Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Saturday, December 17, 2011

Botte: Most voters say ‘no’ to Cooperstown for Barry Bonds

If you can save just one voter, it’s worth it!

Barry Bonds may have received a light sentence Friday for his role in the BALCO scandal. But avoiding prison time doesn’t mean that baseball’s all-time home run king should expect Hall of Fame voters to go any easier on him when he lands on the ballot next December.

“Nothing has changed. I’m a ‘no,’ and I’ve always been a ‘no,’ ” said longtime Daily News columnist Bill Madden, who is a Hall of Fame Spink Award winner, the highest award given by the Baseball Writers Association of America. “Whether Bonds was going to get jail time or not makes no difference to me. Everybody knows what he was and what he did.”

Twelve of 21 eligible Hall voters who responded to the Daily News on Friday – including veteran News columnist John Harper — indicated they do not plan to vote for Bonds next year for enshrinement in Cooperstown.

“I would not vote for him because of his undisputed ties to BALCO and the use of performance-enhancing drugs,” said Peter Abraham of the Boston Globe. “In the case of Bonds, it’s pretty easy. He was convicted of obstructing justice and was fortunate to escape other charges. I wouldn’t vote for somebody who cheated to that degree.”

Tim Brown, a veteran columnist for Yahoo! Sports, added that Bonds’ sentencing Friday had nothing to do with his “no” stance. “I will not vote for Bonds, because I believe he cheated,” Brown said.

Repoz Posted: December 17, 2011 at 04:26 AM | 211 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: hall of fame, history, rumors, steroids

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 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 > 
   1. Textbook Editor Posted: December 17, 2011 at 04:42 AM (#4018276)
[sigh]

One thing I'm not looking forward to: the next 20 years of off-season moralizing on all sides of the HOF votes.
   2. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: December 17, 2011 at 04:47 AM (#4018279)
"Everybody knows what he was and what he did.”

That's America in a nutshell. "Everyone" who knows agrees with me, and those who don't just don't know.
   3. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: December 17, 2011 at 05:19 AM (#4018290)
I'm going to enjoy living in a world in which Bill Madden is a Hall of Famer (*) and Barry Bonds isn't.

(*Yes, I know, I know...)

Wouldn't it be spiffy to let the players start voting for the Spink Award? Okay, just for this "era."
   4. Ray (CTL) Posted: December 17, 2011 at 05:42 AM (#4018295)
Memo to Bonds, McGwire, and Sosa:

You cannot commit the crime of hitting more home runs than Roger Maris and expect to go to the Hall of Fame.
   5. Morty Causa Posted: December 17, 2011 at 05:56 AM (#4018297)
I don't think that's true. (Of course I realize you're engaging in hyperbole.) Most everyone as I remember was wildly ecstatic during that record breaking time, and continued to glorify it until.... McGwire and Sosa were feted and serenaded. McGwire was on The Simpsons even. This isn't really about Maris, except obliquely.
   6. Buzzkill Posted: December 17, 2011 at 09:46 AM (#4018324)
Someone should open a high tech steroids era baseball Hall of Fame in LA or NY or Chicago. It would outdraw Cooperstown within two years.
   7. Grumbledook Posted: December 17, 2011 at 11:24 AM (#4018332)
I just checked, and 581 writers cast ballots for the Hall of Fame in 2011. I could be wrong, but my guess is that their poll of 21 of these writers - 12 of which actually bothered to respond - is not even close to being a reliable indicator of what will actually happen. McGwire has gotten between 19.7 and 23.7 percent of the vote, and he wasn't as good a player as Bonds. On the other hand, everyone seems to want to make an example of Bonds, so it could happen.
   8. Flynn Posted: December 17, 2011 at 11:29 AM (#4018334)
Steroids will be the BBWAA's Waterloo. They work at the pleasure of the Hall of Fame, and if they can't find guys to elect Jane Clark will be more than happy to find people who will elect players.
   9. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: December 17, 2011 at 11:30 AM (#4018335)
I just polled my cat, and 100.0% of him says that Bonds will not come close to election when he hits the ballot. Don't bet against my cat.
   10. AJMcCringleberry Posted: December 17, 2011 at 12:36 PM (#4018342)
I would not vote for him because of his undisputed ties to BALCO

I will not vote for Derek Jeter because of his undisputed ties to Roger Clemens, Jason Giambi, and Alex Rodriguez.
   11. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: December 17, 2011 at 01:37 PM (#4018352)
Memo to Bonds, McGwire, and Sosa:

You cannot commit the crime of hitting more home runs than Roger Maris and expect to go to the Hall of Fame.


I don't think that's true. (Of course I realize you're engaging in hyperbole.**) Most everyone as I remember was wildly ecstatic during that record breaking time, and continued to glorify it until.... McGwire and Sosa were feted and serenaded. McGwire was on The Simpsons even. This isn't really about Maris, except obliquely.

Morty, you know you're not supposed to introduce historical facts into any discussion about Ray's 3 biggest boyhood heroes. And you also realize that when you do this, it means that you must want Bonds sent to the gas chamber.

(Now repeat after me: "Kitty Bonds is innocent! Kitty Bonds is innocent! Kitty Bonds is innocent!")

**It may be hyperbole, but he sure as hell acts as if he actually believes it, since he's been saying it for years.
   12. Juilin Sandar to Conkling Speedwell (Arjun) Posted: December 17, 2011 at 02:19 PM (#4018358)
I just polled my cat, and 100.0% of him says that Bonds will not come close to election when he hits the ballot. Don't bet against my cat.


KIRK: I took it upon myself to poll the town, and I think you're gonna be pretty happy with the results.
SOOKIE: We are?
KIRK: Jackson is solidly in the lead.
LORELAI: Already? We just started bugging people.
KIRK: Well, I modeled my poll after the Gallup poll. The Gallup poll uses a sample of 1,005 voters to represent the 280 million people of the United States. Using that logic, the correct sampling size of the town of Stars Hollow would be 0.002. Rounding that up means one person needs to be polled, so I picked me.
LORELAI: You polled yourself?
KIRK: I was right there. Seemed like a perfect opportunity.
LORELAI: Okay. Well, first of all, thank you for dressing up to talk to yourself. And secondly, I think you're gonna need to poll more people to get a better sense of where we really are.
KIRK: Oh. Okay, I'll see what I can do.
   13. Greg K Posted: December 17, 2011 at 02:45 PM (#4018362)
It's been far too long since we've had a Gilmore Girls hi-jack.

One of the great enduring mysteries of that show for me is that field trip to Gettysburg episode.
Luke is listening to a kid complain about how math teacher who claims to be a baseball fan but didn't even know the Sox had TRADED Damon to that off-season.

Luke responds with: "he doesn't know he's on the Yankees?"

I've always wondered if Luke refrains from correcting the kid about him being a free agent rather than traded so as not to hurt his feelings, or if it was just really poor writing. I'd lean towards writing, but I know the actor who plays Luke is a bit of a fan and played minor league baseball for the Yankees if I recall correctly. However, in the same episode he makes a reference to Grant being at Gettysburg, so I think the writers may not have been on their game that day.
   14. Downtown Bookie Posted: December 17, 2011 at 04:09 PM (#4018415)
Memo to Bonds, McGwire, and Sosa:

You cannot commit the crime of hitting more home runs than Roger Maris and expect to go to the Hall of Fame.


I don't think that's true. (Of course I realize you're engaging in hyperbole.**) Most everyone as I remember was wildly ecstatic during that record breaking time, and continued to glorify it until....


Barry Bonds got in on the act.

Yeah, like Jolly Old etc. etc. I remember everyone was in love with the idea of the big guys putting up the big numbers.

And then Barry Bonds started doing it.

And that's when all hell broke loose.

DB
   15. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: December 17, 2011 at 04:49 PM (#4018426)
This isn't really about Maris, except obliquely.


Right. It's really about Hank Aaron.

Steroids will be the BBWAA's Waterloo. They work at the pleasure of the Hall of Fame, and if they can't find guys to elect Jane Clark will be more than happy to find people who will elect players.


If all the BBWAA has to do to keep the franchise is vote for Jane, I'm sure they'll work something out. ;-)

To me, though, electing a bunch of second-tier guys who "did it the right way" instead of Bonds, Sosa, Clemens, et al would be a much bigger problem. But I don't really see an enshrinement drought in the offing. They've already got Santo for this year and will probably get Larkin too. 2013 might be a problem if too many voters make assumptions about Bagwell and Piazza, but Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, and Frank Thomas hit the ballot in 2014 and Randy Johnson and Pedro Martinez in 2015. Ken Griffey, Jr. is elgible in 2016. And there are several other "untainted" eligibles in those years who aren't as likely to get in on their first try which will give the writers carryover candidates in future elections.
   16. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: December 17, 2011 at 04:49 PM (#4018427)
Yeah, like Jolly Old etc. etc. I remember everyone was in love with the idea of the big guys putting up the big numbers.

And then Barry Bonds started doing it.

And that's when all hell broke loose.


Yeah, there's no denying that animosity towards Bonds had a lot to do with SOME people's sudden realization that steroids weren't the world's greatest invention, though for plenty of other people Bonds was only one example of many that moved their opinions on the subject. And you might recall that it was only with the BALCO revelations, WHICH CAME OUT THREE YEARS AFTER BONDS HIT #73, that some of us even were convinced that Bonds was a juicer. It wasn't his cap size or his personality that did it.

And you DO realize that the point you concede about the pair that "saved baseball" also directly refutes the idea that the steroid furor was caused by people feeling sorry for Roger Maris, which is Ray's tired meme. If that were truly the case, then McGwire and Sosa would have been taking the heat while they were racing past #61 on all cylinders. Your point about Bonds isn't the whole story by any means, but at least there's more to that explanation than there is to the one about Maris.
   17. Booey Posted: December 17, 2011 at 04:50 PM (#4018429)
Barry Bonds got in on the act.

Yeah, like Jolly Old etc. etc. I remember everyone was in love with the idea of the big guys putting up the big numbers.

And then Barry Bonds started doing it.

And that's when all hell broke loose.



Yeah, everyone loved McGwire and Sosa in 1998. But by the early- mid 2000's, both were labeled steroid cheaters without any evidence, even before the congressional hearings. Hell, I think the only real evidence against Sosa even today was his name being leaked in 2009 as having failed that "anonymous" test from 2003, the same leak that outed A-Rod. But Sosa was considered a roider and a cheater well before 2009. So hyperbole or not, Ray does have a point.

I remember rooting AGAINST Ryan Howard reaching 60+ homers in 2006 for the sole reason that I think he would've been unfairly assumed by many to be a roider if he had.
   18. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: December 17, 2011 at 04:57 PM (#4018436)

Yeah, everyone loved McGwire and Sosa in 1998. But by the early- mid 2000's, both were labeled steroid cheaters without any evidence, even before the congressional hearings. Hell, I think the only real evidence against Sosa even today was his name being leaked in 2009 as having failed that "anonymous" test from 2003, the same leak that outed A-Rod. But Sosa was considered a roider and a cheater well before 2009. So hyperbole or not, Ray does have a point.


The problem is, pretty much every suspected major roid suspect except Sosa has ended up being confirmed.

We had "There's no proof!" defenses for Bonds, McGwire, Clemens, Palmeiro, Ortiz, Manny, etc., and they all turned out to be cheaters. Plus we had guys no one called out, like ARod and Pettitte, show up as guilty.
   19. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: December 17, 2011 at 04:59 PM (#4018437)
2013 might be a problem if too many voters make assumptions about Bagwell and Piazza, but Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, and Frank Thomas hit the ballot in 2014


Here's the thing. Why on earth would one hold steroids against Piazza and Bagwell, but not Thomas? AFAIK, there is as much evidence against the first two as there is against the latter. Rumors and innuendo, despite what the Simpsons teaches us, are not "kinds of evidence."
   20. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: December 17, 2011 at 05:05 PM (#4018442)
Why on earth would one hold steroids against Piazza and Bagwell, but not Thomas?


Because Frank has better PR as a result of being a vocal proponent of testing. OTOH, the mere fact that he is an Auburn football alum is a "kind of evidence" of steroid use.
   21. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: December 17, 2011 at 05:06 PM (#4018444)
Yeah, everyone loved McGwire and Sosa in 1998. But by the early- mid 2000's, both were labeled steroid cheaters without any evidence, even before the congressional hearings. Hell, I think the only real evidence against Sosa even today was his name being leaked in 2009 as having failed that "anonymous" test from 2003, the same leak that outed A-Rod. But Sosa was considered a roider and a cheater well before 2009. So hyperbole or not, Ray does have a point.

But if Maris were really the "point", then what were all those people doing celebrating Mac & Sammy in 1998? Wouldn't at least a fair percentage of them have been complaining about it and raising all kinds of speculation about those muscles? Why were we always reading and hearing that "records were meant to be broken"? And wouldn't the members of the Maris family have refused to take part in the celebration, as opposed to joining in it?
   22. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: December 17, 2011 at 05:09 PM (#4018446)
BTW, I'm really going to enjoy the sturm und drang when Bonds and Clemens get voted down repeatedly.

I think they belong in eventually; even with steroid adjustment, you have to believe they'd have been qualified if they played clean. But, I think they should suffer a while b/c of the damage they've caused to baseball.

Ballot 12-15 would be a good place to let them in.
   23. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: December 17, 2011 at 05:10 PM (#4018447)
Here's the thing. Why on earth would one hold steroids against Piazza and Bagwell, but not Thomas? AFAIK, there is as much evidence against the first two as there is against the latter. Rumors and innuendo, despite what the Simpsons teaches us, are not "kinds of evidence."

Well, there's the famous Murray Chass "Bacne" evidence against Piazza (groan), but you're right that if people were actually using evidence instead of speculation, there'd be no more reason to consider Piazza or Bagwell to be juicers than Thomas.
   24. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: December 17, 2011 at 05:11 PM (#4018448)
Because Frank has better PR as a result of being a vocal proponent of testing. OTOH, the mere fact that he is an Auburn football alum is a "kind of evidence" of steroid use.

Wouldn't you say that being a vocal proponent of testing is pretty good evidence that he wasn't using, at least at that point?

If he used in college, I don't know if that bears on his MLB achievements.
   25. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: December 17, 2011 at 05:14 PM (#4018450)
BTW, I'm really going to enjoy the sturm und drang when Bonds and Clemens get voted down repeatedly.

Don't count your chickens yet. Those anti-McGwire votes aren't necessarily all going to vote against a player who was an obvious HoF choice before he started juicing. All we're doing now is playing sophisticated guesswork.

I think they belong in eventually; even with steroid adjustment, you have to believe they'd have been qualified if they played clean. But, I think they should suffer a while b/c of the damage they've caused to baseball.

Ballot 12-15 would be a good place to let them in.


I could live with that, though I'd rather that they wait for the Veterans' Committee.
   26. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: December 17, 2011 at 05:15 PM (#4018452)
Wouldn't you say that being a vocal proponent of testing is pretty good evidence that he wasn't using, at least at that point?


Isn't that what 'OTOH' generally means?

If he used in college, I don't know if that bears on his MLB achievements.


So now the standard is "unaided achievement" and not "character"? Why wouldn't that put Bonds and Clemens in on the first ballot, since they achieved more than enough before they are alleged to have started using any PEDs?
   27. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: December 17, 2011 at 05:37 PM (#4018468)
Ballot 12-15 would be a good place to let them in.


If that happens, I could easily see neither of them showing up for the induction.
   28. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: December 17, 2011 at 06:01 PM (#4018476)
FWIW, Kurk-jian, on ESPN radio this morning, said he IS going to vote for Bonds (and he added that he knew that put him in the minority amongst his peers)
   29. Bob Tufts Posted: December 17, 2011 at 06:07 PM (#4018481)
To pick up on what Flynn wrote, what will HOF induction attendance be if the "no steroid era" camp grows to 25%?

Does anyone recall any Veteran's Committee agita or a hand wringing purity campaign by writers when a twice suspended and felony obstruction of justice candidate passed the screening process and made the ballot in the fall of 2010?
   30. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: December 17, 2011 at 06:11 PM (#4018482)
The problem is, pretty much every suspected major roid suspect except Sosa has ended up being confirmed.


Brady Anderson? Luis Gonzalez?
   31. Downtown Bookie Posted: December 17, 2011 at 06:16 PM (#4018484)
So now the standard is "unaided achievement" and not "character"?


When it comes to Bonds or Clemens, the standard is character as in, "I don't like that character."

DB
   32. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: December 17, 2011 at 06:17 PM (#4018485)
Apparently for the purposes of these discussions, one cannot be a "major roid suspect" unless one is a no doubt first ballot HOF inductee absent the steroid suspicions.
   33. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: December 17, 2011 at 06:40 PM (#4018495)
Apparently for the purposes of these discussions, one cannot be a "major roid suspect" unless one is a no doubt first ballot HOF inductee absent the steroid suspicions.

Well, it is a HoF discussion, not a Mendoza Line chit-chat.
   34. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: December 17, 2011 at 06:47 PM (#4018498)
No need to insult Anderson and Gonzalez, since they are arguably further removed from the Mendoza line than from HOF worthiness. Also,the assertion that "pretty much every suspected major roid suspect except Sosa has ended up being confirmed" takes the discussion away from being just about the HOF.
   35. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: December 17, 2011 at 06:47 PM (#4018499)
Wouldn't you say that being a vocal proponent of testing is pretty good evidence that he wasn't using, at least at that point?


Wouldn't you say that Newt Gingrich campaigning under the family values platform is pretty good evidence that he wasn't committing adultery, at least at that point?
   36. John DiFool2 Posted: December 17, 2011 at 06:53 PM (#4018502)
It's been far too long since we've had a Gilmore Girls hi-jack.


Is that what that was? And here I was wracking my brain trying to remember a space babe that Capt. Kirk boned named "Lorelai". In the animated series actually IIRC.

Bonds, Rajah and Gang will get in when all the steriod moralizers in the voting pool die off and are replaced by those with fresh perspectives (tho that may not happen until the 2050 VC).
   37. Ray (CTL) Posted: December 17, 2011 at 07:15 PM (#4018517)
Wouldn't you say that being a vocal proponent of testing is pretty good evidence that he wasn't using, at least at that point?


Not at all.

If I had to bet on Thomas taking steroids, I'd bet on yes. He was far too emotionally invested in the issue for me to conclude that he never took them, be it before that point, during that point, or after that point.
   38. The District Attorney Posted: December 17, 2011 at 07:16 PM (#4018518)
I think [Bonds and Clemens] belong in eventually; even with steroid adjustment, you have to believe they'd have been qualified if they played clean.
Forget "steroid adjustment", they would belong in if they dropped dead before the point at which people think they started using.
   39. Ray (CTL) Posted: December 17, 2011 at 07:18 PM (#4018519)
Apparently for the purposes of these discussions, one cannot be a "major roid suspect" unless one is a no doubt first ballot HOF inductee absent the steroid suspicions.

Well, it is a HoF discussion, not a Mendoza Line chit-chat.


This is confused. The specific issue is whether "suspects" have turned into "confirmed users." I don't know why one looking at the issue objectively would limit one's analysis of that issue to HOFers.

And why didn't Snapper mention people like Bagwell?

I also don't know why Ortiz is a confirmed user as Snapper indicates, but maybe I've forgotten the issue with him.
   40. Walt Davis Posted: December 17, 2011 at 07:26 PM (#4018529)
And I was trying to think of True Blood. Fits better for True Blood than Star Trek, that's for sure.

On Maris, et al ... the "sin" committed by McGwire (and Sosa, not so much Bonds) was one of "betrayal." The HR chase turned all those 40-50 year old sportswriters into 10 year old kids again. And then they all felt like fools. Rather than blame their own naivete and hero worship, they blamed their heroes.

Steroids will be the BBWAA's Waterloo. They work at the pleasure of the Hall of Fame, and if they can't find guys to elect Jane Clark will be more than happy to find people who will elect players.

The first part is partly correct but not for the reason you state. First, the HoF has TONS of people who will get elected for the foreseeable future. Second, the HoF is as likely to piss off as many people by inducting Bonds as they are by not inducting him. Third, even if the HoF were to dispense with the BBWAA, that would be a time-consuming process (again, seems it would be at least a decade before the "need" would exist). Fourth, exactly what group of voters do you imagine they will find that will be better? I suppose they could always create a special expert panel stacked with "steroid apologists" but that will have no legitimacy whatsoever.

And, finally, just last year some spokesperson for the HoF said they were completely satisfied with the job the BBWAA is doing. And why shouldn't they be? The last thing the HoF wants to do here is take a stand one way or the other unless forced to do so.

As to the BBWAA's Waterloo ... well, the main problem is the disappearance of newspapers and sportswriters at the surviving newspapers. They're scrambling to catch up to electronic media to the point of bringing in fangraphs -- a questionable sort of decision given there's an awfully good chance fangraphs won't even exist 10 years from now (not a comment on fangraphs, a comment on electronic media outlets). The secondary problem is the steroid controversy but not because the HoF will dump them (although, yes, that would be a problem if it happens) but because there appears to be substantial division within their own ranks. This is also coming to light in the Braun MVP dust-up. Add in the existing conflicts of interest issues with MVP voting and it wouldn't surprise me to see the BBWAA simply give up responsibility for post-season awards to maintain peace within their own ranks.

So basically the secondary danger to the BBWAA is that eventually one side of the steroid debate gets so fed up it resigns. Avoiding that may require some "compromise" on steroids.
   41. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: December 17, 2011 at 07:27 PM (#4018531)
why didn't Snapper mention people like Bagwell?

Because evidence could always emerge at some point in the future. It's a perfect system, really, if you think about it. Kinda like "analyzing" life expectancy of ex-NFL players by looking only at the ones who are already dead.

Ortiz is 'confirmed' because his name was allegedly on the leaked list, but he's also 'clean' because the union stuck up for him and got MLB to admit that there was never any confirmation or agreement that all of the tests on that list were true positives. So both sides of the argument get to claim him as their own.
   42. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: December 17, 2011 at 07:32 PM (#4018533)
what group of voters do you imagine they will find that will be better?


The Walt Davis Super-Friends™, of course.
   43. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: December 17, 2011 at 07:32 PM (#4018534)
And why didn't Snapper mention people like Bagwell?

I also don't know why Ortiz is a confirmed user as Snapper indicates, but maybe I've forgotten the issue with him.


I don't think there's any evidence Bagwell has used. I'd vote for him.

Ortiz was on the 2003 list the NY Times leaked.
   44. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: December 17, 2011 at 07:37 PM (#4018537)
Apparently for the purposes of these discussions, one cannot be a "major roid suspect" unless one is a no doubt first ballot HOF inductee absent the steroid suspicions.


Well, it is a HoF discussion, not a Mendoza Line chit-chat.

This is confused. The specific issue is whether "suspects" have turned into "confirmed users." I don't know why one looking at the issue objectively would limit one's analysis of that issue to HOFers.


Take a look at the title of this thread and you might figure it out, although there are apparently many points that are far beyond your comprehension.
   45. Booey Posted: December 17, 2011 at 07:37 PM (#4018538)
The problem is, pretty much every suspected major roid suspect except Sosa has ended up being confirmed.

Bagwell hasn't been, and since he's not close to making the HOF, I think it's a fair to assume a lot of voters are holding their unproven suspicions against him.

We had "There's no proof!" defenses for Bonds, McGwire, Clemens, Palmeiro, Ortiz, Manny, etc., and they all turned out to be cheaters. Plus we had guys no one called out, like ARod and Pettitte, show up as guilty.

I don't remember any accusations against Manny until he tested positive. He didn't have the typical roider look, nor was there ever a suspicious jump in his numbers. He was pretty consistent his entire career.

Why on earth would one hold steroids against Piazza and Bagwell, but not Thomas?

Well, I never really saw this with Piazza, but Bagwell ballooned up and "looked" like a stereotypical roider just as much as McGwire, Bonds, and Sosa. Now, as I've said in previous threads, I think it's completely asinine, unfair, and irresponsible for voters to treat him like a cheater without proof, but if people were judging Sosa cuz he failed the "looks" test, then doing the same for Bagwell isn't hard to understand. Thomas was a huge guy his entire career. Bagwell gained like 60 pounds and developed a barrel chest and massive legs (and a wider face and jaw) in the latter half of his career that isn't consistent with the usual "gangly 20-something filling out in his 30's and then developing a bit of a paunch as he hit middle age" type of weight gain that men usually get as they age (and that you could see in presumedly clean players like Aaron, Griffey, Maddux, etc).

But if Maris were really the "point", then what were all those people doing celebrating Mac & Sammy in 1998? Wouldn't at least a fair percentage of them have been complaining about it and raising all kinds of speculation about those muscles?

Oh I agree. Maris wasn't the "point". And you're right, no one bothered to complain until Bonds. But once Bonds/roids accusations started, it created a snowball effect that included almost everyone that got bigger or hit lots of homers. And NOW the people that cheered the great home run race of 1998 suddenly care about Maris. And yes, I do believe that if anyone hits 60+ homers again, they'll automatically be suspects.
   46. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: December 17, 2011 at 07:48 PM (#4018544)
The steroids hysteria did not begin with Bonds and the home run chase. The timeline of major steroids action/reactions simply doesn't support that simple narrative.
   47. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: December 17, 2011 at 07:50 PM (#4018548)
Here's Bagwell as a minor leaguer.

Here he is in 1994.

Doesn't exactly look like a guy who "ballooned" to me. And he was MVP in 1994, with 39 HR in a strike-shortened season playing his home games at the Astrodome, so you can't really argue that he suddenly developed power after ballooning at a later age.
   48. CrosbyBird Posted: December 17, 2011 at 07:52 PM (#4018549)
No need to insult Anderson and Gonzalez, since they are arguably further removed from the Mendoza line than from HOF worthiness. Also,the assertion that "pretty much every suspected major roid suspect except Sosa has ended up being confirmed" takes the discussion away from being just about the HOF.

Even if you want to limit the discussion to slam-dunk HOF candidates about Bagwell (already mentioned) and Piazza? Expand the circle just a bit and maybe you can add Juan Gonzalez (any confirmation there?).
   49. Ray (CTL) Posted: December 17, 2011 at 07:55 PM (#4018551)
Take a look at the title of this thread and you might figure it out, although there are apparently many points that are far beyond your comprehension.


Earth to Andy: the discussion of a thread tends to broaden in scope from the title.

HTH.
   50. Ray (CTL) Posted: December 17, 2011 at 07:58 PM (#4018554)
IIRC Juan Gonzalez was named in the MR.
   51. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: December 17, 2011 at 07:59 PM (#4018555)
Kinda like "analyzing" life expectancy of ex-NFL players by looking only at the ones who are already dead.

That's not how they calculated life expectancy.

They look at the survival rate of people of each age last year, and extrapolate out. That's why they can do a life expectancy at birth for people not yet born.
   52. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: December 17, 2011 at 08:02 PM (#4018556)
That's not how they calculated life expectancy.


I know the right way to do it. I also know that some people have done it the wrong way to further their agendas.
   53. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: December 17, 2011 at 08:15 PM (#4018567)
The problem is, pretty much every suspected major roid suspect except Sosa has ended up being confirmed.


Bagwell hasn't been, and since he's not close to making the HOF, I think it's a fair to assume a lot of voters are holding their unproven suspicions against him.

Well, you can certainly see it in the comments of people like Bryant Gumbell, and it gets reinforced by those on both sides of the steroids issue who want to muddle the distinction between known users and suspicious cap sizes.

But if Maris were really the "point", then what were all those people doing celebrating Mac & Sammy in 1998? Wouldn't at least a fair percentage of them have been complaining about it and raising all kinds of speculation about those muscles?

Oh I agree. Maris wasn't the "point". And you're right, no one bothered to complain until Bonds. But once Bonds/roids accusations started, it created a snowball effect that included almost everyone that got bigger or hit lots of homers. And NOW the people that cheered the great home run race of 1998 suddenly care about Maris.


Well, to the extent that this is true, it's purely an argument of retroactive convenience. But that's what happens when the attention gets diverted from the level playing field of competition on the diamond to a level playing field of a record book. I can understand the sentiment of wanting to keep the record books "clean", but the record books are little more than a symbol of the underlying issue.

And yes, I do believe that if anyone hits 60+ homers again, they'll automatically be suspects.

You're probably right, due to the precedent of what actually happened with the first three who passed Maris, regardless of any real evidence against any potential successors. This is unfortunate, but as long as there are idiots like Gumbell out there, it's a problem that will probably never go away.

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

Well, it is a HoF discussion, not a Mendoza Line chit-chat.

This is confused. The specific issue is whether "suspects" have turned into "confirmed users." I don't know why one looking at the issue objectively would limit one's analysis of that issue to HOFers.

Take a look at the title of this thread and you might figure it out, although there are apparently many points that are far beyond your comprehension.

Earth to Andy: the discussion of a thread tends to broaden in scope from the title.


Earth to Ray: Nobody's obliged to start talking about Manny Alexander in the context of a HoF discussion.
   54. valuearbitrageur Posted: December 17, 2011 at 08:22 PM (#4018573)
We had "There's no proof!" defenses for Bonds, McGwire, Clemens, Palmeiro, Ortiz, Manny, etc., and they all turned out to be cheaters. Plus we had guys no one called out, like ARod and Pettitte, show up as guilty.


They cheated by using substances allowed under the CBA?
   55. Ray (CTL) Posted: December 17, 2011 at 08:22 PM (#4018575)
Andy, the context of the HOF discussion was whether suspected users had been confirmed. Snapper's basic point was that suspicion of a player was enough, because, well, all of the suspected players he named had been more or less confirmed.

To analyze that issue we should NOT look just at suspected great players.

(I wonder if Snapper would like it if I called him a coke user, and then said, well, Strawberry, Gooden, Raines, and Molitor were once suspected of coke use and turned out in fact to be confirmed coke users, and therefore Snapper is one.)
   56. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: December 17, 2011 at 08:29 PM (#4018578)
They cheated by using substances allowed under the CBA?

Not specifically banned does not mean allowed. The CBA does not have the power to approve illegal drugs or activity.

If the CBA were to say that it was permissible to have your opponents' legs broken before the game, it would still be cheating since aggravated assault is illegal.
   57. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: December 17, 2011 at 08:33 PM (#4018582)
Andy, the context of the HOF discussion was whether suspected users had been confirmed. Snapper's basic point was that suspicion of a player was enough, because, well, all of the suspected players he named had been more or less confirmed.

To analyze that issue we should NOT look just at suspected great players.

(I wonder if Snapper would like it if I called him a coke user, and then said, well, Strawberry, Gooden, Raines, and Molitor were once suspected of coke use and turned out in fact to be confirmed coke users, and therefore Snapper is one.)


I didn't say suspicion was enough. As I said in [44} I'd vote for Bagwell. Also Piazza and Thomas, b/c there's no evidence beyond speculation.

What I was saying is that given the pattern, "There's no proof" is a weak defense.

Given the past pattern of denials and subsequent revelations, I'm going to have a fairly low standard of evidence to convince me a player was most likely a user.

Not no evidence, but the burden has definitely shifted in my mind.
   58. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: December 17, 2011 at 08:35 PM (#4018585)
Ray, you're welcome to talk about anyone you want, from Bonds to Bagwell to Brady to Brian Roberts. My point is simply that nobody's obliged to follow your lead. I choose to limit my posts to players with a statistical shot of making the HoF, and if you don't want to do that, nobody's telling you that you have to, either.
   59. Rafael Bellylard: The Grinch of Orlando. Posted: December 17, 2011 at 08:42 PM (#4018591)
Since the article is talking about voters, is the a list somewhere of the current voting membership of the BBWAA? I've been looking around, but am obviously looking in the wrong places.
   60. PreservedFish Posted: December 17, 2011 at 08:43 PM (#4018594)
Are you guys really arguing about Bonds?
   61. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: December 17, 2011 at 08:46 PM (#4018596)
Since the article is talking about voters, is the a list somewhere of the current voting membership of the BBWAA? I've been looking around, but am obviously looking in the wrong places.

Here's the most recent one out there:

2009 BBWAA Badge List
   62. Ray (CTL) Posted: December 17, 2011 at 09:00 PM (#4018609)
Ray, you're welcome to talk about anyone you want, from Bonds to Bagwell to Brady to Brian Roberts. My point is simply that nobody's obliged to follow your lead. I choose to limit my posts to players with a statistical shot of making the HoF, and if you don't want to do that, nobody's telling you that you have to, either.


I'll try one more time to get my point across to you: when looking at the issue of how many accused players turned into "confirmed" players, it is nonsensical to limit the analysis to just HOF-level players.

It would be like me saying "Pretty much all players can hit well at 40. After all, just look at what Ted Williams and Barry Bonds did at 40."
   63. Rafael Bellylard: The Grinch of Orlando. Posted: December 17, 2011 at 09:10 PM (#4018616)
Here's the most recent one out there


Thank you.

Assuming the 2001 group are entering their first year of HoF voting eligibility, this also looks to be the first year where 3 writers from Japanese papers will be eligible to vote, with more to come in the future. If I counted the list correctly, by the time the 2019 vote comes along, there will be, potentially, 49 journalists from Asian media companies who could have their 10 years in.

Ichiro's a lock if he play 3 more years.

Edited for clarity
   64. Booey Posted: December 17, 2011 at 09:11 PM (#4018617)
Here's Bagwell as a minor leaguer.

Here he is in 1994.

Doesn't exactly look like a guy who "ballooned" to me. And he was MVP in 1994, with 39 HR in a strike-shortened season playing his home games at the Astrodome, so you can't really argue that he suddenly developed power after ballooning at a later age.


Nice try, but I said 'the latter half' of his career. 1994 was his 4th season. Why not post a pic of him from say, 2000 or 2001 and try to make the same argument?

Ye, Bagwell enjoyed his best power season (rate wise) in 1994, but that actually looks like a bit of an abberation compared to the rest of his career arc. He was down to 21 homers in 1995 and 31 in 1996. He started averaging over 40 a year from 1997-2001, and by that point he was much bigger than the pics you posted.

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=jeff+bagwell+steroids&hl=en&sa=X&rlz=1C1ASUT_enUS460US460&biw=1366&bih=705&tbm=isch&prmd=imvnso&tbnid=MM3a4mffgkAOsM:&imgrefurl=http://www.celebritique.com/page/325/&docid=28Quu_OEgAaH_M&imgurl=http://www.celebritique.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/bagwell.jpg&w=270&h=350&ei=NwTtToGTN6_KiQK8lMW6BA&zoom=1
http://www.google.com/imgres?q=jeff+bagwell+pictures+2000&hl=en&rlz=1C1ASUT_enUS460US460&biw=1366&bih=705&tbm=isch&tbnid=mYpePp0VdNkveM:&imgrefurl=http://bleacherreport.com/articles/653451-best-facial-hair-in-mlb-history&docid=yUeAk4Wjaw6meM&imgurl=http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/slides/photos/000/833/349/72560260_display_image.jpg?1301947289&w=267&h=400&ei=PgXtTsbDBoidiAKt0PjPBA&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=274&sig=115134275056807900634&page=4&tbnh=148&tbnw=98&start=61&ndsp=21&ved=1t:429,r:6,s:61&tx=28&ty=75
   65. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: December 17, 2011 at 09:12 PM (#4018619)
I'll try one more time to get my point across to you: when looking at the issue of how many accused players turned into "confirmed" players, it is nonsensical to limit the analysis to just HOF-level players.

And again, that's your particular hobby horse, and more power to you, but it's not one that's particularly relevant in a HoF thread.
   66. Booey Posted: December 17, 2011 at 09:15 PM (#4018621)
Re:#65

Well, the pics I tried to post didn't work obviously and it's not letting me edit my post to remove all that for some reason, but look at late career pics of Bagwell and you'll see what I mean.
   67. alilisd Posted: December 17, 2011 at 09:18 PM (#4018622)
They cheated by using substances allowed under the CBA?


The CBA had a section where it detailed what pharmaceuticals were "allowed"? The CBA "allowed" pharmaceuticals which are illegal without a prescriptions? Interesting!
   68. Ray (CTL) Posted: December 17, 2011 at 09:30 PM (#4018632)
Nice try, but I said 'the latter half' of his career. 1994 was his 4th season. Why not post a
pic of him from say, 2000 or 2001 and try to make the same argument?


Serious question: How does one distinguish (1) working out with steroids
from (2) working out without steroids from a picture?
   69. Ray (CTL) Posted: December 17, 2011 at 09:31 PM (#4018633)
Request to all: Since Booey broke the thread, please try to
make liberal usage of the carriage return when posting. Thanks.
   70. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: December 17, 2011 at 09:32 PM (#4018634)
Ye, Bagwell enjoyed his best power season (rate wise) in 1994, but that actually looks like a bit of an abberation compared to the rest of his career arc. He was down to 21 homers in 1995 and 31 in 1996. He started averaging over 40 a year from 1997-2001, and by that point he was much bigger than the pics you posted.


First of all, 1995 was also a shortened season. Bagwell averaged 39 HR per 162 games from 1994 to 1996 and 43 per 162 from 1997 to 2001. Are you really basing your argument for a power surge on 4 HR per season? Second, this still actually argues against your thesis. Whether he got bigger later in his career is irrelevant to the question of where his power came from since he'd already had what would be his best power year on a rate basis before he allegedly got bigger. Third, you can post links in a much friendlier format by clicking on the <a> symbol above the box where you type your comments.
   71. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: December 17, 2011 at 10:11 PM (#4018660)
If anyone wants to look at those two pictures that Booey posted, here they are:

First one

Second one

Since the guy who'd gone around bragging about selling (EDIT: giving) steroids to Bagwell (and Clemens and Pettitte) refused to repeat his charge under oath, the evidence against Bagwell from that particular quarter is pretty shaky AYAM.

New York Daily News have reported that Blair bragged that he gave steroids to former Major Leaguer Roger Clemens, current New York Yankee and Deer Park resident Andy Pettitte and to Bagwell.

In March, Blair denied the claims to federal investigators.
   72. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: December 17, 2011 at 10:18 PM (#4018662)
First one gives me a 404 error, Andy.
   73. Booey Posted: December 17, 2011 at 10:22 PM (#4018664)
Serious question: How does one distinguish (1) working out with steroids
from (2) working out without steroids from a picture?


I doubt that you can. But that's kinda the point. People used the exact same defense when shown before and after pics of McGwire, Bonds, Sosa, etc.
   74. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: December 17, 2011 at 10:27 PM (#4018667)
Not specifically banned does not mean allowed. The CBA does not have the power to approve illegal drugs or activity.
Sure it does. "Illegal" means "the government will punish you if they catch you," not other people will. Also, the clear was not illegal.
   75. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: December 17, 2011 at 11:05 PM (#4018683)
First one gives me a 404 error, Andy.

Weird, because it worked when I tested it as soon as I posted it, and it still works for me now. It might be something about your browser, but since I don't know a damn thing about computers, that's just a stab in the dark. My old GF didn't call me a technopeasant for nothing.
   76. SoSH U at work Posted: December 17, 2011 at 11:16 PM (#4018687)
It's not all that often I am 100 percent in agreeement with Mr.
Diperna. This is one of those times, so I'll repost his comment:

Request to all: Since Booey broke the thread, please try to
make liberal usage of the carriage return when posting. Thanks.
   77. Ray (CTL) Posted: December 17, 2011 at 11:24 PM (#4018688)
Andy, I'm getting a 404 error also.

I believe this to indicate that what you write here doesn't compute :-)
   78. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: December 17, 2011 at 11:56 PM (#4018696)
Well, I just copied that

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=jeff+bagwell+steroids&hl=en&sa=X&rlz=1C1ASUT_enUS460US460&biw=1366&bih=705&tbm=isch&prmd=imvnso&tbnid=MM3a4mffgkAOsM:&imgrefurl=http://www.celebritique.com/page/325/&docid=28Quu_OEgAaH_M&imgurl=http://www.celebritique.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/bagwell.jpg&w=270&h=350&ei=NwTtToGTN6_KiQK8lMW6BA&zoom=1

thingy into my URL space and got the celebritique.com website, and then clicked on the "Full-size image" link to get to the URL that I linked to in #72. I have to conclude that it's my superior understanding of the entire steroids issue that enables me to view this image while everyone else is apparently flailing.

But if that doesn't work for you, here's a much more interesting link where steroids definitely don't enter into the question.
   79. Something Other Posted: December 18, 2011 at 04:05 AM (#4018772)
Let's say Bonds used PEDs. Wouldn't it be useful to know what he actually took, then to understand WHY it worked so well for him? If indeed he started using PEDs in mid-career, as I've seen so often rumored, he went from being merely a great hitter to being as great a hitter who ever played. I imagine knowledge of the details of what he took, and whether its effects are repeatable in others, might be enormously valuable in treating aging, or various conditions and diseases.

But, since PED use has become so linked to moral issues, we'll probably never learn the science of it. That's a shame.
   80. Downtown Bookie Posted: December 18, 2011 at 04:09 AM (#4018775)
But if that doesn't work for you, here's a much more interesting link
where steroids definitely don't enter into the question.


I don't know, Andy.
Maybe it's just my screen,
but those balls look kinda small.

DB
   81. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: December 18, 2011 at 04:22 AM (#4018780)
Not specifically banned does not mean allowed. The CBA does not have the power to approve illegal drugs or activity.

If the CBA were to say that it was permissible to have your opponents' legs broken before the game, it would still be cheating
since aggravated assault is illegal.


This is a truly terrible analogy that makes no sense. There is a difference between real life and baseball (really).
In real life people breaking the law are often arrested, etc. In baseball people breaking the negotiated rules
suffer the negotiated penalties.

I am sorry many people feel betrayed and annoyed and much of America is hysterical about drug use, but it does get
tiresome. No that there is an actual baseball penalty I have no problem with applying that baseball penalty, and leaving
the real life penalty to, you know real life.

Baseball is full of people (past and I am sure future) who did much worse real life stuff and many will be real life penalized.
Mixing real life for this ONE INSTANCE is ridiculous. But I know I am farting in the wind, because you have decided they cheated
(without breaking a rule - odd) and that is that. Think of the children!
   82. LargeBill Posted: December 18, 2011 at 05:45 AM (#4018800)
The main complaint of writers about PED's/steroids is it is cheating or taking the easy way.
Well, what would be cheating for writers? Plagiarism?
Is there a member of the BBWAA who hasn't stolen a paragraph or sentence here or there?
Or it is that they consider PED's taking the easy way. Well, which BBWAA hasn't stolen a tired meme or column idea when approaching a deadline?
   83. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: December 18, 2011 at 07:33 AM (#4018817)
Assuming the 2001 group are entering their first year of HoF voting eligibility, this also looks to be the first year where 3 writers from Japanese papers will be eligible to vote, with more to come in the future. If I counted the list correctly, by the time the 2019 vote comes along, there will be, potentially, 49 journalists from Asian media companies who could have their 10 years in.

Ichiro's a lock if he play 3 more years.


Sure, but we all know that's because of the well-known Nagoya voting bias.

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

The HoF's problem in the short term is that the annual clamor over Bonds/Clemens/Sosa/Bagwell/Manny/etc is going to spoil celebration after celebration. What's been the story: Dawson's 78%, or McGwire's 23%?

As we've seen with Jackson and Rose, the Hall can comfortably survive without any particular candidate, no matter how overqualified. But long term, the problem is Mark McGwire isn't half of a generation. The BBWAA's calcified attitude is going to leave a gaping crater in their shrine. Pretending it's going to keep the place prettier and more special is a foolish bet.
   84. Meatwad Posted: December 18, 2011 at 07:53 AM (#4018822)
Yes sosa used because of the power surge, ignoring the fact he hie hit over 30 when young and the massive and well documented change in his swing
   85. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: December 18, 2011 at 02:38 PM (#4018854)
The HoF's problem in the short term is that the annual clamor over Bonds/Clemens/Sosa/Bagwell/Manny/etc is going to spoil celebration after celebration. What's been the story: Dawson's 78%, or McGwire's 23%?

The first year McGwire's 23% was the story, but by now it's little more than a "so what else is new?" footnote. and honestly, who outside of BTF even notices Rafael Palmeiro?

Next year we'll begin again with Bonds and Clemens, and no matter whether they're in or out, some people will act like the world's coming to an end.

But here's my prediction: If the juicers get in, people like me will get used to it. We've had our say, but if 75% of the voters want to see the Bondses and the Clemens up there among the Ruths and the Aarons, then so be it. "You can't win em all" is an attitude I'd strongly recommend to people on both sides of this issue.

And if the juicers don't get in, and if their vote totals indicate that it'll be a long time before they do, it's not going to affect the Hall of Fame one way or the other, any more than baseball attendance was affected by people who said they were going to boycott the ballparks because of steroids. All that bullshit was just posturing, and all the BS about how the HoF will be doomed if Bonds and Clemens get in (or don't get in) is just that: bullshit. The most prominent high profile juicers who may be blackballed in the future (Bonds, Clemens, A-Rod) are perhaps the three least popular superstars in recent memory, almost completely loathed by fans everywhere**, and if you think that the Hall of Fame needs them to survive, you're nuts. Do you really think that baseball fans as a whole give a rat's patooie about the opinions of a handful of statistics-worshipers who view character issues as unimportant? Do you honestly think that these people have it in their power to break the Hall of Fame?

As we've seen with Jackson and Rose, the Hall can comfortably survive without any particular candidate, no matter how overqualified. But long term, the problem is Mark McGwire isn't half of a generation.

What does this even mean? That half of the statistically HoF-qualified stars of McGwire's generation are going to be exposed as juicers? That's not a rhetorical question, only a request for clarification.

**outside of Bonds in San Francisco, and A-Rod in New York when he's leading the Yankees to a World's Championship
   86. Juilin Sandar to Conkling Speedwell (Arjun) Posted: December 18, 2011 at 03:14 PM (#4018859)
It's been far too long since we've had a Gilmore Girls hi-jack.

You've been overruled by steroids, my friend. We'll have to wait longer.
   87. Morty Causa Posted: December 18, 2011 at 03:26 PM (#4018866)
Maybe The Powers That Be Could Institue A Lie Detector Test Like This

Just ask about steroids instead. Maybe the machine would clear most of steroids use, but I be it would react exactly like it did for Moe wrt to character.
   88. tfbg9 Posted: December 18, 2011 at 04:04 PM (#4018880)
For the umpteenth time:

After the NY Times leaked Ortiz being on some "list", MLB released a statement that pretty much said he was
a false positive or a positive for a suppliment...without actually acknowledging the list.
   89. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: December 18, 2011 at 04:09 PM (#4018884)
The HoF's problem in the short term is that the annual
clamor over Bonds/Clemens/Sosa/Bagwell/Manny/etc is
going to spoil celebration after celebration. What's
been the story: Dawson's 78%, or McGwire's 23%?


You're much funnier when you're trying to be funny.
This assertion is absurd.

Just as the snubs are one of the big stories when
the all-star teams are announced, the results of the
vote are part of the story at election time.
Who made up ground? Who fell off the ballot? Who
is likely to get in next year?

By the time the induction rolls around, that year's
voting would have to get a serious boost in status
just to reach the level of afterthought. Mark McGwire's
inert Hall of Fame campaign is not a bigger story than
whatever guy gets the call that year.

The BBWAA's calcified attitude is going to leave a
gaping crater in their shrine. Pretending it's going
to keep the place prettier and more special is a foolish bet.


Or, letting in all the cheaters is going to destroy
the reputation of the place? Walt is right. The Hall is
in a difficult place with this. Keep the steroids users out, and
you run the risk of alienating the Gonfalons of baseball fandom.
But let 'em in, and you turn off the kevins. As much as either
side of the argument wants to pretend their side is the only one
that matters, that just isn't true.
   90. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: December 18, 2011 at 04:17 PM (#4018889)
Yes sosa used because of the power surge, ignoring the fact he hie hit over 30 when young and the massive and well documented change in his swing


Sosa's pre 1998 HR totals are massively affected by the strike years and the wrist injury. Here's Sammy's per 162 game HR totals from 1993-1998, leaving out 1997 when it is likely, but unprovable, that he was still suffering lingering effect from the broken wrist in 1996:

34
39
41
52
???
67

But all the steroid moralizers want you to hear is "Never hit more than 40 before 1998" and "Jumped from 36 to 66 in one year, a massive and unprecedented mid career increase."
   91. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: December 18, 2011 at 04:22 PM (#4018891)
MLB released a statement that pretty much said he was
a false positive or a positive for a suppliment


Not exactly. They released a statement that since the 2003 testing was for survey purposes only, there was never any final disposition of the individual results and it was therefore quite possible that some of those results were false positives. Since they would not acknowledge the list or the names on it, they put themselves in a position where they could not say anything more specific about any individual result.

So of course, Red Sox fans interpret that as "it was a false positive" and Red Sox haters interpret it as MLB covering up for Ortiz' cheating.
   92. tfbg9 Posted: December 18, 2011 at 04:34 PM (#4018895)
92-except MLB did this uniquely for Ortiz...AFAICT.

George Mitchell I suppose?
   93. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: December 18, 2011 at 05:02 PM (#4018907)
Yes sosa used because of the power surge, ignoring the fact he hie hit over 30 when young and the massive and well documented change in his swing

Nah, I think Sosa used b/c of the bullshit fest in front of Congress; "Me no speaky de english." Then bring a freaking translator.

Oh, and the fact that he's bleaching his skin like Michael Jackson doesn't make me think he'd be loathe to use weird drugs to get what he wants.
   94. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: December 18, 2011 at 05:11 PM (#4018914)
Nah, I think Sosa used b/c of the ######## fest in front of Congress; "Me no speaky de english." Then bring a freaking translator.


This is even more disingenuous. I would expect absolutely nobody to testify under oath to a nation's legislature in their second language. Remember, this is a government that spent $50 mil prosecuting a guy for giving a rambling answer.

Here's the thing. Do I think Sosa used? yeah, probably. But, do I also think Frank Thomas used? yeah, probably. Do i think Griffey used? yeah, probably. Do I think Biggio used? Yeah, probably. And that's why I think the whole steroid moralizing is ###### up.
   95. Ray (CTL) Posted: December 18, 2011 at 07:46 PM (#4018965)
Must...
   96. Ray (CTL) Posted: December 18, 2011 at 07:47 PM (#4018967)
get
   97. Ray (CTL) Posted: December 18, 2011 at 07:47 PM (#4018968)
this
   98. Ray (CTL) Posted: December 18, 2011 at 07:47 PM (#4018969)
thread
   99. Ray (CTL) Posted: December 18, 2011 at 07:48 PM (#4018970)
to
   100. Ray (CTL) Posted: December 18, 2011 at 07:48 PM (#4018971)
the
Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Mike Emeigh
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT - 2018 NBA Summer Potpourri (finals, draft, free agency, Colangelo dragging)
(1240 - 4:16pm, Jun 19)
Last: aberg

NewsblogOT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (April - June 2018)
(3759 - 4:15pm, Jun 19)
Last: Don August(us) Cesar Geronimo Berroa

NewsblogGrumpy Gossage Napalms His Bridges:BWitz:NYT (reg req.)
(79 - 4:15pm, Jun 19)
Last: snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster)

NewsblogFormer MLB pitcher Kevin Brown reportedly held two mail thieves at gunpoint until police arrived
(184 - 4:13pm, Jun 19)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogSoccer? OMNICHATTER hardly knows'er! for June 19, 2018.
(34 - 4:12pm, Jun 19)
Last: Jess Franco

NewsblogOTP 2018 June 18: How Life Imitates the Congressional Baseball Game
(490 - 4:11pm, Jun 19)
Last: DavidFoss

NewsblogOT: Soccer Thread (World Cup)
(577 - 3:18pm, Jun 19)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogKelvin Herrera Trade Start of Something Big for Nationals
(7 - 3:13pm, Jun 19)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 6-19-2018
(45 - 2:54pm, Jun 19)
Last: vortex of dissipation

NewsblogDodgers' surprise ace makes All-Star case in win over Giants
(97 - 1:49pm, Jun 19)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogIt's not a crime when OMNICHATTER does it! for June 18, 2018
(80 - 1:14pm, Jun 19)
Last: Moses Taylor, aka Hambone Fakenameington

Sox TherapyA Pleasant Trip So Far
(9 - 1:07pm, Jun 19)
Last: Jose is an Absurd Doubles Machine

NewsblogJuan Soto Makes His Second MLB Debut Tonight
(18 - 12:20pm, Jun 19)
Last: Mike Emeigh

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1944 Discussion
(10 - 12:16pm, Jun 19)
Last: MrC.

Gonfalon CubsClicking
(52 - 12:16pm, Jun 19)
Last: Moses Taylor, aka Hambone Fakenameington

Page rendered in 0.7181 seconds
46 querie(s) executed