But, in contrast to what Bill James says now, there's what he wrote in The Politics of Glory:

When the White Sox were trying to trade Dick Allen in 1974, somebody asked Joe Burke of the Royals whether he was interested. "I wouldn't pay the waiver price for him," Burke replied. "I woldn't pay a dollar for him. I wouldn't take him if you paid me $10,000." That's the issue. Did he have value? Did he help his teams win?

He did more to keep his teams from winning than anybody else who ever played major league baseball. And if that's a Hall of Famer, I'm a lug nut.

Maybe Bill James has already died and only the Turing Machine is left.

As for James's essay linked here, now that I've read it through, I'll say that there’s something to be said for what he writes. At least it’s an intelligent start by someone who at least has a reputation for studying things and being thoughtful in his opinions, and he fully demonstrates that in his essay. That being said, I nevertheless think he kind of couldn’t help loading the dice.

There is nothing to be gained by trying to guess where objects still in motion will eventually land.

Whoa. Really? Sure there is. It’s done all the time. Tons of people make good livelihoods doing that in all sorts of areas of life. He’s in full sweeping philosophical pronouncement mode here. But, as a matter of fact, it’s a 100% in error.

It is my opinion that, in time, the use of steroids or other Performance Enhancing Drugs will mean virtually nothing in the debate about who gets into the Hall of Fame and who does not

Okay. I have already on occasion alluded to my general contempt for the Hall of Fame. It’s basically a reservoir of pretentiousness, the repository of silly-ass posturing, a worthless institution that is made positively evil because it is taken seriously by our best and brightest, the worst and stupidest, the harmless and ingenue, by fundamentalists and avant-gardes. It almost totally escapes me why a great player would think himself honored by the likes of the people who vote on his eligibility. I love old movies, and some classics weren’t always so highly regarded, and of course actors once underrated or overrated are now seen differently. Joel McCrea should have gotten at least an Academy Award nomination for his performance in Sullivan’s Travels, Cary Grant in His Girl Friday, James Stewart in Vertigo, Etc., Etc. That they didn’t, though, is a reflection on the institution, not on them. There failure in this regard doesn’t diminish their accomplishment one iota, but taking their lack of an award or recognition seriously does diminish us, and I refuse to collude and connive in that by taking those people and their institutions seriously. Imbuing institutions with excessive regard like that has made me respect them less. Part of the reason for that is that once you make them sacred like this, they can’t help but abuse their power. You would think the same thing would apply for the HOF, but apparently it doesn’t. There’s a certain mentality that still thinks somehow if a player doesn’t make it into the HOF, his career is somehow diminished. His accomplishments less noteworthy. It’s thinking like that causes half the problems in the world.

Okay. I have already on occasion alluded to my general contempt for the Hall of Fame. It’s basically a reservoir of pretentiousness, the repository of silly-ass posturing, a worthless institution that is made positively evil because it is taken seriously by our best and brightest, the worst and stupidest, the harmless and ingenue, by fundamentalists and avant-gardes. It almost totally escapes me why a great player would think himself honored by the likes of the people who vote on his eligibility. I love old movies, and some classics weren’t always so highly regarded, and of course actors once underrated or overrated are now seen differently. Joel McCrea should have gotten at least an Academy Award nomination for his performance in Sullivan’s Travels, Cary Grant in His Girl Friday, James Stewart in Vertigo, Etc., Etc. That they didn’t, though, is a reflection on the institution, not on them. There failure in this regard doesn’t diminish their accomplishment one iota, but taking their lack of an award or recognition seriously does diminish us, and I refuse to collude and connive in that by taking those people and their institutions seriously. Imbuing institutions with excessive regard like that has made me respect them less. Part of the reason for that is that once you make them sacred like this, they can’t help but abuse their power. You would think the same thing would apply for the HOF, but apparently it doesn’t. There’s a certain mentality that still thinks somehow if a player doesn’t make it into the HOF, his career is somehow diminished. His accomplishments less noteworthy. It’s thinking like that causes half the problems in the world.

Everyone wants to be liked. Actors, ballplayers, everybody. Some people are more independent than others, but most all of what we do past pure survival is based deep down on some motivation to gain favor of others. I don't think many actors would be happy performing their craft on a holodeck for eternity with no response from an audience. You'll see this when actors appear in something that just completely flops with an audience and doesn't even garner a cult following. Even though they might defend it initially on solid grounds, after a while they give up and stop supporting it. It's just too hard to fight against millions shouting "you're stupid, you're stupid."

While we are talking about steroids and the Hall of Fame:


Manny Ramirez left the game Tuesday night after being hit on the hand while at bat.

Tonight was Manny Bobble-Head night, and Manny did not take batting practice and was not in the line-up

Bottom of the sixth, tied 2-2, bases loaded -- Manny gets called in to pinch hit.

First pitch, on Manny Bobble-head night, he deposits the pitch into Manny-Wood.

I can only hope that Plaschke's head exploded.

Everyone wants to be liked. Actors, ballplayers, everybody. Some people are more independent than others, but most all of what we do past pure survival is based deep down on some motivation to gain favor of others. I don't think many actors would be happy performing their craft on a holodeck for eternity with no response from an audience. You'll see this when actors appear in something that just completely flops with an audience and doesn't even garner a cult following. Even though they might defend it initially on solid grounds, after a while they give up and stop supporting it. It's just too hard to fight against millions shouting "you're stupid, you're stupid."

Well, that is very diplomatic of you, even-handedly gracious and reasonable, but it doesn't really negate my point in any essential way.

And there is a downside to diplomacy. It encourages that which you deplore, and can lead to some pretty awful things. What you think is diplomacy and broad-mindedness, others see as weakness. Besides the general dishonesty, I mean.

I guess I'll be in the minority in thinking this was a pretty weak effort. And I've been a James fan. But then perhaps James is getting old, and needs to investigate his own PEDs...

I think it is conjecture at best to think of steroids as a fountain of youth. We'll see. With all the advancements of recent years pushing life past the 100 barrier has proven pretty sticky to date.

As far as history goes, we'll see there too. James makes it seem a lot simpler that it is. Cobb's reputation was at least a lot more mixed in the past than it has been recently. As James himself once said, Cap Anson's views were popular at the time. Take the wrong side on the wrong issue, and history can be extremely unforgiving.

In adding yet another opinion to the steroid mountain, to me the question is, akin to "Is It Art?" or "Is It Smut?" would be "Is It Sport?" Some innovations change the game, some wind up banned. There's a big list of banned softball bats in my league every year - why is that? While I'm sure it would be fun to hit the ball far with my single hitter's swing, is it sport to have a bat that's more important than the player? Maybe if every player had to build their own bat. Maybe if Bonds had spent time in the lab rather than just buying his home runs I'd be more impressed. It's a game; it's not like any of them save lives. We don't have to care.

But at the same time, I do not believe that history will look at this issue from the standpoint of Will Clark. I don’t see how it can.

So, the bottom-line lesson, kiddies, is that history is “forgiving”, unless you’re innocent. No good deed goes unpunished? Is that the lesson to be learned? As Homer would say, “Kids, you tried and you failed miserably. Let that be a lesson to you. Never try.” You took me seriously; boy, were you a sucker.

Everyone wants to be liked. Actors, ballplayers, everybody. Some people are more independent than others, but most all of what we do past pure survival is based deep down on some motivation to gain favor of others. I don't think many actors would be happy performing their craft on a holodeck for eternity with no response from an audience. You'll see this when actors appear in something that just completely flops with an audience and doesn't even garner a cult following. Even though they might defend it initially on solid grounds, after a while they give up and stop supporting it. It's just too hard to fight against millions shouting "you're stupid, you're stupid."



Well, that is very diplomatic of you, even-handedly gracious and reasonable, but it doesn't really negate my point in any essential way.

And there is a downside to diplomacy. It encourages that which you deplore, and can lead to some pretty awful things. What you think is diplomacy and broad-mindedness, others see as weakness. Besides the general dishonesty, I mean.

The HOF and the Oscars exist because of the great American tradition of capitalism. They make money.

In all honesty artists who have too much ambivilence towards the audience run into trouble sooner or later. They start working away from their strengths in order to deny the audience their essence.

As for the rest, if you're going to make Chamberlain inferences I'll invoke Six Degrees Of Godwin before the thread goes to hell.

Well, I'll have you know that Hitler "could daunce better than Churchill. He could daunce like the wind."

But then perhaps James is getting old, and needs to investigate his own PEDs...

I've been experimenting with fish oil to see if it helps me think better. The jury is still out on that. One thing that I notice as I get older is that my attention to detail is slipping. Not sure if it would be even worse without the fish oil.

In all honesty artists who have too much ambivalence towards the audience run into trouble sooner or later.

This could be applied directly to James himself. His 'Breakin' the Wand' essay in the 1988 Abstract was exactly a denial of his talent to his audience. It's been years since I read it, but the line that stuck out in my head was about people treating him 'like a public utility'. That's the nature of his work, and he didn't like it.

So, finally, 'Bill James speaks' on the steroid issue. And he produces a piece of fatalistic, sanctimonious platitudes that doesn't agree with my opinion. I don't get any sense from it that he's taking the medical issues into account, the risk to players' long-term health. Furthermore, there's the issue of sanctioning the use of illegal means to achieve success. I know I'll seem a simpleton to say this to a younger, more hip, more liberal audience (with a vociferous Libertinarian wing), but it's wrong.

I refuse to celebrate cheaters. The only issue is how to handle the period when MLB did not have an official, enforced policy on PEDs. That's where leadership failed the ballplayers in order to recover the self-inflicted losses of 1994.

Really, though, anyone known to take steroids, or any other illegal substance that may have positively affected their ability to play, should have their career carefully examined before their election to the Hall of Fame by the BBWAA or the Veterans' Committee. And anyone found subsequently to have used illegal substances to improve their performance should have their membership suspended and submitted to a special re-election process.

There is nothing to be gained by trying to guess where objects still in motion will eventually land.

Guess James didn't attend the hit f/x convention.

While we are talking about steroids and the Hall of Fame:


Manny Ramirez left the game Tuesday night after being hit on the hand while at bat.

Tonight was Manny Bobble-Head night, and Manny did not take batting practice and was not in the line-up

Bottom of the sixth, tied 2-2, bases loaded -- Manny gets called in to pinch hit.

First pitch, on Manny Bobble-head night, he deposits the pitch into Manny-Wood.

This is purely a hunch, but I think that if or when known juicers ever make it into the HoF, Manny might well be the first, simply because far more than Bonds, McGwire, Clemons or A-Rod, he most closely fits the Ruthian prototype, i.e. an overgrown kid who seems basically guileless, and when he's not, he's so blatantly transparent about it that people merely say "well, that's Manny." Whereas the other four seem to walk around with a permanent cloud over their heads. Outside of Boston, I doubt if Manny has too many fans who really have much against him other than steroids, whereas the other four's popularity in general seems strictly confined to their home base.

Really, though, anyone known to take steroids, or any other illegal substance that may have positively affected their ability to play, should have their career carefully examined before their election to the Hall of Fame by the BBWAA or the Veterans' Committee. And anyone found subsequently to have used illegal substances to improve their performance should have their membership suspended and submitted to a special re-election process.

Right. Sounds like this poster still believes that PED were/are only used by a small minority of the players.

Since we know Gaylord P cheated, should he be subject to a re-vote? I'd love to see the writers hung out to dry as they explained their logic on THAT one.

Since we know Gaylord P cheated, should he be subject to a re-vote? I'd love to see the writers hung out to dry as they explained their logic on THAT one.

Personally I'd like to see about revoking that 1973 Nobel Peace Prize. Maybe we can do lunch sometime and get together a grand coalition of award revokers.

I assume all amphetamine users are now going to be ejected from the HOF? Aaron, Mays, Schmidt, and many others.

So, finally, 'Bill James speaks' on the steroid issue. And he produces a piece of fatalistic, sanctimonious platitudes that doesn't agree with my opinion. I don't get any sense from it that he's taking the medical issues into account, the risk to players' long-term health.

Or maybe he has taken the medical issues into account, and he realises that different steroids have different effects, both positive and negative? And that the effects, both positive and negative, vary according to dosage, according to how the user uses the steroid(s)? Maybe he realises that the steroids that are the most difficult to detect, also tend to have the most negative health effects? Or maybe he realises that given the hysteria over steroids, given that in many countries researchers cannot do serious research on (long term) steroids use, since steroids are illegal, there exists too little scientific information to have a serious scientific analysis of the various effects, both positive and negative?

I assume all amphetamine users are now going to be ejected from the HOF? Aaron, Mays, Schmidt, and many others.

When did amphetamines become illegal under the CBA? So: no.

Re: 118

Yes, so if he'd gone into some detail about it, as you have rfloh, I would have got some sense that he took the medical issues into account.

The problem is that, as kwarren in 114 suggests, we have no clear idea of the extent of use. If such usage was not a matter of ejection, but of suspension with reinstatement held out as an enticement for more information, the HoF could play a part in establishing a history of the influence of steroids on MLB during the last quarter of the twentieth century.

Shrugging your shoulders, as Bill James has done, isn't going to help in the long term, and basically sanctions what was arguably cheating prior to 2003, and definitely is cheating after 2002.

Since the page flipped, the discussion seems to have forgotten that Bill is not making a moral stand here ;-) He predicts that, due to the factors he lays out and his understanding of human nature, people will react in a certain way towards the issue as time goes on. He doesn't offer his own moral stance. The article is essentially predictive.

It seems some did not read the article completely or closely enough. James acknowledges the health issue; he even practically said "think of the children." I think it's pretty clear that he wishes steroids had never happened, and that he wants to regard it as cheating, but the entire saga is so freighted with complications, ambiguities and just plain lack of clarity that he himself cannot make a definitive judgment, so he punted and "leaves it to history." He's spent his career illuminating the obscured, but this was one mystery he was not able to unlock.

I know I'll seem a simpleton to say this to a younger, more hip, more liberal audience (with a vociferous Libertinarian wing), but it's wrong.

On that note: does anyone happen to know of any polls or something that attempted to measure public opinion of letting in PED users, based on the age of the poll-takers? That might actually be slightly interesting to look at, since I'd certainly predict that the younger crowd might be more amenable to letting in PED users into the HoF.

When did amphetamines become illegal under the CBA? So: no.

The fra paolo doctrine only says "illegal", not "illegal under the CBA".

But amp defenders will go to great lengths to exclude them from the illegal drug discussions.

Ya know, this is the only place I've seen amphetamines referred to as amps. Do they go to 11? I think most others call them greenies.

But amp defenders will go to great lengths to exclude them from the illegal drug discussions.

That's fair and you're right, I've seen people do that here. For me, though, if we're excusing past steroid use before it was made illegal under the CBA, we have to do the same for greenies. So Manny Ramirez, for instance, does not equal Hank Aaron when it comes to PED use.

I think it is conjecture at best to think of steroids as a fountain of youth. We'll see. With all the advancements of recent years pushing life past the 100 barrier has proven pretty sticky to date.

Yeah, I sure as hell wouldn't bet any large sums of money on our grandchildren and great-grandchildren living to be 1,000 years old.

To take the observation that steroids can extend a world class athlete's career by a few years and extrapolate what he tries to from that is the wildest sort of speculation that isn't supported by a shred of reputable scientific research that I know of.

I just read this, , nothing earth-shattering, but affirms my belief that James the stat icon (both in sabr circles, and the popular imagination) overshadows Bill James the writer.
I can't think of anyone who writes about baseball and is more fun to read.

I'm more than a day late and a dollar short but I finally read this.

Anybody who thinks Bill James likes steroids or said he likes steroids is a moron, and any newspaper columnist who claimed either one of these things is a lazy moron. Both in the sense that they didn't care to understand James' argument, and in the sense that they don't care to understand any ambiguity about steroids generally. There's a complexity here that James understands and some others don't, and I guess if I thought "there's something happening here (and I) don't know what it is," well, maybe I'd be pissed (envious) and write scathing attacks upon the people who do know what's happening, too.

But as an amateur historian, I have to say that Bill James just plain knows how to think. Most of the time when people claim to foresee what is going to happen in the future, well, it's just like today only more. And that kind of thinking pretty much always turns out to be wrong. People in the future are not going to think like we do today, just as people in the past didn't think the way we do. The children of the Rushies are not going to be Rushies. People with gay parents are not all gonna be gay. Some of our grandparents were communists in the 1930s and there were reasons for that whether we have the courage and intellect to understand it or not.

So I think James is 100 percent right. Except that Will Clark is never gonna make it. Sportswriters today who profess to hate steroids and anyone who ever used them couldn't figure out that they therefore should support those who didn't. I don't think sportswriters ever will figure that part of it out. Which is too bad.

This isn't among Bill's greatest work. So it's merely 100 percent more thoughtful and more insightful (less constrained by the cliches of the day) than anything any sportswriter has yet written on the subject.