stop sign on a dark country road and hit a car being driven by Mike Douglas, also 17, a star sportsman and popular student at her school. Nobody was ever charged and there was no evidence that either driver had been drinking.

In the forthcoming memoir, Spoken from the Heart, Mrs Bush admitted she and her friend were chatting at the time but also blamed various other factors, including the darkness of the road, the small size of the stop sign and even the handling of the victim's model of car.

Oh, that bugbear, "responsibility". Talk about "like marries like".