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

Sunday, January 06, 2013

Hall of Famer Rich Gossage no fan of “known cheaters” in baseball

You can’t spell “As Goes Egos Go” without Goose Gossage.

“If they elect known cheaters into the Hall of Fame, I am not sure I would go back. It hurts me to even think about it,” Gossage told The Denver Post. “But cheaters should absolutely not be in the Hall of Fame. You are telling me we are going to reward these guys? Are you (expletive) kidding me? What is going on in this world? Right is right. Wrong is wrong.”

...“If they get in, what does that tell our kids and everybody else? What message does that send?” said Gossage, the only native Coloradan in the Hall of Fame after receiving 85.8 percent of the vote following his career that included 310 saves. “They say there wouldn’t be a Hall of Fame without PEDs? I completely disagree. No cheaters. Period.”

...Gossage will be watching closely. As he repeatedly failed to gain entrance into the Hall of Fame, he began to believe he’d never make it. Now, the idea of never making it back to Cooperstown is becoming similarly unsettling.

“I try not to live in a glass house,” Gossage said. “Who’s to say if I was injured and HGH was available to me that I wouldn’t have taken it. But I didn’t. If I had, I would like to believe I would fess up and suffer the consequences, meaning no Hall of Fame.

“The most sacred records in the game were broken. They aren’t taking those away from them. The only thing left for a paddle is the election to the Hall of Fame. If they get in, then the Hall of Fame wouldn’t mean a thing. I really don’t know how I could go back.”

 

Repoz Posted: January 06, 2013 at 03:19 AM | 164 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: hof

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 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. J.R. Wolf Posted: January 06, 2013 at 03:39 AM (#4339916)
And Goose nails it.
   2. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: January 06, 2013 at 04:00 AM (#4339927)
Nailed what? His dick to the door?

Given the Hall has already elected known 'cheaters' (not to mention avowed racists and drug addicts), and given it did that prior to Gossage's induction, why did he accept the dishonor of election?

Hypocrite.
   3. Random Transaction Generator Posted: January 06, 2013 at 04:05 AM (#4339928)
“If they elect known cheaters into the Hall of Fame, I am not sure I would go back. It hurts me to even think about it,” Gossage told The Denver Post. “But cheaters should absolutely not be in the Hall of Fame. You are telling me we are going to reward these guys? Are you (expletive) kidding me? What is going on in this world? Right is right. Wrong is wrong.”


...except for Gaylord Perry and Don Drysdale. They're cool.

   4. VoodooR Posted: January 06, 2013 at 04:06 AM (#4339929)
Is "J.R. Wolf" really "kevin"?
   5. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 06, 2013 at 04:11 AM (#4339930)
...“If they get in, what does that tell our kids and everybody else? What message does that send?”
That taking steroids is a really good idea.
   6. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: January 06, 2013 at 06:32 AM (#4339938)
It's good to know Goose Gossage finally accepts that the greasy cocksuckers with their fucking pens and their fucking tape recorders really WERE worth the fucking shit to do something else: elect Goose Gossage.

Gossage opining on the Hall of Fame's meaning, or potential lack thereof, is like if Bobby Moynihan were to lecture Lorne Michaels about how to cast the next ten seasons of "Saturday Night Live."
   7. vivaelpujols Posted: January 06, 2013 at 06:37 AM (#4339939)
Gossage opining on the Hall of Fame's meaning, or potential lack thereof, is like if Bobby Moynihan were to lecture Lorne Michaels about how to cast the next ten seasons of "Saturday Night Live."


Yeah I don't know what the #### he is doing. Just be grateful you are in the hall.
   8. Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer Posted: January 06, 2013 at 10:01 AM (#4339953)
I forgot that Gossage cleared the bar with so much room the spare - almost 86%! There are at least 12 guys on this ballot with as good or better case than Gossage, and none of them can get 70% right now, it looks like.

There are going to be some rule changes and hand-wringing by the shores of Lake Otsego this spring!
   9. Bug Selig Posted: January 06, 2013 at 10:11 AM (#4339956)
Is "J.R. Wolf" really "kevin"?


How can you tell? All he ever says is "[ Ignored Comment ]" Life is better now.
   10. Bob Tufts Posted: January 06, 2013 at 11:56 AM (#4339983)
I went to the HOF inductions the year Gossage went in - along with Bowie Kuhn, Walter O'Malley, Barney Dreyfuss, Billy Southworth and Dick Williams.

Only 10,000 to 12,000 people showed up at the ceremony and the town's business people were ticked off.
   11. cardsfanboy Posted: January 06, 2013 at 12:24 PM (#4340002)
Yeah I don't know what the #### he is doing. Just be grateful you are in the hall.


Exactly what I was thinking... Seriously dude, you are a reliever, who at no point in your career was one of the 5 best players on your team, and you are talking smack to other players... get off your high horse, be happy you got your sorry ass into the hof and shut the #### up.
   12. Squash Posted: January 06, 2013 at 12:51 PM (#4340018)
I would think also as a guy who didn't make it until his 9th year and then only because it was an incredibly weak ballot would know to just be happy and keep his mouth shut, but Gossage has been airing his perspective on who should and who shouldn't get to join him in the Hall since the moment he was elected.
   13. Tom Nawrocki Posted: January 06, 2013 at 01:05 PM (#4340023)
Seriously dude, you are a reliever, who at no point in your career was one of the 5 best players on your team,


The 1975 White Sox were terrible, while Gossage was having maybe his best season. WAR, which is mostly a joke, has him as the very best player on the team. He probably wasn't that, but he was certainly in the Top Five.
   14. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: January 06, 2013 at 01:12 PM (#4340028)
get off your high horse


I'd even be willing to get off his lawn in exchange.
   15. SouthSideRyan Posted: January 06, 2013 at 01:43 PM (#4340043)
How can you tell? All he ever says is "[ Ignored Comment ]"


That's classic Kevin.
   16. AJMcCringleberry Posted: January 06, 2013 at 01:53 PM (#4340053)
Given the Hall has already elected known 'cheaters' (not to mention avowed racists and drug addicts), and given it did that prior to Gossage's induction, why did he accept the dishonor of election?

Really. How is this not the obvious ####### follow up question?

That taking steroids is a really good idea.

Sportswriters have been telling us that for years.
   17. cardsfanboy Posted: January 06, 2013 at 01:53 PM (#4340054)
The 1975 White Sox were terrible, while Gossage was having maybe his best season. WAR, which is mostly a joke, has him as the very best player on the team. He probably wasn't that, but he was certainly in the Top Five.


War for relievers is a massive joke.... Still Gossage did have 140 ip with a 212 era+.... On that team I would say that Kaat and Orta clearly had better seasons, arguably Downing and maybe even Wood.... So yes, I was wrong, he was top five on a weak team.
   18. The District Attorney Posted: January 06, 2013 at 01:54 PM (#4340055)
More of an Artie Ziff, I think; kevin "interacted."

This year's #1-voted Comedy Bang Bang episode was Bobby Moynihan as the orphan Fourvel trying to get adopted by Andrew Lloyd Webber.
   19. J.R. Wolf Posted: January 06, 2013 at 02:18 PM (#4340062)
Goose has it right. No cheaters in the HOF.
   20. cardsfanboy Posted: January 06, 2013 at 02:22 PM (#4340063)
Goose has it right. No cheaters in the HOF.


Way past that point in time...heck I wouldn't be surprised if the number of cheaters in the hof outnumber the non-cheaters.
   21. J.R. Wolf Posted: January 06, 2013 at 02:26 PM (#4340065)
How can you tell? All he ever says is "[ Ignored Comment ]" Life is better now


Ah, intolerance. Isn't groupthink grand? Isn't it so inconvenient when other people dare to express different opinions and points of view? Why should you have to read stuff like that, anyway? It's just so disturbing.

It's so much more comfortable to just put your head in the sand and only deal with people who think like you do, isn't it?
   22. KT's Pot Arb Posted: January 06, 2013 at 02:30 PM (#4340069)
War for relievers is a massive joke.... Still Gossage did have 140 ip with a 212 era+


I thought it was ERA+ that was untrustworthy for relievers? for example in 1992 Goose had a 132 ERA+, over hs career averages, yet gave up 1.2 HR per 9, and walked 4.5, and had one of the highest WHIPs of his career. Small sample, only 32 innings, but still hard to figure out how not only giving up walks and hits at a high rate, but also HRs, penciled out to a 2.32 ERA.

I guess a the HOF should have a couple relievers, esp. now given the greater importance of the role, but wouldn't Mariano Roboto, Eck, and Smoltz be enough?

Traditionally guys were relievers because they weren't good enough to start, should we have bench position players in the hall too?
   23. cardsfanboy Posted: January 06, 2013 at 02:32 PM (#4340071)
Ah, intolerance. Isn't groupthink grand? Isn't it so inconvenient when other people dare to express different opinions and points of view? Why should you have to read stuff like that, anyway? It's just so disturbing.


The part you seemed to have missed is the fact that you don't interact or defend or say anything other than the moronic "No cheaters in the hof".

You haven't bothered to define why steroids is cheating, but spitballing isn't, you haven't defended any argument against how it could be cheating when it wasn't actually against the rules etc.... simply saying "No cheaters" isn't an opinion. It's a parrot.
   24. AJMcCringleberry Posted: January 06, 2013 at 02:36 PM (#4340074)
It's so much more comfortable to just put your head in the sand and only deal with people who think like you do, isn't it?

Is this a trick question? Of course it is.
   25. cardsfanboy Posted: January 06, 2013 at 02:39 PM (#4340077)
I thought it was ERA+ that was untrustworthy for relievers? for example in 1992 Goose had a 132 ERA+, over hs career averages, yet gave up 1.2 HR per 9, and walked 4.5, and had one of the highest WHIPs of his career. Small sample, only 32 innings, but still hard to figure out how not only giving up walks and hits at a high rate, but also HRs, penciled out to a 2.32 ERA.


Both are..War gives credence to leverage, so a reliever who posts a 100 era+ over 60 innings is massively more valuable than a starting pitcher who does 100 era+ over 120 innings. It's a silly stat for relievers. Ignore War when it comes to relief pitchers, catchers, first basemen, Dh and utility players. It's perfectly fine in most other situations.

It gives credit for leverage, while not recognizing that replacement level pitchers wouldn't be in that situation. So you get the bonus of usage and another bonus of being compared to pitchers who aren't actually your replacement. The difference between using Gossage in 1975 and the next best available guy isn't 8 wins.
   26. Mayor Blomberg Posted: January 06, 2013 at 02:41 PM (#4340079)
So what's the argument against HOMer Goose Gossage in the HOF? General opposition to RP not named Mo? Not good enough long enough?
   27. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: January 06, 2013 at 02:44 PM (#4340081)
Ah, intolerance. Isn't groupthink grand? Isn't it so inconvenient when other people dare to express different opinions and points of view?
This is exactly what I think when I read what the vast majority of baseball columnists when they write about steroids.
   28. cardsfanboy Posted: January 06, 2013 at 02:44 PM (#4340082)
So what's the argument against HOMer Goose Gossage in the HOF? General opposition to RP not named Mo? Not good enough long enough?


Not valuable enough. If you have to put 5-10 relievers in the hof, then Gossage clearly belongs, but the problem is that relievers don't belong. They just don't provide enough real value to the team to be worthy. It's like putting in the top 5 Dh's of all time, just because they were DH's. Or top 5 pinch hitters or top 5 utility players. They provide a seasonal value to the team, but they do not provide as much value as an everyday position player or a starting pitcher.
   29. J.R. Wolf Posted: January 06, 2013 at 02:55 PM (#4340090)
@cardsfanboy: Actually, I have. But if you want it again, here it is. There's two kinds of cheating, inside the lines and outside the lines. Both are bad but inside the line cheating - scuffing, greaseballing, etc. - takes place on the field and can be detected and punished by umps. Cheating outside the lines - taking bribes, betting on games, using PEDs - takes place off the field, is secret, premeditated, deliberate and is designed to subvert the entire game of baseball, and goes generally undetected.

Bribery and gambling and PEDs all work to destroy the basic concept of baseball: that it is a fair game of skill, the outcome of which is to be determined by talent and managerial decisions as impacted by chance. This is why the likes of the Black Sox and Pete Rose and [insert PED user of choice here] should never be enshrined by the game: they all did their best in their own ways to destroy it. Whereas Gaylord Perry, whom I don't approve of either, at least did what he did on the field in plain sight in the context of the game while trying to win games, not in secret in some lab or bookie parlor.
   30. J.R. Wolf Posted: January 06, 2013 at 03:01 PM (#4340093)
This is exactly what I think when I read what the vast majority of baseball columnists when they write about steroids.


You are surprised that a vast majority are opposed to deliberate cheating? I'm surprised that so many of them are okay with it.

What has really surprised me is that so many people here support PED cheaters. I would not have believed it.
   31. cardsfanboy Posted: January 06, 2013 at 03:13 PM (#4340098)
@cardsfanboy: Actually, I have. But if you want it again, here it is. There's two kinds of cheating, inside the lines and outside the lines. Both are bad but inside the line cheating - scuffing, greaseballing, etc. - takes place on the field and can be detected and punished by umps. Cheating outside the lines - taking bribes, betting on games, using PEDs - takes place off the field, is secret, premeditated, deliberate and is designed to subvert the entire game of baseball, and goes generally undetected.

Bribery and gambling and PEDs all work to destroy the basic concept of baseball: that it is a fair game of skill, the outcome of which is to be determined by talent and managerial decisions as impacted by chance. This is why the likes of the Black Sox and Pete Rose and [insert PED user of choice here] should never be enshrined by the game: they all did their best in their own ways to destroy it. Whereas Gaylord Perry, whom I don't approve of either, at least did what he did on the field in plain sight in the context of the game while trying to win games, not in secret in some lab or bookie parlor.


How do you differentiate PED's? Is eating steak, working out, hiring a nutrionalist and taking supplements, using peds? Is amphetimines PED's?(if not, why not?) If they weren't against the rules, how can you legitimately call it cheating?

You are surprised that a vast majority are opposed to deliberate cheating? I'm surprised that so many of them are okay with it.


We are surprised because if it was so obvious, then where in the heck were these guys when it was going on? After all, they have to have been so incompetent at their job to not notice, that for someone to disparage another person's job ethics while being this massively incompetent, is hypocritical in the extreme. They were reporters and didn't report on the issue, because they enjoyed having access to the locker rooms and hanging out with their heroes...now that the worm has turned, they are moralizing? #### them, biggest scumbags(non-lawyer/politic division) on the planet and they have zero room to moralize.
   32. Jick Posted: January 06, 2013 at 03:14 PM (#4340099)
This is why the likes of the Black Sox and Pete Rose and [insert PED user of choice here] should never be enshrined by the game


Didn't you recently give "Great ballot" props to someone who wrote in Rose?
   33. JJ1986 Posted: January 06, 2013 at 03:16 PM (#4340101)
What has really surprised me is that so many people here support PED cheaters. I would not have believed it.


When do you think baseball banned PEDs?
   34. Bob Tufts Posted: January 06, 2013 at 03:21 PM (#4340103)
It's so much more comfortable to just put your head in the sand


That is an insult to the sand.

simply saying "No cheaters" isn't an opinion. It's a parrot.


E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-PARROT!!

Mike Parrott used steroids?


   35. J.R. Wolf Posted: January 06, 2013 at 03:24 PM (#4340105)
Wow, you PED user supporters are amazing. Rationalize much?

Let's see - you support PED users because of legal technicalities and the incompetence of sports journalists?

Sorry, not good enough.
   36. djordan Posted: January 06, 2013 at 03:26 PM (#4340107)
   37. SoSH U at work Posted: January 06, 2013 at 03:27 PM (#4340108)
what's the argument against HOMer Goose Gossage in the HOF? General opposition to RP not named Mo? Not good enough long enough?


Because for the first and only time, the Hall of Merit lost its collective mind.

I can understand electing the Willie Randolphs and Bret Saberhagens as a result of setting the HoM at a fixed size. At least those guys were ocmpared against the rest of the eligible baseball population and slipped in, even if it makes the HoM seem a little too large for a lot of folks' liking. But electing a guy who probably was no more valuable than Jack Morris just because he filled a certain role will always seem nutty to me.

   38. djordan Posted: January 06, 2013 at 03:46 PM (#4340115)
Goose got in under the old regime. So did Perez. Jim Ed slid into the Hall Bond-style as the steel door was coming down. Morris is stuck under that very same door, trying to wiggle through. He will be the last one. So have we set the bottom WAR baseline for initial eligibility for entrance into the hall @ 40 yet? What is the number? I highly doubt (outside of a superstar's career ending midway via tragedy) any player ever receives support for induction with a WAR below 40 ever again.
   39. cardsfanboy Posted: January 06, 2013 at 03:51 PM (#4340117)
Wow, you PED user supporters are amazing. Rationalize much?

Let's see - you support PED users because of legal technicalities and the incompetence of sports journalists?

Sorry, not good enough.


Not in the slightest. We support coherent arguments. Saying they cheated without defining cheating is not a coherent argument. Regardless of what you claim, you haven't defined why Steroids is cheating but amps isn't.

Present your argument and defend it. That is simple.

How about a Q and A where you answer direct questions so that we can see where you honestly stand.

What is a PED? Why is it cheating, when Amps isn't? Why is it cheating when it wasn't against the rules? Why should the writers be the arbitrators of who goes into the hof, when MLB has addressed the issue and by their own ruling, it's less of a crime (as shown by the punishments) than gambling and that convicted cheaters get a sentence and are allowed back in the game? Why should the writers have any say on morality and ethics, when by any view of their profession as a whole, shows a lack of moral, ethics or competence?
   40. Mayor Blomberg Posted: January 06, 2013 at 03:53 PM (#4340119)
So if Trevor Hoffmann wants to be in the Hall of Merit he has to buy a computer?
   41. The District Attorney Posted: January 06, 2013 at 03:57 PM (#4340120)
Omar Vizquel has 27.6 WAR; Trevor Hoffman 27. I'm not going to guarantee either guy is elected, but I think both are likely.

This one isn't likely, but it's possible Adam Dunn could hit a whole bunch of HR in his career, and he only has 13.8 WAR right now.

I could imagine David Ortiz (36.4) making it, but he probably needs to do a little more, which would probably mean he'd get over 40.
   42. Traderdave Posted: January 06, 2013 at 03:58 PM (#4340121)
why Steroids is cheating but amps isn't.


I thought we agreed years ago that amps aren't cheating because certain posters' boyhood idols used them, but steroids, being used after posters' 21st birthdays, are
   43. cardsfanboy Posted: January 06, 2013 at 04:01 PM (#4340122)
I thought we agreed years ago that amps aren't cheating because certain posters' boyhood idols used them, but steroids, being used after posters' 21st birthdays, are


That is the group think on why it's not cheating, but I've never actually seen anyone claim that as a defense.

Goose got in under the old regime. So did Perez. Jim Ed slid into the Hall Bond-style as the steel door was coming down. Morris is stuck under that very same door, trying to wiggle through. He will be the last one. So have we set the bottom WAR baseline for initial eligibility for entrance into the hall @ 40 yet? What is the number? I highly doubt (outside of a superstar's career ending midway via tragedy) any player ever receives support for induction with a WAR below 40 ever again.


The District Attorney brought in a couple of likely candidates, Vizquel and Hoffman should both get significant support, and I'm not sure that the support is going to be entirely unwarranted.
   44. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: January 06, 2013 at 04:01 PM (#4340123)
I thought we agreed years ago that amps aren't cheating because certain posters' boyhood idols used them, but steroids, being used after posters' 21st birthdays, are
Except for Pete Rose. That guy totally belongs in the Hall, because even though he cheated, he was awesome. Also, just because he associated with steroid users and steroid dealers and even had one staying in his house for months at a time didn't mean he used them.
   45. djordan Posted: January 06, 2013 at 04:08 PM (#4340130)
My view, right or wrong, is that "greenies" were a drug that enhanced endurance, the ability to simply get on the field, versus HGH, steroids, which are substances enhancing ability. The question becomes, for me, is endurance (what gets Willie Mays on the field to bat .211 in 1973) vs steroids that built the bulk in his some players and enhanced their core ability, are they the same thing? I think it's a notion worth exploring.

I do feel there is a difference in the two, that modern PEDs, as we know them in the 1990's and early 2000s were against the spirit of the game, and everyone knows they are against the spirit of the game. Was it cheating, the Greg Brady/exact words definition of sports deception? No, of course not, they were not against the rules. It's cheating, fair game. That said, there is an element of "C'mon, bro," at work here. You know what they did, they know they did. Not saying you can keep someone out of the hall because of this, but, as fans, let's not pretend what they did was OK.

To cardsfanboy's point, he may have a good argument that beat writers and journalists who were in the clubhouse when this all went down and didn't want to burn their access may not be the best induction gatekeepers. I think I have a really good sense that these writers knew A LOT more about this than they have spilled. I can't wait to read the beat writer memoirs in 2020 when they can no longer hold down jobs @ ESPN, SI and other outlets about what they saw at the HR revolution.

   46. djordan Posted: January 06, 2013 at 04:12 PM (#4340131)
According to B-R, Vizquel's sits @ 40.5 WAR. He will get some support. Hoffman as well. Both will have a slew of players ahead of them in the queue, I would think. Around this point, we should see guys like Schilling at 60-65%. Hoffman waits a long, long time in my view.
   47. Petunia inquires about ponies Posted: January 06, 2013 at 04:16 PM (#4340136)
Wow, you PED user supporters are amazing. Rationalize much?

Hey Wolf, way to show those people claiming that you're not interested in a reasonable discussion how wrong they were with your repeated characterizations of anyone who disagrees with you as 'support[ing] PED cheaters'.
   48. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: January 06, 2013 at 04:17 PM (#4340137)
My view, right or wrong, is that "greenies" were a drug that enhanced endurance, the ability to simply get on the field, versus HGH, steroids, which are substances enhancing ability.


With all due respect, wrong. There is plenty of evidence that stimulants enhance ability (concentration, focus, etc) rather that just endurance. I also suspect that if used improperly, they could pretty easily compromise, rather than enhance, endurance. And there is absolutely no evidence that hGH enhances anything in terms of athletic performance.
   49. Depressoteric Posted: January 06, 2013 at 04:17 PM (#4340138)
I sympathize with J.R. Wolf. I've offered my views of why IMO greenies and steroids belong in fundamentally different categories to people here on Primer before, and the near-universal blast-you-in-the-face response is "fuck you, I shall now pretend you did not make a colorable distinction because I am emotionally committed to boosting steroid users" or, in the alternate, "yes you've drawn a line, but I disagree with it therefore I deny your right to legitimately feel strongly in a different way."

There is a reasonably 'fascist' element around here when it comes to the PED/steroid controversy, in terms of the pro-steroid super-majority imposing its verbal disdain and "polite society shunning" upon those like me simply because they enjoy this place as a haven where their otherwise ultra-minority view (in the general baseball-fan populace at large) is a commanding majority. Which is why steroid discussions are so goddamned fruitless around here.

BUT: Once more, with feeling, I shall explain why there is to my mind a fundamental difference between greenies (or cocaine, or marijuana, or heroin, or LSD, or alcohol for that matter) and steroids. The former are 'banned' drugs and are cheating per se, but that is not the critical distinction; the critical distinction is that amphetamines do not alter a player's permanent baseline the way steroids do. It's one thing to take a greenie before a game, or alternately drink a shitton of coffee: it brings a person to maximum alertness or focus, but does not increase their muscle mass, or permanently sharpen their reflexes and/or strength and endurance over time. The denominator remains the same. Steroids increase the 'denominator', often far beyond that which would otherwise be possible naturally. The alterations are semi-permanent, affect the body's structure and musculature (rather than just someone's brain or nerve-endings), and are part of a long-term regimen of surreptitious doping.

It is a categorically different form of cheating than either spitballing 'between the lines' of the game (as J.R. Wolf aptly pointed out) or popping a ritalin an hour before gametime.

I'm supremely uninterested in hearing a horde of smug Primates harangue me about why I have to be wrong. No, I'm not -- we simply disagree. And we're not going to convince either one of us. I would like to see Bonds, Clemens, et al. given a lifetime ban from the Hall of Fame, most of you would elect them on the first ballot. We differ. I'm okay with that, I'm not looking down my nose at anyone about it, and I'd appreciate it if others extended the same courtesy to me.
   50. Pat Rapper's Delight Posted: January 06, 2013 at 04:19 PM (#4340141)
It must be pointed out that Gossage, as a member of the 1991 Rangers, shared a locker room with Rafael Palmeiro, Juan Gonzalez, Ivan Rodriguez, and Kevin Brown. Clearly there's enough association here to link Gossage to steroid use too.
   51. Blastin Posted: January 06, 2013 at 04:23 PM (#4340144)
But you're smarter than Mr. Wolf, Esoteric. I respectfully disagree with you, but you outlined a detailed argument without being pushed rather than popping in with "nyaaaaah cheaters" on every HOF thread. That is A-OK with me, even if PEDs just don't bother me.
   52. cardsfanboy Posted: January 06, 2013 at 04:27 PM (#4340147)
To cardsfanboy's point, he may have a good argument that beat writers and journalists who were in the clubhouse when this all went down and didn't want to burn their access may not be the best induction gatekeepers. I think I have a really good sense that these writers knew A LOT more about this than they have spilled. I can't wait to read the beat writer memoirs in 2020 when they can no longer hold down jobs @ ESPN, SI and other outlets about what they saw at the HR revolution.


There have been plenty of writers who claimed that "Vitamins" was a widely accepted code for roids in articles that they wrote.
   53. J.R. Wolf Posted: January 06, 2013 at 04:29 PM (#4340148)
@cardsfanboy: as requested I presented my perfectly coherent argument. If you didn't like it, tough.

I find your countergument, that PED use wasn't specifically illegal and therefore PED users do belong in HOF, to be a piece of hairsplitting sophistry. Adultery isn't illegal in most states, either, but no one in their right mind would support an adulterer for a Spousal Hall of Fame because of the character issues, even if the immoral acts were legal. That's a relevant comparison because of that pesky but existing HOF character clause: "Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character and contribution to the team(s) on which the player played."

Integrity. Sportsmanship. Character. None of which PED users had or have.

You now have my logical argument and the HOF rules which back it up. If you don't like it or them and like your hairsplitting and technicalities better, that's your right and privilege. Personally I find your views outrageous, but you have every right to have and express them. But don't ever dismiss my view of this or my entire side of this issue, including Goose Gossage, as not being logical or valid or supported by the HOF's own rules, because it's all three.

Now go back to defending cheaters for admission to the HOF, and I'll go back to attacking them.
   54. cardsfanboy Posted: January 06, 2013 at 04:33 PM (#4340150)
Esoteric---good points, and about the only rational argument ever put forth on what is the difference. Mind you I think you are wrong in saying that amps doesn't alter the baseline. I honestly think they do, they increase a persons ability to concentrate, and sharpen focus beyond what they normally do. Give amps to someone who is 100% alert and awake, and it still does something, so that shows some form of improvement, and unlike roids, the person taking them didn't have to do anything other than pop a pill.


Of course there are other arguments about why ban them from the hof that you would have to overcome to argue for a permanent ban, but at least your argument starts from a point of reasonable differences. Wolf has said the same thing over and over in every thread he's on... "It's cheating, ban them"...

   55. JJ1986 Posted: January 06, 2013 at 04:34 PM (#4340152)
Integrity. Sportsmanship. Character. None of which PED users had or have.


If PED use wasn't against the rules, then why was it an affront to integrity, sportsmanship and character?
   56. The District Attorney Posted: January 06, 2013 at 04:35 PM (#4340153)
Whoops, read the Vizquel line wrong. Sorry.
   57. cardsfanboy Posted: January 06, 2013 at 04:38 PM (#4340155)
I find your countergument, that PED use wasn't specifically illegal and therefore PED users do belong in HOF, to be a piece of hairsplitting sophistry. Adultery isn't illegal in most states, either, but no one in their right mind would support an adulterer for a Spousal Hall of Fame because of the character issues, even if the immoral acts were legal.


And if it was the clean living hall of fame, I would support you on your ban of players... It's not, it's the baseball hall of fame. What is the difference between all the different supplements? Some are legal, some are not legal? Where is the line to be drawn? Without someone putting forth a document saying this is the line, there cannot be a line.


Integrity is about cheating, I agree.. Kick out all the cheaters in the hof. Character is not about cheating, it's about other crap, and fine, kick out the Cap Anson's, Kirby Puckett's and Ty Cobbs of the world too. ...The point is you can't say Cheating is banning, only for roiders and ignore the rest of the people who cheated. You can't say it's a character issue and ignore all the other character issues in already. You need to differentiate the two and why one is worse than the other. And on top of that you need to draw the line. And on top of that you need to come up with a level of certainty in order to convict. You don't. You just say "ban all the cheaters"


   58. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: January 06, 2013 at 04:42 PM (#4340157)
I find your countergument, that PED use wasn't specifically illegal and therefore PED users do belong in HOF, to be a piece of hairsplitting sophistry.
I find the idea that so many substances that enhance performance somehow don't fall under the category of ban-worthy "Performance Enhancing Drugs" to be utterly subjective. The line apparently seems to be what's legal and what's not, and it's an arbitrary line at best, drawn to protect the players people like and attack the players they don't.

"Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character and contribution to the team(s) on which the player played."
So, no adulterers in the Baseball Hall of Fame, right? That should thin out the herd.
   59. cardsfanboy Posted: January 06, 2013 at 04:44 PM (#4340160)
You now have my logical argument and the HOF rules which back it up.


Your logical argument is..... still not seeing it. You have a piss poor analogy that doesn't work, and you continue to say it's cheating even if it's not against the rules, but that you don't want to keep actual cheaters (like Willie Mays) out of the hall because they only cheated on the field?

I mean, seriously you aren't really this stupid are you? If you believe that it's wrong come up with a reason that people can understand and explain why it's wrong, but Mays/Anson/Puckett/Cobb/Perry etc are allowed to be in? And explain the level of certainty needed to not vote for a guy? After all, multiple court cases have exonerated Clemens...
   60. djordan Posted: January 06, 2013 at 04:45 PM (#4340161)
There have been plenty of writers who claimed that "Vitamins" was a widely accepted code for roids in articles that they wrote.

I hear ya on that, but it's still fair to say that the spirit of Woodward & Bernstein didn't really exist among BBWAA types on the Major League Baseball beat until Caminiti took Verducci's phone call.
   61. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 06, 2013 at 04:47 PM (#4340162)
“If they elect known cheaters into the Hall of Fame, I am not sure I would go back."


Oh. Now they HAVE to do this.
   62. djordan Posted: January 06, 2013 at 05:03 PM (#4340171)
@ Ray, I dunno. The problem here is, as much as the Hall is a spirit of the greats of the game, Induction Weekend is big business to Cooperstown. HUGE business, their signature weekend. What's going to happen as the years drag on is you will have only a handful of athletes staying the whole weekend to chat with the fans, mingle on Main Street, sign autographs all that jazz. There are a number of guys that do this now - Goose may be in the Top Three in terms of fan interaction during Induction Weekend. He has truly become one of the stars of the show. Guys like Ryan, Yaz, Carlton they come into town for the induction ceremony and then they're gone. You think Piazza or Jeter when they gets in will be hanging around upstate NY for 48 hours? It's the guys like Goose, like Sutter, even HOVGs like Dale Murphy who are around a nice chunk of the weekend. They are the guys that get the call to greet the fans. From a statistical standpoint, sure Goose is not in Cooperstown's VIP of VIPs' room, but he's the cherished member of the HOF-industrial complex.
   63. Bob Tufts Posted: January 06, 2013 at 05:40 PM (#4340193)
There is a reasonably 'fascist' element around here when it comes to the PED/steroid controversy


Point # 1 - Please preface "PED's" with illegal. If it wasn't a controlled substance (as the "clear" was not an FDA designated Schedule III substance until well after 2003), it wasn't illegal. Criminalizing (and moralizing) ex post facto is truly fascist.

Point # 2 - The only fascism I see is the rumor mills that connect players to illegal substances without enough proof to get an indictment, let alone a conviction. The same rumor mills tied me to cocaine in the 80's and helped end my career. If there was a Mitchell report on cocaine use in the 80's, my name would have erroneously surfaced as a user due to my time with the Giants and Royals. Unless there is a positive test or admission, you are slandering and libeling people without hard fact. "The court of public opinion" is truly fascist

Point # 3 - BBTF is a home for facts beyond the quantification of player's value. "I think someone used" isn't good enough - as I demonstrated in # 2. Any argument that does not cite evidence or quote facts is doomed to failure here.

If you want to play in absolutes, you can only do so after 2003 if and when a player tested positive.
   64. JJ1986 Posted: January 06, 2013 at 05:45 PM (#4340197)
On a tangent, NFL player Brandon Browner is "coming off a 4-game suspension" according to Joe Buck. No mention of why. Steroids in the NFL aren't even worthy of a mention.
   65. Walt Davis Posted: January 06, 2013 at 05:58 PM (#4340210)
Esoteric --

Sorry, that argument makes no sense. What's the difference between a "permanent" enhancement of performance and a "temporary" enhancement of performance that you use every game? What is the difference between a "temporary" enhancement via greenies and using PEDs to recover more quickly from injury?

Greenies enhance performance. Greenies enhance performance beyond what a person is "naturally" capable of. There's simply no way around the fact that there is as much or more evidence supporting greenies as PEDS as steroids and that the expected boost in performance is as much or more.

And ... you aside, all this vitriol here and in the media over a thin, technical distinction between "temporary" and "permanent" performance enhancement? Really? And does anybody think this is the distinction Gossage is making?

Anyway, since you raised it I'll say this. Even granting your unwarranted assumption, the notion that there is a distinction between taking yourself from 90% to 100% vs. taking yourself from 100% to 110%, between "daily enhancement" vs. "permanent enhancement", that only the latter two are "cheating", that only the latter two are "performance enhancement" is moral sophistry at its most obvious. It's an empty argument whose sole purpose is to protect players you admire.

At least have the ####### balls to admit that Aaron and Mays cheated under your standard. At least have the ####### balls to say that it was a mistake to induct them. At least have the ####### balls to not be a hypocrite and apply the same standard to all. That's a position I can at least respect.

   66. djordan Posted: January 06, 2013 at 06:03 PM (#4340214)
Fair enough, here's a question. Just curious, do you believe Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire would have hit 70+ HRs had they been taking greenies alone, in the absence of other substances?
   67. Lassus Posted: January 06, 2013 at 06:22 PM (#4340227)
Sorry, that argument makes no sense. What's the difference between a "permanent" enhancement of performance and a "temporary" enhancement of performance that you use every game? What is the difference between a "temporary" enhancement via greenies and using PEDs to recover more quickly from injury?

More simply, if you stop taking amphetamines, they stop working. If you stop taking steroids, they stop working. I can't fathom how steroids can be classified as permanent.
   68. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: January 06, 2013 at 06:26 PM (#4340229)
Sorry, not good enough.


Let this be your epitaph. Summarizes most of what you have to say.
   69. susan mullen Posted: January 06, 2013 at 06:27 PM (#4340230)
9/3/1986, Gossage was suspended from the San Diego Padres for objecting to its drug policy: "Rich (Silly Goose) Gossage, the noted relief pitcher for the San Diego Padres, is in trouble with the front office. Padre president Ballard Smith has suspended Silly Goose for the remainder of the season. He'll probably be reinstated soon, but it has been an ugly incident.

Silly Goose got mad at Smith because Smith indicated that the team would not sign free agents with a drug history or those who refused testing. Gossage got even madder when Smith banned beer in the Padre clubhouse in early July.

So Gossage called Smith "spineless and gutless."" 9/3/1986, "Goose's Specialty Isn't Golden Eggs, Nor Golden Arches," LA Times, Scott Ostler
   70. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: January 06, 2013 at 06:29 PM (#4340231)
I presented my perfectly coherent argument.


You presented a distinction without a difference. It's ridiculous on its face.
   71. cardsfanboy Posted: January 06, 2013 at 06:29 PM (#4340232)
Sorry, that argument makes no sense. What's the difference between a "permanent" enhancement of performance and a "temporary" enhancement of performance that you use every game? What is the difference between a "temporary" enhancement via greenies and using PEDs to recover more quickly from injury?


I disagree, the argument makes sense when he's talking about changing the baseline. I fully understand that argument, don't agree with it, but at least it makes sense. From what I can gather his point is that without roids, a player who works out as hard as he can has a finite cap where he can reach physically, that the roids, raise the potential cap, so the player is no longer using his "god given natural ability or potential". With amps the most common use was to compensate for hangovers, long flights etc to allow the player to get to the level of play that he can do normally/healthy.

It's of course a slippery slope argument, as where would Lasik fit into this situation? The eyesight limitation is a physical limitation of that particular player etc... but for the most part I understand where he is coming from with his argument. It's coherent if not something I agree with. (As I would argue that Amps take you beyond your baseline)
   72. Dan The Mediocre Posted: January 06, 2013 at 06:30 PM (#4340234)

More simply, if you stop taking amphetamines, they stop working. If you stop taking steroids, they stop working. I can't fathom how steroids can be classified as permanent.


And if you stop working out, steroids stop working. Amphetamines have no such requirement.
   73. Depressoteric Posted: January 06, 2013 at 06:52 PM (#4340246)
Walt Davis's churlish and graceless #65 is a perfectly representative explanation of why I DON'T get involved in steroid discussions around here. His emotional investment in his side is so deep that it shades over into personal territory, and god knows my life is too short at this point to listen to someone impugn me as follows:
At least have the ####### balls to admit that Aaron and Mays cheated under your standard. At least have the ####### balls to say that it was a mistake to induct them. At least have the ####### balls to not be a hypocrite and apply the same standard to all. That's a position I can at least respect.
Congrats, Walt, on your implicit declaration that, unless I unilaterally lay down my arms and agree with you, that I am 1.) ball-less; 2.) a hypocrite; 3.) someone who should have his children taken away (implied, to be fair ;-) ).

So much more heat than light. Internet tough guys shouting declamations at one another. The antithesis of what this place ought to be about. And it's because I've come to believe that this particular subject is so emotionally fraught for some people that they cannot conduct themselves in a discussion without falling into that pattern of behavior (online at least) that I decline to engage further. In a way it's actually a fairly close analogue to my attitude towards political threads around here -- why bother?

Again: I recognize that my view is in the distinct minority around here. I don't look down upon people who feel the other way. I don't think I'm 'morally superior' or somesuch bullshit. I just think the only workable solution at this point is to, after having stated one's case, agree to disagree.
   74. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 06, 2013 at 06:53 PM (#4340247)
There's two kinds of cheating, inside the lines and outside the lines. Both are bad but inside the line cheating - scuffing, greaseballing, etc. - takes place on the field and can be detected and punished by umps. Cheating outside the lines - taking bribes, betting on games, using PEDs - takes place off the field, is secret, premeditated, deliberate and is designed to subvert the entire game of baseball, and goes generally undetected.
So what? Those may -- or may not be -- differences between the two (mostly not), but how are they relevant differences? Why is the morality of so-called cheating dependent on how good one is at it, or where the acts take place?

And why do you not understand the "entire game of baseball"? PEDs, of course, are the essence of baseball: trying to maximize what one gets out of one's talent. That's not "subverting" anything.

Let's see - you support PED users because of legal technicalities and the incompetence of sports journalists?
"Legal technicalities" are what determine whether it's cheating.
   75. Dog on the sidewalk Posted: January 06, 2013 at 07:01 PM (#4340250)
But you're smarter than Mr. Wolf, Esoteric. I respectfully disagree with you, but you outlined a detailed argument without being pushed rather than popping in with "nyaaaaah cheaters" on every HOF thread. That is A-OK with me, even if PEDs just don't bother me.


This, more or less. What bothers me about Mr. Wolf isn't that he's anti-steroids. I disagree with him, but I don't get annoyed when Andy or Esoteric or someone argues against PEDs. This site is much better off with intelligent people arguing against the groupthink. However, if Wolf is intelligent, he does a superb job hiding it. Righteous indignation is his response to every topic (not just PEDs), with his range seemingly limited to inanity, stupidity, or a combination of the two.

I never thought JR Wolf was kevin. I assumed he was Joey B.
   76. Depressoteric Posted: January 06, 2013 at 07:02 PM (#4340251)
Point # 2 - The only fascism I see is the rumor mills that connect players to illegal substances without enough proof to get an indictment, let alone a conviction. The same rumor mills tied me to cocaine in the 80's and helped end my career. If there was a Mitchell report on cocaine use in the 80's, my name would have erroneously surfaced as a user due to my time with the Giants and Royals. Unless there is a positive test or admission, you are slandering and libeling people without hard fact. "The court of public opinion" is truly fascist
Leaving aside the "only fascism I see" introduction (which I don't necessarily endorse), I do want to end by pointing out that I strongly agree with the rest of this, which is why for my part I refuse to 'convict' (whatever that term means in the colloquial sense) players of being steroid users on the basis of nothing more than rumors. Even when I tend to believe that they actually DID juice. (Perfect example: Sosa. Put a gun to my head, and I'd tell you I think he was EXTREMELY likely to be a user, but in terms of the criteria that matter to me, that 'gut feeling' not only isn't enough, it's damn well IMMATERIAL.)

Hence my contempt for the Murray Chasses of the world, who would convict Mike Piazza on nothing more than "ZOMG I SAW BACNE IN THE MID-'90S." And also, hence my refusal to credit the persistent whispers about Bagwell: do I think there could well be something there? Yeah, my horse sense tells me there's a reasonably solid chance. But nothing that deserves to have any effect on his public reputation or his viability for the Hall of Fame!

Clemens, of course, is the big grey area case where this policy is tested. For example, Andy (who near as I can tell is roughly of the same POV as me on these matters) would say that the evidence against Clemens was sufficiently impeached that there aren't grounds to deny him admission to the HOF. I would weigh the evidence differently.

Without a doubt it's a messy (and subjective! life is not always simple and reducible to binarism!) process, and I think a properly humble approach acknowledges that reasonable people can reach reasonably different conclusions on cases like Clemens.
   77. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: January 06, 2013 at 07:16 PM (#4340257)
Without a doubt it's a messy (and subjective! life is not always simple and reducible to binarism!) process, and I think a properly humble approach acknowledges that reasonable people can reach reasonably different conclusions on cases like Clemens.


The why on earth would you defend the J.R. Wolfs of the world? They certainly don't grant that there can be any messiness or subjectivity. Clemens quacks like a duck (or something) so we must agree to burn him or we're all just a bunch of group-thinking apologists for those no-good cheating cheaters.
   78. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 06, 2013 at 07:18 PM (#4340260)
Sorry, that argument makes no sense. What's the difference between a "permanent" enhancement of performance and a "temporary" enhancement of performance that you use every game? What is the difference between a "temporary" enhancement via greenies and using PEDs to recover more quickly from injury?
It makes perfect sense, if you understand that the opinion predates the logic. If you start with the conclusions -- steroids are bad and amphetamines aren't -- then you need to find some distinction, no matter how irrelevant. See, steroids are yellow but amphetamines are green, so steroids are bad. Amphetamines wear off quicker than steroids, so therefore the former are okay and the latter aren't. No, there's no logical connection between the first half of the sentence and the second, but so what? We already know that the second half is true, so you can fill in the first half with anything you want.
   79. Lassus Posted: January 06, 2013 at 07:20 PM (#4340261)
Eso - Any thoughts on my #67?
   80. Depressoteric Posted: January 06, 2013 at 08:07 PM (#4340285)
David Nieporent is an amazing reader of minds.
   81. cardsfanboy Posted: January 06, 2013 at 08:21 PM (#4340310)
David Nieporent is an amazing reader of minds.


In some respects I agree with him on it. I understand the thinking that Roids is a different type of wrong than others and that it's tough to put a finger exactly on why, so then it seems that the logic follows and things that contradict that logic are not relevant.

I find it hard to imagine that someone first came up with the definition of how something like roids is wrong, and then managing to neatly fit roids into that definition. It has to follow that people first think of roids as wrong, and then work the logic into why it's wrong, there is no other way the thought process could have happened.
   82. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: January 06, 2013 at 08:32 PM (#4340328)
@cardsfanboy: Actually, I have. But if you want it again, here it is. There's two kinds of cheating, inside the lines and outside the lines. Both are bad but inside the line cheating - scuffing, greaseballing, etc. - takes place on the field and can be detected and punished by umps. Cheating outside the lines - taking bribes, betting on games, using PEDs - takes place off the field, is secret, premeditated, deliberate and is designed to subvert the entire game of baseball, and goes generally undetected.

Bribery and gambling and PEDs all work to destroy the basic concept of baseball: that it is a fair game of skill, the outcome of which is to be determined by talent and managerial decisions as impacted by chance. This is why the likes of the Black Sox and Pete Rose and [insert PED user of choice here] should never be enshrined by the game: they all did their best in their own ways to destroy it. Whereas Gaylord Perry, whom I don't approve of either, at least did what he did on the field in plain sight in the context of the game while trying to win games, not in secret in some lab or bookie parlor.


To which the only sensible reply is,

@cardsfanboy: Actually, I have. But if you want it again, here it is. There's two kinds of cheating, inside the lines and outside the lines. Both are bad but inside the line cheating - scuffing, greaseballing, etc. - takes place on the field and is all but impossible to detect by the umps. It's designed to subvert the entire game of baseball, and goes generally undetected.

Cheating outside the lines - taking bribes, betting on games, using PEDs - takes place off the field, away from the game, typically through suppliers, in front of witnesses, with paper trails, and not only does not interfere with the play by play, the soul of the game, but is much easier to catch.

Greaseballing, stealing signs, scuffing balls, and corked bats all work to destroy the basic concept of baseball: that it is a fair game of skill, the outcome of which is to be determined by talent and managerial decisions as impacted by chance. This is why the likes of Gaylord Perry and Don Drysdale should never be enshrined by the game; they all did their best in their own ways to destroy it. Whereas Barry Bonds, whom I don't approve of either, at least did what he did on the field in plain sight in the context of the game while trying to win games entirely by the rules, not in secret in some clubhouse, gluing sandpaper to his cap or sharpening the buckles on the straps of his shin guards.


--My point is obvious. You haven't made arguments, held together by reason. You've only made lists, held together by conjunctions; of what you like, here, and what you don't, over there.
   83. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: January 06, 2013 at 08:33 PM (#4340331)
I find it hard to imagine that someone first came up with the definition of how something like roids is wrong,

this
   84. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: January 06, 2013 at 08:39 PM (#4340332)
soteric---good points, and about the only rational argument ever put forth on what is the difference. Mind you I think you are wrong in saying that amps doesn't alter the baseline. I honestly think they do, they increase a persons ability to concentrate, and sharpen focus beyond what they normally do. Give amps to someone who is 100% alert and awake, and it still does something, so that shows some form of improvement, and unlike roids, the person taking them didn't have to do anything other than pop a pill.


It's hairsplitting without a difference, though. What difference does it make if it alters the baseline permanently, versus altering the baseline from 7pm through midnight? It makes no difference in performance, it makes no difference to the competition, to the record books, to the outcome of games.

Assuming night games, I see no appreciable difference between

Amps: boost performance 7pm to midnight.
PEDS: boost performance 7pm to midnight, and midnight to 7 pm.

That makes no difference to what matters, which is what happens on the field.
   85. cardsfanboy Posted: January 06, 2013 at 08:42 PM (#4340333)
this


Isn't that an example of someone deciding it's wrong, and then trying to come up with a definition to match?
   86. cardsfanboy Posted: January 06, 2013 at 08:47 PM (#4340338)
Amps: boost performance 7pm to midnight.
PEDS: boost performance 7pm to midnight, and midnight to 7 pm.


They aren't arguing that it boosts performance, they are arguing that it(Roids...sorry but calling it ped's clouds the issues, so I use roids for all peds that anti-ped people are referring to) exceeds the max capabilities of the athlete. Otherwords, if the player is only capable of lifting 400 pounds, roids make them capable of lifting 500 pounds. Meanwhile all amps do is return you to your actual peak ability. If you can swing the bat at 100mph, but because you are tired you are swinging at 90 mph, amps return you to that 100 mph ability. (note using these numbers for shorthand, the 100mph could be taken as your overall skill to recognize a pitch and make contact, so a combination of reaction, alertness etc)


It's a logical argument. I don't agree with it, as I honestly think that amps actually do allow you to exceed your ability, but it's still a logical argument from anti-roiders point of view.
   87. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: January 06, 2013 at 08:47 PM (#4340339)
this
Isn't that an example of someone deciding it's wrong, and then trying to come up with a definition to match?


it is THE reason that the steroid mania started--anyone who disagrees wasn't paying attention
   88. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: January 06, 2013 at 08:55 PM (#4340343)
it is THE reason that the steroid mania started--anyone who disagrees wasn't paying attention


Well, sure, but then that wasn't really the best illustration of your point. A head shot would have been more apt.

Personally, I'd have just posted: 73

EDIT: and of course, Andy would have said 73*
   89. smileyy Posted: January 06, 2013 at 09:05 PM (#4340349)
It's a logical argument. I don't agree with it, as I honestly think that amps actually do allow you to exceed your ability, but it's still a logical argument from anti-roiders point of view.


The mistaken assumption that jumps out at me is that an athlete has some sort of fixed natural performance level. "Potential performance level" varies with physical condition, and lots of things allow a player to affect that performance level.
   90. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: January 06, 2013 at 09:20 PM (#4340356)
It's a logical argument. I don't agree with it, as I honestly think that amps actually do allow you to exceed your ability, but it's still a logical argument from anti-roiders point of view.


Thanks for the summary, cfb. I will mull it over.

Just as background, fwiw, I came to this a few months ago with "hey, it's cheating. That's pretty simple. Cheaters shouldn't prosper, especially since baseball is essentially a zero-sum game." Reading (and staying out of most of) the threads here have moved me tentatively into the "It's unfortunate, but PEDS haven't always been against the rules; amps were a common thing, once; cheating throughout baseball history is very, very common."

   91. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: January 06, 2013 at 09:32 PM (#4340361)
Personally, I'd have just posted: 73

EDIT: and of course, Andy would have said 73*


Only on the Ecko ball, not in any record book. Sublime performance art shouldn't be mistaken for statistics, and passing judgment on the moral validity of a feat isn't the same as denying that feat's existence---as difficult a distinction as that may be to grasp.
   92. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: January 06, 2013 at 09:45 PM (#4340367)
I meant the asterisk to be a personal one; not to imply that you would impose your moral judgment on the record book. Still, in the context that jmac raised, wouldn't you agree that 73* does a fairly good job of capturing the starting point of the mass furor over the PED issue? It wasn't just that the record was broken, it was the fact that in 2001 (unlike 1998) a significant chunk of people were suspicious of what they were witnessing.
   93. SoSH U at work Posted: January 06, 2013 at 09:56 PM (#4340369)
Still, in the context that jmac raised, wouldn't you agree that 73* does a fairly good job of capturing the starting point of the mass furor over the PED issue? It wasn't just that the record was broken, it was the fact that in 2001 (unlike 1998) a significant chunk of people were suspicious of what they were witnessing.


Actually, Kiko has laid out a pretty compelling case how the steroids in baseball timeline doesn't involve Bonds much, if at all. Sadly, it has generally been refuted by the evidence-free but apparently strong argument, 'but you know it was REALLY about Bonds."

It's probably not worth rehashing.
   94. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: January 06, 2013 at 10:08 PM (#4340375)
It wasn't just that the record was broken, it was the fact that in 2001 (unlike 1998) a significant chunk of people were suspicious of what they were witnessing.

Not at the time, at least not to hear the contemporary media tell it. The Associated Press article was typical, not even alluding to PEDs and making a single mention of Bonds having "eventually bulked up." The other coverage also mentioned nothing. The less enthusiastic reaction was because Bonds was much more disliked than McGwire, and because of "history fatigue" just three years later. The press proved they didn't have their heads in the sand by not writing about opposing players "giggling" at Bonds' batting practices, and not writing love letters to Bonds' muscles or hugging his son at home plate.
   95. J.R. Wolf Posted: January 06, 2013 at 10:09 PM (#4340376)
Man, you guys are funny: is personal insults and hairsplitting really all that you have?

You are totally pro-PED users. I get it. You have too much invested in that to ever admit that you are wrong, so you spilt hairs.

You do realize that (1) you are a minority - not here, but in all the places that matter - and that (2) you are defending grossly immoral acts?

Laugh at me all you want, but I'm not only part of the greater majority but I'm on the side of the angels, and I'm not talking about Anaheim.

So snark some more and throw some more insults (they don't do anything but make me laugh) so that you feel better about your bad moral position and don't think too hard about what side you're actually on.

And the arrogant idea that no one new ever wanders in here is just hysterical. Everyone must be someone who was here before! Actually, new people do wander in, but given the nature of this place it's easy to see why they'd wander out quickly, too.
   96. robinred Posted: January 06, 2013 at 10:09 PM (#4340377)
At SoSH: Probably not, but while there would have been a steroids issue in baseball if Bonds had retired in 1999, there is little doubt in my mind that the intensity of the backlash was fueled for many based on how they feel about Bonds, if for no other reason than Bonds=eyeballs and that always activates the media. As to "evidence" for this, one small piece is the amount of bandwidth devoted to Bonds here. Add that to Pearlman, Game of Shadows, the Ecko Ball, any number of announcers/bloggers who went off on Bonds etc. etc. etc...it is clear that some of this was and is very much "about Bonds", who is one of the most polarizing and talked-about athletes in the history of sports. That is a big part of this story.

   97. AJMcCringleberry Posted: January 06, 2013 at 10:10 PM (#4340378)
No one would care about steroids if they were legal, so can we just get to work on legalizing them?
   98. AJMcCringleberry Posted: January 06, 2013 at 10:12 PM (#4340379)
You are totally pro-PED users. I get it. You have too much invested in that to ever admit that you are wrong, so you spilt hairs.

Agreed, all these pro-amp guys are just ridiculous.
   99. smileyy Posted: January 06, 2013 at 10:14 PM (#4340382)
[97] I'm not sure why performance enhancement, under the guidance of a certified physician, isn't a legal thing. I'd think that medical ethics would keep "performance enhancement" from being applied to minors, which would be a joke, but my guess is that its partially a joke already.

There's an argument that cost would then differentiate haves from have-not's, but that's already happening in sports development anyway, isn't it? No one seemed to care about that during the Olympics (last time I paid attention to them), that's for sure.

Edit: I mean, there's plenty of experimental "rehabilitative" therapy going on (see Kobe, Bynum knee-magic stuff). Again, I don't know that you can draw that line between rehabilitative and enhancing treatment is.

I guess at the end, its all subjective, with one limit point being a sprinter voluntarily amputating their legs for "blades" that are better at sprinting than their natural legs. But to say that there's a clear, fixed, moral line between rehabilitation, risky rehabilitation, enhancement and risky enhancement seems clearly incorrect to me.
   100. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: January 06, 2013 at 10:26 PM (#4340389)
On that team I would say that Kaat and Orta clearly had better seasons, arguably Downing and maybe even Wood....

OK, this was 80+ posts ago and the thread has swerved a bit. But here is Wilbur Wood's 1975 with Goose Gossage's 1975 removed:

149.2 IP, 210 H, 116 R, 104 ER, 23 HR, 22 BB, 10 K, ERA 6.25, ERA+ 62.

That's quite horrible. Kaat-Gossage (162 IP of 4.22 ERA, good for an ERA+ of 93) is at least worth talking about; Kaat is probably ahead if you don't believe in accounting for leverage.
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Randy Jones
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogMark Teixeira says blame aging for extended absences
(1 - 2:35am, Jul 29)
Last: Bhaakon

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 7-28
(66 - 2:25am, Jul 29)
Last: if nature called, ladodger34 would listen

NewsblogFormer OF Jason Lane takes loss in first start
(27 - 2:15am, Jul 29)
Last: Bhaakon

NewsblogHall of Fame Announces Changes to Voting Process for Recently Retired Players, Effective Immediately
(101 - 2:07am, Jul 29)
Last: Squash

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread- July 2014
(1006 - 1:56am, Jul 29)
Last: clowns to the left of me; STEAGLES to the right

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread July, 2014
(463 - 12:46am, Jul 29)
Last: puck

NewsblogDmitri Young explains his amazing weight loss
(33 - 12:40am, Jul 29)
Last: PreservedFish

Newsblog2014 Prospect Watch | MLB.com: UPDATED
(21 - 12:28am, Jul 29)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogESPN: Yankee Fan Returns Lost Red Sox World Series Ring
(24 - 12:27am, Jul 29)
Last: catomi01

NewsblogOTP - July 2014: Republicans Lose To Democrats For Sixth Straight Year In Congressional Baseball Game
(3443 - 12:24am, Jul 29)
Last: Ray (RDP)

NewsblogGossage on Bonds, McGwire Hall hopes: ‘Are you f–king kidding?’
(129 - 11:13pm, Jul 28)
Last: SoSHially Unacceptable

NewsblogBarney + cash to Dodgers for PTBNL
(9 - 11:05pm, Jul 28)
Last: Spahn Insane

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1956 Ballot
(8 - 10:50pm, Jul 28)
Last: Tubbs & Minnie Miñoso don't fear Sid Monge

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 7-28-2014
(48 - 10:19pm, Jul 28)
Last: Eric J can SABER all he wants to

NewsblogDodgers and Diamondbacks Triple-A teams involved in wild brawl
(25 - 7:47pm, Jul 28)
Last: Bhaakon

Page rendered in 0.9474 seconds
52 querie(s) executed