Good lord, I've got to defend Andy.

Sorry, applying a bright line to suspected steroid users, in the absence of any evidence, is not a "natural extension" of Andy's position. It is applying a quite different level of evidence than Andy is.

To be obvious ... I can quite comfortably hold that people who have been convicted of murder beyond a reasonable doubt should go to prison while those suspected of murder but with reasonable doubt should not. And that standard has held pretty well for a long time now without sliding all the way down the slippery slope.

You might not believe this, but in some quarters one is actually mocked for taking more time for discussion, research, and thought.

Discussion, research and thought are all perfectly reasonable things.

Now, who's doing the research on Bagwell? Is there an anti-Lederer out there for Bagwell? Why has it taken them seven (or more) years to finish the job? Are they still not ready to reveal any of their findings to the public eye? If somebody's paying their daily expenses, I think that somebody is being taken for a ride.

Or ... does this "research" by the vaunted HoF voters consist of spending 10 minutes on the internet sometime between sleeping off the Christmas hangover and starting the New Year's one to see what dirt they can find on Bagwell ... while, for some strange reason, not bothering to look for dirt on Edgar ... or Larkin ... or Dawson ... or Conlin (oops!)

Nobody is doing the research. The thinking goes on for 5 minutes and, surprise!, closely resembles last year's thinking. Whatever discussion's going on is likely at a lower level of insight than our yammering here.

Yes. Probably most of the players in the late 90s and early 2000s were using steroids. What's stupid is holding that against some of them and not others. The brew ha ha over saying Bagwell probably used is dumb - of course I think he probably used, just like I think about every other MLB player from that era. I also think everyone hear probably jaywalks, speeds, and so forth. Maybe someone doesn't, but most do, and if you take offence about it you're nuts.

This is pretty much where I'm at, other than the proto-usage of the British spelling of "offence". :) Do I think Bagwell used? Well yeah, probably. Everyone was using, he looked exactly like a prototypical user, looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc. I would be more surprised to get conclusive proof that he didn't use than conclusive proof that he did. What I object to is that if you didn't care in 1997, you don't get to pretend you care in 2012. Everyone knew what was going on and they didn't care. So to punish them 15 years after the fact b/c the current mainstream demands that someone must be punished reeks of intellectual dishonesty. Let these guys in. Then change the rules officially and punish anyone found to be breaking them after that. But you don't get to pretend after the fact that you actually cared all those years ago because your current readers are demanding a pound of flesh.

This is not the American way. It's the Salem witch trials. I heard a rumor that you did X, prove that the rumor is false.

It sure seems like the American way to me.

Good lord, I've got to defend Andy.

Sorry, applying a bright line to suspected steroid users, in the absence of any evidence, is not a "natural extension" of Andy's position. It is applying a quite different level of evidence than Andy is.

To be obvious ... I can quite comfortably hold that people who have been convicted of murder beyond a reasonable doubt should go to prison while those suspected of murder but with reasonable doubt should not. And that standard has held pretty well for a long time now without sliding all the way down the slippery slope.


The bright line philosophy inevitably leads to people keeping Bagwell out based on mere suspicion because the entire emphasis of the philosophy is that a steroid user does not belong in the Hall of Fame. To circle back to your murder analogy, a bright liner sees admitting someone, then finding out he's a juicer, to be the functional equivalent of executing an innocent man. And just as our system of justice builds in measures to prevent that, even if it means guilty people sometimes walk free, the procedures cobbled together by bright liners to prevent juicers going in inevitably lead to non-juicers getting swept up by their reach.

To reiterate, that's why Andy repeatedly is among the loudest, most theatrical voices in the "Oh, the injustice Bagwell's suffering" chorus. He needs to convince everyone (including himself?) that he won't overcompensate to keep juicers out. And perhaps he won't. But there's no question the bright liner writers will and are -- inevitably so.

I don't get why waiting 7 years to vote for Bagwell is massively worse than waiting the minimum 5 years to vote for him.

Why wait only 8 years? He's got 13 more years on the ballot after this. Hell, then he goes to the VC, no need to rush anything. You never what could come out in 50 years.

Good lord, I've got to defend Andy.

Sorry, applying a bright line to suspected steroid users, in the absence of any evidence, is not a "natural extension" of Andy's position. It is applying a quite different level of evidence than Andy is.

To be obvious ... I can quite comfortably hold that people who have been convicted of murder beyond a reasonable doubt should go to prison while those suspected of murder but with reasonable doubt should not. And that standard has held pretty well for a long time now without sliding all the way down the slippery slope.

The bright line philosophy inevitably leads to people keeping Bagwell out based on mere suspicion because the entire emphasis of the philosophy is that a steroid user does not belong in the Hall of Fame. To circle back to your murder analogy, a bright liner sees admitting someone, then finding out he's a juicer, to be the functional equivalent of executing an innocent man. And just as our system of justice builds in measures to prevent that, even if it means guilty people sometimes walk free, the procedures cobbled together by bright liners to prevent juicers going in inevitably lead to non-juicers getting swept up by their reach.

To reiterate, that's why Andy repeatedly is among the loudest, most theatrical voices in the "Oh, the injustice Bagwell's suffering" chorus. He needs to convince everyone (including himself?) that he won't overcompensate to keep juicers out. And perhaps he won't. But there's no question the bright liner writers will and are -- inevitably so.

All you're really doing with all this psychobabble gibberish about my motives is trying to make it impossible for any juicer to be excluded from the Hall of Fame. There is absolutely no standard you would support that would exclude even a confessed juicer from that honor. If there is, I've yet to hear any of you describe it. Even if every Murray Chass and Bryant Gumbel on Earth renounced their dubious standards of evidence and adopted my standards of proof, that still wouldn't satisfy you, because all you care about in the end is seeing Bonds & Co. in Cooperstown. With the sole exceptions of gamblers, you want the Hall of Fame to be a glorified Hall of Statistical Merit.

Now that's a perfectly honorable position (which is more than some people here will grant for mine, but whatever), but it's not the only position that fits that description. But in order to prevent yourself from acknowledging that, you continue to jump through all these hoops to lump me with the Gumbels.

I'll continue to hold to two convictions. No juicers should be in the Hall of Fame, and the standard of proof should be credible evidence on the BALCO level, credible firsthand testimony by witnesses who will stand up and repeat their charges under oath**, or a positive test that can't been explained by plausible extenuating circumstances***. Rumors don't cut it, cap sizes don't cut it, statistics alone don't cut it, muscles alone don't cut it, and this sort of "evidence" doesn't cut it, either.

And if that doesn't cut it for you, well, sorry 'bout that. You can keep up with the personal insults and "slippery slope" crap as long as you like, but you're only preaching to your own little choir.

**which leaves out the sole accusation against Bagwell, which was quickly recanted

***which leaves out Braun for the time being

the standard of proof should be credible evidence on the BALCO level, credible firsthand testimony by witnesses who will stand up and repeat their charges under oath**, or a positive test that can't been explained by plausible extenuating circumstances***.

In other words, the accused have no right to defend themselves, or try to prove the evidence false/tainted?

In other words, the accused have no right to defend themselves, or try to prove the evidence false/tainted?

Isn't that what a defense normally consists of; trying to prove the evidence presented against you false?

the standard of proof should be credible evidence on the BALCO level, credible firsthand testimony by witnesses who will stand up and repeat their charges under oath**, or a positive test that can't been explained by plausible extenuating circumstances***.

In other words, the accused have no right to defend themselves, or try to prove the evidence false/tainted?

Of course they should, which is exactly why I'm withholding judgment on Braun.

All you're really doing with all this psychobabble gibberish about my motives is trying to make it impossible for any juicer to be excluded from the Hall of Fame.

That's a feature, not a bug, if you don't think juicers should be automatically excluded. It should be imposssible for a juicer to be excluded for juicing alone. We should assess all the evidence available to us and make the best judgments we can. Bright lines and ultimate, automatic penalties don't work in the real world and we need look no further than the Bagwell situation to understand why.

It's the exact opposite -- and, again, Bagwell isn't getting discounted out by suspicious voters, he's getting bright lined out.

You are correct in this. Bagwell had a relatively normal career progression. How do you adjust that? You'd just have to assume he'd been a juicer his whole career, or at least 1994 on. There's no baseline to estimate what his career would have looked like without steroids.

For McGwire it's a bit easier, assume his late career numbers would have looked like his 1988-1992 averages: 239/355/480, 34 homers per year. Replacing his 1995-1999 stats with that costs him 114 homers, and with 469 homers he's not going in*.

Bonds is even easier, since the available evidence indicates he didn't start until 1999, when he had already put up a career worthy of Cooperstown. Just add a normal decline phase to that (maybe Griffey's finish with more walks) and you're done.

With Bagwell, if you accept the premise that his performance was steroid enhanced, you won't be able to find any consensus as to how it helped him. Once again, we're faced with the silly concept that steroids only help you hit homers. The circumstantial evidence (being a teammate of Caminiti, playing in the "steroids era" applies just as much to Biggio. How do we know his 3000 hits aren't tainted? But the rogue bright liners only want to focus on the one who hit for power.

*I'm not advocating any of this. I vote for McGwire. Plus, it doesn't account for aging, increased run scoring environment, his move to a less extreme pitcher's park, or Canseco's assertion that he started roids in 1988. Just that it could be done.

Bonds is even easier, since the available evidence indicates he didn't start until 1999, when he had already put up a career worthy of Cooperstown. Just add nothing to that

Fixed. You could zero out every one of his "steroid seasons", and Bonds would still easily be in. He is only out if you think PED are in the gambling-on-games category, so bad for baseball that they should result in a ban even if there's zero evidence of relevant on-field effect.

Ditto Clemens.

Fixed. You could zero out every one of his "steroid seasons", and Bonds would still easily be in. He is only out if you think PED are in the gambling-on-games category, so bad for baseball that they should result in a ban even if there's zero evidence of relevant on-field effect.

Ditto Clemens.

Correct, and I would vote for both eventually. I do think they deserve to stew for at least a half-dozen ballots for all the shame they brought to baseball.

All you're really doing with all this psychobabble gibberish about my motives is trying to make it impossible for any juicer to be excluded from the Hall of Fame.

That's a feature, not a bug, if you don't think juicers should be automatically excluded. It should be impossible for a juicer to be excluded for juicing alone.

Well, sir, you're perfectly entitled to that opinion.

We should assess all the evidence available to us and make the best judgments we can.

Which is exactly how I approach any steroid accusation directed against any player.

Bright lines and ultimate, automatic penalties don't work in the real world and we need look no further than the Bagwell situation to understand why.

No system is perfect, but Bagwell's been on the ballot for exactly two years counting 2012. We're already seeing what looks like a likely uptick in his vote totals, and Henning may not be the only one who adds to that total in 2013.

It's interesting to note that we've heard predictions from everyone from Bill James on down about how in 5 years or 10 years or 20 years or 50 years, miracle drugs will be everywhere and we'll look back on this era as some sort of a variant of the Salem Witch trials. Since I don't have access to the newspapers or websites from the future, it's hard to know what to say about those crystal ball efforts.

But it's funny how the other possible scenario is ever discussed: That as time passes, more voters like Henning will learn to distinguish credible evidence from the bogus variety, and start applying this distinction to their HoF votes. I have no idea how many writers, either old or new, will follow that path, but on the surface it doesn't seem any less likely than any great sea change in opinion about the inherent immorality of juicing. Since the "death penalty" analogy has been brought up, you might consider that jurors in capital cases who vote "not guilty" in a particular trial aren't voting against the death penalty per se.

Well, sir, you're perfectly entitled to that opinion.

I know, but I was doing more than expressing an opinion. I was noting that you were accusing me of making impossible that which shouldn't be impossible.

I do think they deserve to stew for at least a half-dozen ballots for all the shame they brought to baseball.

Do people actually think this? That Bonds and Clemens have brought shame to baseball?

There is absolutely no standard you would support that would exclude even a confessed juicer from that honor.

Correct. Because "juicing" is not a crime, just like amps, and was ingrained in the culture of the game.

And my position does not lead to voters withholding a vote for Bagwell on the basis that, well, nothing has come out yet, but let's just wait. YOUR position leads to that. If "juicers" should not be in the Hall of Fame, why take the chance that you're letting one of them in when you vote for Bagwell?

I'll continue to hold to two convictions. No juicers should be in the Hall of Fame,

Except for Mantle, right? You conceded last week that he juiced, but dismissed it by saying that the steroids didn't work. "Some steroids those were." So I guess "some steroids those were?" provides a valid exception for players?

and the standard of proof should be credible evidence on the BALCO level, credible firsthand testimony by witnesses who will stand up and repeat their charges under oath**, or a positive test that can't been explained by plausible extenuating circumstances***. Rumors don't cut it, cap sizes don't cut it, statistics alone don't cut it, muscles alone don't cut it, and this sort of "evidence" doesn't cut it, either.

Such as McGwire's refusal to answer questions under oath in 2005? You concluded him guilty on the basis of that.

Ditto Clemens.

Correct, and I would vote for both eventually. I do think they deserve to stew for at least a half-dozen ballots for all the shame they brought to baseball.

Baseball brought the shame to Clemens. Remember the Mitchell Report?

Well, sir, you're perfectly entitled to that opinion.

I know, but I was doing more than expressing an opinion. I was noting that you were accusing me of making impossible that which shouldn't be impossible.

You read "accusing" when all I meant was "noting". I've never accused you of hiding your position. My only problem with you is that like Ray-Ray, you seem to refuse to admit that there's any legitimate take on steroids and the Hall of Fame other than yours.

When the 2007 BTF ballot came around, Andy had no reservations about McGwire being guilty.

McGwire is an arguable HOM choice, even with a sizeable steroid discount, but an absolute never for the HOF. There is nothing worth honoring in that man's career. He made his choice and he's stuck with it (no pun intended).

Post #55 in this thread:
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Do people actually think this? That Bonds and Clemens have brought shame to baseball?

I do, yes.

They were all-world talents who had no need of PEDs, who nevertheless felt compelled by their egos or greed or whatever to cheat. They coupled this cheating with being lying, duplicitous ######## about said cheating, and all around unpleasant, angry individuals.

Instead of being heroes to be exalted, they turned themselves into a freak show. That has hurt baseball.

Baseball brought the shame to Clemens. Remember the Mitchell Report?

What did the Mitchell report say about Clemens that turned out to be untrue?

My only problem with you is that like Ray-Ray, you seem to refuse to admit that there's any legitimate take on steroids and the Hall of Fame other than yours.

No, I believe the bright line position can be held in good faith and is so held by you and others.

It's just that it can't be applied in real life by real people without intolerable (and inevitable) distortions and excesses, and runs aground on its internal contradictions.

Baseball brought the shame to Clemens. Remember the Mitchell Report?

What did the Mitchell report say about Clemens that turned out to be untrue?

I think there's a good chance McNamee is lying about the central claim, but even if he's not, that's not what I meant. What I meant is that Clemens was going along fine until Bud Selig commissioned a report to dig up dirt on the players of his own league.

They were all-world talents who had no need of PEDs, who nevertheless felt compelled by their egos or greed or whatever to cheat.

What role do you feel that everyone else connected to baseball played in bringing shame to MLB? What about other users? Teammates that may not have used, but knew of the use? Managers and coaches that knew what the players were doing? Owners? Journalists that turned a blind eye?

In this specific example, should Bagwell be allowed to stew for a few years because of his role in bringing shame to baseball? Or do you assume he had no knowledge of what his own teammates and opponents were doing?

Instead of being heroes to be exalted, they turned themselves into a freak show. That has hurt baseball.

I'd argue that we turned them into freak shows.

What role do you feel that everyone else connected to baseball played in bringing shame to MLB? What about other users? Teammates that may not have used, but knew of the use? Managers and coaches that knew what the players were doing? Owners? Journalists that turned a blind eye?

They all share blame. Unfortunately, there's no mechanism to bring them all to account.

In a sense, Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, Palmeiro, etc. are taking the blame for the whole sordid episode. That isn't the ideal outcome, but their punishment is so relatively light (delayed or denied HoF admission) that it doesn't bother me much.

Once someone refused to come clean and lied or dissembled under oath, well that's their own damn stupidity.

Unfortunately, there's no mechanism to bring them all to account.

Bud Selig's candidacy for the Hall of Fame can be loudly and definitively rejected -- that's one way. As the chief enabler of the Steroid Era, it should be.

When the 2007 BTF ballot came around, Andy had no reservations about McGwire being guilty.

McGwire is an arguable HOM choice, even with a sizeable steroid discount, but an absolute never for the HOF. There is nothing worth honoring in that man's career. He made his choice and he's stuck with it (no pun intended).

It's good you included that quote, because the link you gave is nothing but a composition sheet for an e-mail. You might want to back up and try it again.

I had no reservations then because McGwire had had a chance to deny Canseco's repeated firsthand charges, and refused to do so, either under oath or outside the hearing room. It was later disclosed that McGwire would have admitted his use during the hearings, had he been granted immunity. Had he not been guilty, there's still a chance that he might have refused to testify without immunity, but the combination of the book and the stonewalling led me to what McGwire subsequently confirmed to be the correct conclusion.

But remember this: If it had turned out that McGwire would have denied Canseco's accusations, then the case could have continued in two different ways: With an Alger Hiss-like bluff** by McGwire, which subsequently collapsed; or with a vindication of his innocence.

In the first case, to vote him in in 2007 would have presented the HoF with a fait accompli, which could have been reversed only by an unprecedented voiding of a previous vote. But in the second case, the only result would have been a delay in his induction, not a permanent blackball.

Of course there could have been a third scenario, which would have been a continuing verbal duel between McGwire and Canseco, with no way of determining the truth beyond accepting the word of one or the other.

And in that case, I would've taken McGwire's word, for the same reason I don't consider Canseco's testimony against any of his other former teammates as conclusive evidence by itself.

**In 1948, during a congressional hearing, the former Communist Whittaker Chambers accused Alger Hiss of being a Communist agent. Hiss dared Chambers to repeat his charge without congressional immunity. Chambers did so immediately during a Meet The Press interview, and by the time it was all over, Chambers' story was vindicated to the satisfaction of pretty much everyone without an ideological stake in perpetuating the myth of Hiss's innocence.

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/hall_of_merit/discussion/2007_btf_hall_of_fame_ballot/

Not sure how a mailto: got into that link. It works now.

Probably half of the names on the current HOF ballot have used steroids to some extent. Besides McGwire and Palmeiro, none of us know who. Had they been called up before congress and asked under oath, some among them might have admitted it, some may have lied (though after seeing the efforts to pin perjury on Bonds/Clemens they'd have to be exceptionally dumb) and most would probably take the 5th as McGwire did.

Why was McGwire put in that position when other great players were not? Because he broke a record, that's all. I find this process both unjust and disgusting, and that's why I can't accept using steroids as a reason to keep someone out of the hall.

I'm perfectly fine with steroid testing and the punishments put in place. When Ryan Braun's career is done, if he's a very borderline HOF case and somebody thinks 50 more games during his prime would have made a difference, then that's the only situation where I'm OK with steroids making a difference in the vote.

Why was McGwire put in that position when other great players were not? Because he broke a record, that's all.

And how does that explain the presence of Palmeiro and the absence of Bonds at those same hearings, which took place four years after 73*?

Bud Selig's candidacy for the Hall of Fame can be loudly and definitively rejected -- that's one way. As the chief enabler of the Steroid Era, it should be.

That's as big a no-brainer as there is. Writers from the era can be rejected too, if they turned a blind eye.

And how does that explain the presence of Palmeiro and the absence of Bonds at those same hearings, which took place four years after 73*?

Andy, are you seriously arguing that McGwire hitting 70 had nothing to do with why he was in front of Congress that day? That Sosa having dared to hit more home runs than Maris had nothing to do with why he was in front of Congress that day?

Bonds wasn't there because he was under investigation for having hit 73 home runs... I mean, for perjury.

And AROM points out another reason it is disgusting to hold McGwire's 2005 testimony against him. Most other players weren't put in the position of being subpoenaed to a witch trial.

And AROM points out another reason it is disgusting to hold McGwire's 2005 testimony against him. Most other players weren't put in the position of being subpoenaed to a witch trial.

I can hold McGwire's testimony against him all I want. What I can't say is that any non-testifier is "better" than MM.

PRIOR to testing

Since we don't know:
a) who ALL was using
b) when they were using
c) how much they were using
and especially
d) we have no idea a/b/c actually effect performance (although if we had a/b/c would could *attempt* to extract it from the data)

The only fair and reasonable "steroid discount" is effectively OPS+ and ERA+ (or your stat of choice).

WHICH by the way would probably leave ALL the HR records with Ruth.

Why was McGwire put in that position when other great players were not? Because he broke a record, that's all.

And how does that explain the presence of Palmeiro and the absence of Bonds at those same hearings, which took place four years after 73*?

Andy, are you seriously arguing that McGwire hitting 70 had nothing to do with why he was in front of Congress that day? That Sosa having dared to hit more home runs than Maris had nothing to do with why he was in front of Congress that day?

I'm only saying that the records are not a one-size-fits-all explanation. What records had Palmeiro broken? Frank Thomas also testified. What records did he break?

And even more to the point: If those records were all that mattered, then why did it take Congress more than six years after McGwire's 70 and Sosa's 66, and more than three years after Bonds's 73, to get around to holding hearings? Your continuing insistence on simplistic explanations that border on nudge-nudge conspiracy theories is one of the reasons I find you hard to take your arguments seriously.

OK - Saying he was called before congress for breaking a record is a little simplistic. But they certainly choose a bunch of big name players known for hitting homeruns. Plus Curt Schilling.

Why didn't they want to talk to Manny Alexander?

All you're really doing with all this psychobabble gibberish about my motives is trying to make it impossible for any juicer to be excluded from the Hall of Fame. There is absolutely no standard you would support that would exclude even a confessed juicer from that honor. If there is, I've yet to hear any of you describe it.

I'll use the word "respect" rather than "support," but I'll give you three standards that I would respect completely.

1) Absolute bar for any known PED user (confession or failed test). This means that you'd reject known amphetamine users if you were voting today.
2) Absolute bar for any known PED user after baseball's official policy change.
3) Rejecting borderline players that are known PED users.

1) Absolute bar for any known PED user (confession or failed test). This means that you'd reject known amphetamine users if you were voting today.

I'd respect this position as well.

Jeff Bagwell played most of his career during a period when steroids and human-growth helpers weren’t, in fact, a violation of baseball’s rules…

Anyone know the exact years?

Bagwell: 1991-2005
Steroid rules: 2005-present

From 2002-2004, players were tested, but the only penalty for a first positive was "treatment," and no players were to be named. The penalties were significantly upped in 2006.

thanks GB