Does throwing the book at Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa mean that all their peers are also disqualified from the Hall, and from recognition for their accomplishments?

Reminds me of the old Sesame Street song. "one of these things is not like the other". Outside of on this site, is there anyone actively campaigning against the smear campaign being thrust onto Sammy Sosa? I have no problem putting Sosa in the same vein as other bulky athletes like Brady Anderson or even Bret Boone, who hit a lot of homeruns seemingly out of no where, and that there is at least superficial reasons to suspect they cheated, but putting him in the same sentence as McGwire(an admitted cheater) and Bonds(a guy with enough evidence that you have to believe he cheated) is unjust. (note:I grabbed Brady and Boone's name out of thin air, if there is actual evidence for either then I've forgotten about it)

stuff like this was said about Boone http://bleacherreport.com/articles/122132-why-it-is-safe-to-believe-that-bret-boone-was-on-steroids

while Jim Palmer said this about Anderson,,,"I like Brady, and it doesn't mean he's a bad guy because he took steroids," Palmer said in the interview, which was taped Saturday. "But I'm sure he wanted to enhance his performance.

"I don't know how he hit 29 more homers that year," said Palmer, who announces on Orioles telecasts. "And he hit 31 more on the road that year, so it's not like he took advantage of Camden Yards."

Palmer's statements aren't evidence either. They're not even hearsay. They're speculation, pure and simple. They're only given credence because they come from a supposed expert. Brady may have cheated. But the only "evidence" ever offered has been "he had a really great year that nobody expected." However, there were plenty of pre-PED players like Jeff Burroughs and Davey Johnson who had one exceptional season as well.

I never meant they were evidence just that there were was plenty of suspicion everywhere about both the players he named. the list of players that were assumed to be steroid users is pretty long and it seems nothing more than arbritary luck that Thome isn't considered one of them .

I'll never forgive Brady Anderson for quitting roids after his one great year. What a dumbass.

stuff like this was said about Boone {br link}

You're citing a br article which mentions what Canseco said? Please.

Could've stood a little more about Thome and his achievement and perhaps a little less of the steroid discussion. I really enjoy Keri's writing generally and, while I agree that the question of steroids must be reckoned with, I am growing a bit fatigued when it is raised every time someone hits an offensive milestone.

@4, while you may be right that it's 'arbitrary luck' that Thome's never been considered a PED user, it might also, and more realistically, be due to his reputation in the game. He's been on quite a few teams and had tons of teammates and coaches and media types interacting with him for years now and none of them every even come close to suggesting that he's used PEDs. Personally, it strikes me that this might just be due to the fact that he hasn't.

I really enjoy Keri's writing generally and, while I agree that the question of steroids must be reckoned with, I am growing a bit fatigued when it is raised every time someone hits an offensive milestone.

No way Mark Reynolds gets to 200 whiffs without the juice.

No way Mark Reynolds gets to 200 whiffs without the juice.

Indeed. Pitchers couldn't blow that many pitches past him without an assist.

again number 6 I didnt meant to suggest that anything credible has been said about a ton of suspected plalyers,and I am sure we could compile a list of players who were suspected with little more than "well he hit alot of hrs so he must be juicing" as evidence Luis Gonzalez is one name I recall being thrown about , and again if thats all it seemed to take why not Thome? I cant think of any reason to assume He didn't based on the kinds of evidence some use to convince themselves that others "must have".

Well, ####, Jim Thome is "a symbol of the '90s." That's a pretty good in-you-end-o. Guilty as charged.

I never meant they were evidence just that there were was plenty of suspicion everywhere about both the players he named. the list of players that were assumed to be steroid users is pretty long and it seems nothing more than arbritary luck that Thome isn't considered one of them .

and that is fine, my point is that Sosa doesn't belong in the same "tier" of suspected users as McGwire, Bonds, Palmeiro, Manny, Arod, Pettite etc. There is no actual evidence he used, there is one unsourced news article, and speculation, but speculation is not evidence.

I often like Keri's writing but, damn, this is dumb stuff:

...Here’s the bigger issue: Where do we draw the line?

How about, if you find the use of PEDs meaningful, drawing the line between the innocent and the guilty?

Do we paint every slugger of the Steroids Era with the same guilt-tinged brush, even if they’ve never so much as been rumored to have taken something illicit?

Um...no? How hard is that?

Does throwing the book at Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa mean that all their peers are also disqualified from the Hall, and from recognition for their accomplishments?

An odd and foolish question. If you catch three drivers speeding on Route 95, do you give the thousands of other drivers using the road during that hour speeding tickets?

We can take this argument pretty far too.

You haven't made an argument yet, Jonah.

Plenty of pitchers were linked to PEDs, either through admissions of guilt or via the Mitchell Report. Does that mean we should assume that every pitcher of the Steroids Era may have been guilty too?

Peculiar wording. We should assume they may have been guilty? Sure. Why not? Of course, assuming someone may have been x or y is a meaningless thing to say...

Greg Maddux and Tom Glavine might have been skinny and couldn’t reach 98 mph in a 747; but guilt is guilt, right?

At this point I'm embarrassed for Jonah. This is just awful.

#13 You do understand that the arguments are framed in a lame way precisely because Jonah doesn't believe them. I'm more embarrassed for people who somehow thought he was advocating the position as opposed to using a rhetorical device.

Take the 1996 Indians. Take their most usual 9-man starting lineup and pick four more players who spent at least part of that year on the bench (a catcher, an infielder, and two outfielders). And then look, not at their 1996 statistics, but at their career stats. For these 13 players:

The average of the 13 had 2152 career hits, 405 doubles, 41 triples, 291 HR, 894 BB, 140 SB. That's 3513 career total bases.

We've got individual hit totals in there of 3255, 2836, 2586, 2574, 2461, 2428, 2263.

We've got individual HR totals of 600, 555, 504, 381, 377, 345, 287.

We've got individual walk totals of 1710, 1333, 1329, 1108, 1020, 945, 917

And for good measure, stolen base totals of 622 and 401.

Three of the four bench guys - Burnitz, Giles, and Kent - didn't really blossom until after they left Cleveland. (In part, because they were blocked.) And I'm counting as regulars some people, notably Eddie Murray at DH, that your first reaction probably wouldn't associate with Cleveland. But man, that's an awful lot of career hitting on one roster.

I could have gone with 1998 instead of 1996 - mostly that would get us Roberto Alomar and David Justice instead of Murray and Baerga. And '98 was the year Manny had the 165 RBI. But (maybe mostly because of Murray), I like doing this with the 1996 team.

If we're going to talk about a "symbol of the 90's," how about the entire Indian lineup?

If we're going to talk about a "symbol of the 90's," how about the entire Indian lineup?

Is Kenny Lofton going to get any HoF support?

Should he? I guess it depends what you think of his defense.

The HoF has and will wrap itself into so many pretzels that I don't even want to think about them. So let's look at your question from a HoM perspective.

Lofton has 65.3 WAR, of which 53.8 is offense and 11.5 defense. Of that 11.5, all of it is 1999 or before; he's zero after 1999. So: consistently excellent on defense for a decade, just hanging on after that. He's only got a 107 OPS+, but it's distinctly OBP-heavy and he added value with his baserunning. And 1994-95 were peak or near-peak years for him; you could boost his numbers some as strike credit.

Some possible comparisons:

Max Carey. Played in 154-game season time, with a couple of shortened seasons. 50.6 WAR, of which 42.7 offense, 7.9 defense. Also 107 OPS+, OBP-heavy with excellent baserunning. Has been elected to the HoM. Seems a very good comp.

Richie Ashburn. Played mostly in 154 game seasons. Slightly shorter career than Carey or Lofton. Even more extreme in OBP-first offensive shape, with an OPS+ of 111, but not the baserunner that Lofton or Carey were. 58.0 WAR, of which 51.1 offense, 6.9 defense - that feels like possibly underrating his defense. Elected to the HoM.

Andre Dawson. Most recent HoM CF, although he moved to the corner earlier in his career than Lofton or Carey. OPS+ 119, quite SLG-heavy. 57.0 WAR, of which 49.7 offense, 7.3 defense.

Carlos Beltran. Still active, but we presume most of his case has already been made. 59.8 WAR, of which 52.2 offense, 7.6 defense. OPS+ 120, balanced shape, also excellent baserunner. Since Lofton will be HoM-eligible before Beltran, not much help with precedents.

In all, it looks like Lofton has a good HoM case, and has a case even if you think his defensive WAR should be 7 or 8 instead of 11 or 12. Faces a very crowded ballot, but we can sort through crowded ballots and keep around the ones who should be kept around. Carey seems like a significant precedent.

The rest of that '96 Indian roster, as HoM cases.

S. Alomar: Not enough there. Not even enough games played, even though he played for many years.
Franco: a compelling story, and HoVG for sure - don't think he makes the cut for HoM.
Bearga: Fell apart too fast. In his early 20's he looked like he would be a candidate, but it didn't happen. (If you take the '98 team instead, you get R. Alomar, who's already in the HoM.)
Vizquel: Compares favorably to Aparicio, but Aparicio isn't in the HoM. 42.4 career WAR, but very sensitive to where you put replacement level since he played so long. Might be a better HoF candidate than HoM. (But I said I wouldn't speculate about them.)
Thome: Slam-dunk HoM. Easy call.
Belle: Essentially already rejected by the HoM. Has a nice peak, but there are higher peaks (Will Clark, for instance). Lacks the bulk to make a career case.
Lofton: See above. Strong candidate.
Ramirez: HoM. Easy call, even with his defensive issues.
Murray: Already elected.
Tony Pena: Not a candidate.
Burnitz: Not a candidate, even if he did have 300+ HR.
Brian Giles: Didn't even really get playing time until he was already 26. Still accumulated 42.7 WAR. HoVG.
Kent: Probably HoM.

I'll never forgive Brady Anderson for quitting roids after his one great year. What a dumbass.

I never understood how people believe a player would start using steroids, see his homerun total jump by 30 while not hurting him in any other aspect of the game, and then give it up after the season, even though he was eligible for free agency after the 1997 season.

Not saying I know Brady is innocent. I am open to these possibilities:

1. He started using as early as high school and they helped him become the prospect that he was.
2. He started using in 1992, and made the leap from crappy 4th outfielder to All-Star.
3. He started using in 1996, and continued for a few years after. However, the homerun jump was a pure fluke and not sustainable even with continued steroid use.

The idea that he started in 1996, hit 50 homers, and immediately quit I just don't find the least bit credible.

stuff like this was said about Boone {br link}

You're citing a br article which mentions what Canseco said? Please.

Well, wasn't he right about a lot of what he said? For Boone, the circumstantial evidence is pretty strong to begin with.

Brady started jumping on first pitches in 1996 after a career of always taking the first pitch. It took the league a year to adjust.

Bonds cheated just like Craig Biggio*, then radically adjusted his batting style from "I can hit anything" including opposite field singles to, I'm only swinging hard at the inside half of the plate and I'm willing to be an even bigger walk champion than home run champion. Steroids got him in the lineup more often upping his home run opportunities, but probably not his home run rate.

Sosa starting walking for the first time in his career.

Batting style trumps PEDs.


*body armor

Batting style trumps PEDs.

The two are not independent.

I've always been steroids-agnostic, but like EPO useage in pro cycling, at this point I think a presumption of guilt is a safer bet than a presumption of innocence, for everyone.