Fair enough. But I would let them ALL in.

The honest, peak-performers like Maris AND the super-roiders.

If there's a reason to be in an exhibit, then there's a reason to be in the Hall.

Plus would head off riots if people don't have to traips all the way down the hall only to discover Bond's special balls are invisible.

I ran one of my "OPS+ peers" lists for Roger Maris: this one shows players in a 20-point range of OPS+ and a 2000-PA range around Maris at the center. (Fred Clarke appears at the very top of the list because it cuts off at 1901; he's not comparable in any way.) There are two other guys who made the HOF as players: Ross Youngs and Chick Hafey, both of whom had the Frisch effect going for them, and Youngs also gets sympathy credit. Actually Chick Hafey is a good true comp for Maris: a hell of a hitter on some pennant-winners, but nowhere near the career length or durability one associates with a Hallworthy.

"only to discover Bond's special balls are invisible."

Is that one of the side effects?

Yea, they used their greenies and what not, but it was the roids that evidently worked.

I don't understand the assumption that greenies didn't work. There were players in the 60s and 70s generation who were linked to greenies and broke very well-known records, too.

My ten as a kid in Pittsburgh/Raleigh/Champaign as taught by my mother:

1. Joe Jackson
2. Babe Ruth
3. Josh Gibson
4. Oh
5. Dihigo
6. Wagner
7. 3 Finger Brown
8. J. Robinson
9. Clemente
10. Banks
11. Koufax
12. Cy Young

Reading the thread, I'm thinking that it helps one's baseball knowledge to have Chicago ties where we have to branch out since our all-time greats suck.

Joe Orsulak? The hell do you teach a kid about him?

If you weren't an Os fan in the late 80s/early 90s, you wouldn't understand.

My ten as a kid in Pittsburgh/Raleigh/Champaign as taught by my mother:

1. Joe Jackson
3. Josh Gibson
4. Oh
5. Dihigo

I hesitate ever to write a post in which I reference anybody's mother. But in this case, I just gotta say, this mother was not the norm.

Reading the thread, I'm thinking that it helps one's baseball knowledge to have Chicago ties where we have to branch out since our all-time greats suck.

and reading this thread has shown me that Gehrig was not always considered a necessary part of ones early baseball education.

of course my point was that this guy was implying that if you only heard of three players who's legacy is bigger than the game, it was Ruth, Gehrig and Maris, which was my problem. As mentioned many times on here, Jackie Robinson probably belongs in that group and depending on where you grew up the list is going to be different for each and everyone, with Ruth being probably the only common (although I always assumed that Cobb and Cy Young would also be on that list)

100. Bob Dernier Cri Posted: November 08, 2009 at 10:43 AM (#3382286)
bump

By all means, let's bump this thread beyond Gehrig and 'roids.

Dan, if you want to pretend that I'm one of these "lynchers" you're forever making reference to, why don't you spell out some examples of where I've been doing the "lynching." Your definition of the word is pretty broad if you're applying it to anyone who simply doesn't want known steroid users in the Hall of Fame, because that's the full extent of what I've ever said on the subject for the past five years.

Well, no, not exactly. You've also provided discourse on what makes someone a "known steroid user," which was the actual point of Dan's post.

You're probably confusing me with people who speculate about cap sizes and "steroid eras" in order to tar various individuals, but that's your problem and not mine.

Or saying "I'm not here to talk about the past," or having someone else not testifying against the player, or any other of a million non-points.

Dan, if you want to pretend that I'm one of these "lynchers" you're forever making reference to, why don't you spell out some examples of where I've been doing the "lynching." Your definition of the word is pretty broad if you're applying it to anyone who simply doesn't want known steroid users in the Hall of Fame, because that's the full extent of what I've ever said on the subject for the past five years.

Well, no, not exactly. You've also provided discourse on what makes someone a "known steroid user," which was the actual point of Dan's post.

Or saying "I'm not here to talk about the past," or having someone else not testifying against the player, or any other of a million non-points.

Yeah, I'm just a lyncher who sees specific accusations in a book, none of which he ever refuted, plus a refusal to deny steroid use under oath, as being a tad more incriminating than the sort of crap that Dan was throwing out about Maris, none of which had anything to do with Maris to begin with.

If someone accuses you of something, and not only don't you deny it, but you also duck the question when it's presented to you under oath, that's one thing. But if someone says that you merely inhabited the Earth at the same time that bad things were going on in the world, and that therefore you might have been among those who were doing these bad things, and that therefore you're in the same category as the first example----and if furthermore you'd been dead for 24 years and couldn't even defend yourself, that's a bit different. Most people can understand that difference, though apparently not you and Dan.

OTOH you're right about "Jolting Joe" Orsulak (as Jon Miller used to call him), though I guess you did have to be there to appreciate what made him so special.

But if someone says that you merely inhabited the Earth at the same time that bad things were going on in the world,

Actually, Dan provided a specific statistical spike of exactly the sort cited as evidence with those other people, along with physical problems of the sort cited as evidence with those other people.

EDIT: Of course, what you know -- though you're pretending not to -- is that Dan isn't actually accusing Maris, but pointing out that the accusations against players today are so flimsy that they can be used to accuse Maris.

There's actually some circumstantial evidence other than the statistics to indicate that Maris was a user. Steroid use can rapidly accelerate balding in men who have pattern baldness-- Maris lost much of his hair in 1961.

Coincidence? Perhaps. But its a lot more physical circumstantial evidence than what we had for a lot of the guys who turned out to be users, like Sosa. And it's not like Maris didn't put on a shitload of muscle: He went from this to this in 3 seasons.

But if someone says that you merely inhabited the Earth at the same time that bad things were going on in the world,

Actually, Dan provided a specific statistical spike of exactly the sort cited as evidence with those other people, along with physical problems of the sort cited as evidence with those other people.

Not "cited" by me, David. Whom have I accused solely on the basis of physical problems or statistical spikes?

In fact for every player I've accused of being a juicer, you have Dan have cast innuendo against far many more. The only difference is that when I think a player juiced, I'll say so, but otherwise I'll say nothing. Whereas you and Dan feel free to throw out crap against any player who pops into your head, as long as you qualify it by saying that it's not really an accusation, only some sort of statistical possibility.

Here's a suggestion: If you think that any specific player juiced, say so. Otherwise, give it a rest. It'll make the both of you seem a lot less smarmy.

EDIT: Of course, what you know -- though you're pretending not to -- is that Dan isn't actually accusing Maris, but pointing out that the accusations against players today are so flimsy that they can be used to accuse Maris.

Of course I know that, and I've already said it (in #97), but don't let that stop you. For someone who's so sensitive to being compared to Ayn Rand, you (and Dan) sure seem to confuse a lot of people with Kevin.

bump

Joe Orsulak? The hell do you teach a kid about him?

If you weren't an Os fan in the late 80s/early 90s, you wouldn't understand.

I wasn't an O's fan in that era (nor am I now), but I knew a guy in college (early 90s) who grew up in Baltimore. He modeled his batting stance after Orsulak. My understanding is that Orsulak was pretty popular among O's fans.

As a Red Sox fan I loved Todd Benzinger from that era.

I think in the long-run David, Andy et al. would save themselves a lot of time if they just came up with a lettering scheme for their arguments. So "A" could be "it's the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Merit", "B" could be "there's no evidence than steroids enhance performance more than greenies", and so on.

Then it could be like Pokemon or that Yugioh (sp).

"I play argument G!"
"I counter with Pikachu Retort D1!"

Of course I know that, and I've already said it (in #97), but don't let that stop you. For someone who's so sensitive to being compared to Ayn Rand, you (and Dan) sure seem to confuse a lot of people with Kevin.

Your post #97 doesn't say anything of the kind. It rants about Dan unfairly accusing Maris.

I think in the long-run David, Andy et al. would save themselves a lot of time if they just came up with a lettering scheme for their arguments. So "A" could be "it's the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Merit", "B" could be "there's no evidence than steroids enhance performance more than greenies", and so on.

"Well, in response to that, Argument B!"
"We've heard that one before."

You're probably confusing me with people who speculate about cap sizes and "steroid eras" in order to tar various individuals, but that's your problem and not mine.

Your whimsy is no more valid than anyone else's.

I think in the long-run David, Andy et al. would save themselves a lot of time if they just came up with a lettering scheme for their arguments. So "A" could be "it's the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Merit", "B" could be "there's no evidence than steroids enhance performance more than greenies", and so on.

Hey, that works for me. Not that there's anything wrong with endless nuclear arms races, mind you.

This thread is like a free IQ test. If you actually think Szymborski was accusing Maris of using steroids, you probably don't have a room-temperature IQ.

This thread is like a free IQ test. If you actually think Szymborski was accusing Maris of using steroids, you probably don't have a room-temperature IQ.

And if you actually think that I believed that he was, you're getting into cryogenics territory.

I hesitate ever to write a post in which I reference anybody's mother. But in this case, I just gotta say, this mother was not the norm.

That's the tip of the iceberg. She's a rare one. Insofar as the player choices, I would wager that her experience as the only female and only Asian American on the sandlot probably affected who she admired.

And if you actually think that I believed that he was, you're getting into cryogenics territory.

From your post #97:

Which is absurd, but no more absurd than your fantasies about fetishes for the 60's and Roger Maris's steroids. I'd love to hear you repeat this gibberish to members of Maris's family, and let you explain to them how you didn't really mean it. It would make for a fascinating dialogue.

What would he have to explain to them, if you don't think he accused Maris of using steroids? How would that dialogue go? "I didn't really mean it when I didn't accuse Maris of using steroids?"

What's up E-X?

Robinred, you are off topic.

Gehrig was not always considered a necessary part of ones early baseball education.

And neither was Musial. Then again, I could never understand why anyone would root for a guy who shirked his obligation to fight for his country, so he could inflate his stats against inferior competition.

Talk about second tier. Try second rate.

Robinred, you are off topic

Sorry. How's this: My dad didn't teach me about Gehrig because Gehrig was probably on steroids.

And if you actually think that I believed that he was, you're getting into cryogenics territory.

From your post #97:

Which is absurd, but no more absurd than your fantasies about fetishes for the 60's and Roger Maris's steroids. I'd love to hear you repeat this gibberish to members of Maris's family, and let you explain to them how you didn't really mean it. It would make for a fascinating dialogue.

What would he have to explain to them, if you don't think he accused Maris of using steroids? How would that dialogue go? "I didn't really mean it when I didn't accuse Maris of using steroids?"

Well, he might start by saying something along the lines of, "Hi, Maris family! Mind if I run this by you?"

Going by the arguments of the steroid lynchers, we have absolutely no reason to consider Maris to not have been on steroids.

- Went from 16-to-39-to-61 home runs.
- Dramatic improvement in power was immediately after Dianabol, the first widely available steroid, was introduced.
- Broke down physically, done as a full-timer by his 30th birthday.
- Flipped off the fans and generally became hostile to the point where the Yankees questioned his courage and the media turned against him.
- Died very early from cancer.
- Was never tested for steroid use.

And then,

Are all those facts not true?

Dan could then explain to the Maris family that he was only saying this to group together Maris with Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire as fellow "lynching victims," and not to actually accuse Maris of anything.

I'm sure that the Maris family would appreciate the comparison to real life juicers. As I said, it would make for a fascinating dialogue.

He could also explain to the Maris family that if Maris had taken steroids, then he (Dan) would have bravely defended him, because in that case Maris would have been a certified "lynching victim" himself, as opposed to a hypothetical one. That would undoubtedly make the Maris family feel even more like inviting Dan out for a night on the town. And it sure as hell would make me want to be the fly on the wall.

I'm sure that the Maris family would appreciate the comparison to real life juicers.

Huh? Forget Bonds, what do you know about McGwire that I don't?

I'm sure that the Maris family would appreciate the comparison to real life juicers.

Huh? Forget Bonds, what do you know about McGwire that I don't?

No more than you or anyone else does, I imagine. We just draw different conclusions from what we both know. But he's free to add to our knowledge any time he so wishes. That's up to him. In any case, I wish him luck as a batting coach.

And needless to say, even if you take McGwire's silence as nothing more than nothing, you surely can't be comparing the totality of his saga to the "case" against Roger Maris, who nobody in their right mind has ever once suggested took steroids.

What's up E-X?

Just gearing up for the next round of battles over school closings. The difference this year is that there's new data showing that anything except a community based turnaround (charter/outside organization, etc.) shows no improvement in addition to disrupting the kids. Those in charge won't care, but it will yield some weight to toss around in the public discourse.

Otherwise, things are good. I'm doing a lot of policy work this year in addition to the teaching. It's a fun time.

Hope you are well. You in the new gig now?

You in the new gig now?

Yes. It is going very, very well, but the budget issues will be a concern down the line. Maybe I will test the Chicago market for creative basic education instructors in 2011...

you surely can't be comparing the totality of his saga to the "case" against Roger Maris, who nobody in their right mind has ever once suggested took steroids.

Of course not. However, the last few opium dens were still operating when Maris was an active player. Prove -- if you can-- that he wasn't a huge dragon-chaser.

And needless to say, even if you take McGwire's silence as nothing more than nothing, you surely can't be comparing the totality of his saga to the "case" against Roger Maris, who nobody in their right mind has ever once suggested took steroids.

No, but I fail to see how someone could morally disapprove of the notion of suggesting Maris might have done them as a argumentation device but then flat-out call McGwire a "real life juicer". I think you're overreacting to Dan's Maris usage, but in principle I agree with your feelings on that. I do not, however, see how that's consistent with your statement about McGwire.

Well, I am definitely convinced Gehrig is a hall of famer.

I am pretty much unswayed by the argument that Maris was a juicer (just kidding Dan!... although that was a hell of a strawman)... but I don't really care if he was or wasn't.

Andy, you are an idiot sometimes. You could have just said only idiots use that kind of argument to accuse people of steroid use. And while railing against idiots is satisfying (and a BBTF tradition) it's not very purposeful.

But you flipped out about Maris' family and what not.

Well, he might start by saying something along the lines of, "Hi, Maris family! Mind if I run this by you?"

Going by the arguments of the steroid lynchers, we have absolutely no reason to consider Maris to not have been on steroids.

Andy, do you see the "Going by the arguments of the steroid lynchers" there?

Well, he might start by saying something along the lines of, "Hi, Maris family! Mind if I run this by you?"

Going by the arguments of the steroid lynchers, we have absolutely no reason to consider Maris to not have been on steroids.

Andy, do you see the "Going by the arguments of the steroid lynchers" there?

Of course I did, and again, I've never said that Dan was directly accusing Maris. All his little puddle of "facts" amounts to is one more "slippery slope" argument: If you dismiss the "evidence" against Maris (which of course he does, since he's not a wacko, merely a Sophist), then somehow you're equally obliged to dismiss the evidence against McGwire and / or Bonds. And if you don't find all of them equally innocent, then you become a "steroid lyncher," presumably with a "double standard" brought upon by some sort of 60's fetish.

First "slavery," then "gunpoint," and now "lynchers." Dan really loves to get our attention, doesn't he? Has he ever considered applying for a clerkship with Clarence Thomas?

BTW, I nominate the "why don't you explain it to his family?" for Worst. Argument. Ever.

Ev-AH.

Duly noted, Ray. My nominees would be any argument that uses "slavery," "gunpoint," or "steroid lynchers." But maybe I'm just jealous of all that Grade A whimsy.

I can't believe you guys still get into these discussions with St. Dick.

If you dismiss the "evidence" against Maris (which of course he does, since he's not a wacko, merely a Sophist), then somehow you're equally obliged to dismiss the evidence against McGwire and / or Bonds. And if you don't find all of them equally innocent, then you become a "steroid lyncher," presumably with a "double standard" brought upon by some sort of 60's fetish.

The concept is this, at least as far as I see it. Players have been smeared and branded as steroids users with such a low -- and incoherent -- standard of evidence that it becomes impossible to dismiss such "evidence" against Player A but not against Player B. It becomes impossible not to brand them all "juicers" under this standard.

Examples:

"Just look at him!"
"He hit a lot of home runs!"
"He had a home run spike!"
"He was injured a lot!"
"He was durable!"
"He had a short career!"
"He had a long career!"
"He burned out early!"
"He peaked late!"
"His trainer refused to testify!"
"He told Congress he wasn't here to talk about the past!"
"He was never tested!"

How are the Maris arguments Dan presented any different from what scores of other players have been accused and convicted on? Including some of the arguments you have made, e.g., pretending that the only reason Anderson could possibly have refused to testify is that he knew Bonds to be guilty.

Perhaps in all of this what I understand the least is the equating of both short and long careers with steroids.

Vaux, the one that is most hilarious to me -- in a long line of candidates - is that both (1) being durable and (2) being injury prone are alternatively cited as evidence of steroid use, as needed.

Although the "just look at him!" catch-all is beyond comical as well. Love how that former federal agent, for all his technical expertise, trotted that one out a couple weeks ago against McGwire.

How are the Maris arguments Dan presented any different from what scores of other players have been accused and convicted on?

Accused, sure, but "convicted"? When was that?

(Oh, wait, I forget that to you, not being elected to the Hall of Fame is the near equivalent of the death penalty. Oh, the humanity! Where is the outrage?)

How are the Maris arguments Dan presented any different from what scores of other players have been accused and convicted on? Including some of the arguments you have made, e.g., pretending that the only reason Anderson could possibly have refused to testify is that he knew Bonds to be guilty.

Yes, Ray, that sort of inference is no different than most of those other straw horses you trot out. But in your world, someone who raises an eyebrow at Greg Anderson's or Mark McGwire's silence is no different from someone who talks about cap sizes, or from someone who raises the vital point that steroids were around in 1961. Your mindset is totally that of a defense lawyer, and I'm only glad that this mindset is a distinct minority (at least for now) among the only voters whose opinions count.

Accused, sure, but "convicted"? When was that?

It was when the accusation alone sufficed as proof.

And players weren't allowed to dare claim that they were innocent. That, of course, would only be further proof of guilt. As if any more were needed.

Not to mention Gehrig had two upper upper tier nicknames. The Iron Horse is fantastic, but Biscuit Pants might be the best nickname of any top tier baseball player.

Couldn't agree more!!!

Growing up in Chicago and being a fan of the NL I still found Gehrig as my favorite "old timer" with Banks coming in a close second.

At 11 years old I would love telling people my projections of what Gehrig would have done if he did not have his career shortened. If my conservative projections that I did for him at 11 held true we would be debating whether or not Gehrig invented Steroids.

My dad didn't teach me about Gehrig because Gehrig was probably on steroids

Some parts of Dan's argument about Maris can obviously be applied to Gehrig too.

Take Clemens:

* You're in the Mitchell Report? Guilty.
* Your ex-trainer pointed the finger at you (except when he didn't)? Guilty.
* Your ex-trainer is a self-confessed liar? Guilty.
* You put out a statement denying what was in the MR? Guilty.
* You put out a video denying what was in the MR? Guilty.
* You agreed to be interviewed by Mike Wallace? Guilty.
* You sued your ex-trainer for defamation? Guilty.
* You agreed to be interviewed by reporters in a press conference? Guilty.
* You testified under oath? Guilty.

Andy most certainly has argued that "spike seasons" are an indicator of PED usage.

To follow up on my #151, it is not being intellectually dishonest to read the Mitchell Report and conclude that Clemens is guilty, and that everything that followed didn't serve to persuade you otherwise. No, the lie comes in pretending that the next steps *would* serve to improve Clemens's situation, and then when he takes them, asserting that they do nothing to help improve his situation (and, in some cases, asserting that some of the steps -- such as suing McNamee or testifying under oath -- further show his guilt because now he is "stonewalling").

And I thought the argument that McGwire should be in and Maris out (or whatever) were based on their performance on the field.

And I thought the argument that McGwire should be in and Maris out (or whatever) were based on their performance on the field.

There is no rational argument that McGwire is not a deserving HOFer absent the steroids issue, or that he wouldn't have been voted in.

(Getting interrupted.) To follow up on my #155, at worst Clean McGwire is Sandy Koufax. And nobody suggests that Koufax is not a HOFer.

Accused, sure, but "convicted"? When was that?

It was when the accusation alone sufficed as proof.

Fine, but that hardly applies to what I've ever said. Some people see cap sizes and / or spike seasons / etc. ALONE as sufficient evidence. Have I ever done that? No---and you know I haven't.

Prior to BALCO, did I ever claim that Bonds juiced? Prior to his testimony (or lack of it), did I say that about McGwire? No and no.

Prior to the news about Sosa's positive test, did I ever once say that Sosa was a juicer? No. Do I make random speculations about other "suspicious" players? No. Only the "steroid era" people engage in that. I never have.

At the other end of the spectrum, others accept only test results or outright confession as sufficient evidence. You fall into that category, and in terms of how baseball should deal with a player, I completely agree. I'm not calling for retroactive punishments doled out by the commissioner's office, and never have.

All I've said is that a Hall of Fame voter should consider the totality of the evidence introduced against any particular player---testimony by teammates, government officials, test results, etc.---and try to come to a reasonable conclusion in their minds as to whether or not the player in question was juicing.

And if he concludes that the player in question has juiced, then that writer should weigh that conclusion against other factors---his assessment of how widespread steroid use was; his personal views on PEDs; etc.---and vote accordingly. This final stage is not anything that can be decided "objectively," since all of us are going to bring our "biases" to bear on our final vote.

Of course I've personally stated that my own vote on such a player would be "No." But I've also stated that if 75% of the writers disagreed, I'd respect that judgment. All that really matters to me is that the writers give the issue serious consideration and vote their consciences. IMO that's all that anyone can rightfully ask of them.

And if that makes me a "steroid lyncher" in your eyes, then all I can say is that you've got a pretty broad definition of that term.

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

Andy most certainly has argued that "spike seasons" are an indicator of PED usage.

But only in conjunction with other indicators (teammate testimony, for example), and not by themselves.

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

There is no rational argument that McGwire is not a deserving HOFer absent the steroids issue, or that he wouldn't have been voted in.

Well, at least we agree 100% on that. Other than the steroid issue, he's a slam dunk first ballot inductee. And I wouldn't disagree with your Koufax comparison.