Seriously, does the media realize they have done more to promote steroid use than anyone else?

"Hey kids, you can become super famous and make hundreds of millions of dollars by taking this magic pill. But don't do it."

Chicks dig the long ball, but fat old white dudes will scream till they're blue in the face about it.

And Bill Clinton's infidelity ruined monogamous Al Gore's presidential campaign.

Hey--I never took steroids either, so vote for me

McGriff enjoyed a dramatic career resurgence when he teamed up with Canseco in 1999, reversing years of decline. In fact, all of the Devil Rays veteran regulars saw performance improvement that year.

I think Shelton has a point for those who believe that PED use = cheating whether McGriff ever used them or not. But is is nonquantifiable, doesn't change the fact that he was never a dominant player and probably doesn't get him any extra votes.

I blame the Tom Emanski commercials for his lack of Hall of Fame votes. As Craig Calcaterra wrote earlier this year, perhaps some of these kids in the camp used illegal PED's to win those back-to back-to back titles?

I think McGriff's clean image may be what helps him eventually get in, if not the fact that he's tied on the home run list with Lou Gehrig.

Also, I wrote something recently on the Hall of Fame candidacy of Don Mattingly, and I noted that the Veterans Committee historically has a better than 50 percent hit rate on enshrining players who peak between 20 and 30 percent of the BBWAA vote.

I don't know if I see McGriff getting in with the writers but he seems like the kind of candidate the Veterans Committee is designed for.

Was Eddie Murray really that much better than Fred McGriff?

The answer is yes.

McGriff got cheated, but not by steroids. Absent the strike/lockout, he sails past 500 HR. And whatever people here think about round number milestones, the fact is that he'd have debuted with a vote total pretty close to Barry Larkin's and would be well on his way to election if he'd hit 514 instead of 493.

OTOH, his 1994 HR total would stick out like a sore thumb if it had been a full season. Wonder what guys like Shelton would write about that?

I wonder if McGriff also gets hurt by not playing the majority of his career for one club, or even two clubs.

McGriff enjoyed a dramatic career resurgence when he teamed up with Canseco in 1999, reversing years of decline.

This is very true.

I think Shelton's playing a doubly stupid game here. First, he assumes McGriff was clean, for no other apparent reason than to get a column out of it. Sure, McGriff didn't have "cartoon biceps" but of course neither did Palmeiro, and neither did a lot of the no-name guys who have actually been suspended for PED use. The reason that he gives is that "he never had a season where his numbers spiked sharply" and "when he was at an age when his numbers should have fallen off, McGriff's fell off." But that's ignoring that 1999 season when he was 35, and his SLG jumped 100 points over what it had been the previous two seasons. Then after average year, his power spiked again in 2001, at age 37. I'm absolutely not suggesting that he was using; I'm just saying that I get annoyed when writers arbitrarily pick and choose who was and wasn't clean. Especially when, as in this case, the player doesn't even fit the criteria that the writer arbitrarily made up to "prove" that he was clean.

Second, he writes that the PED users "conspired to make his numbers look small." But McGriff's numbers really only look small if you have no way of putting them in context. McGriff's prime was in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when he was in the top 5 in adjusted OPS+ for 5 straight years and 6 of 7 (between 1988 and 1994), and that one other year outside of the top 5, he finished 6th. He was, simply, one of the game's dominant hitters during the prime of his career. But comparing him to Bonds, Sosa, and McGwire will of course make his numbers look small, because all those guys put up their enormous numbers in the late 1990s and early 2000s, when McGriff was already in his mid 30s and in his decline.

Its not too late for him to start using steroids.

"he never had a season where his numbers spiked sharply"

Except that he did have a season where the only number that matters to steroids crusaders spiked sharply. It's just masked by the fact that that season was shortened by a work stoppage. And don't waste your time with that tired stuff about a league-wide jump in offense that must have been the result of multiple factors. They don't want to hear it.

all of the Devil Rays veteran regulars saw performance improvement that year (1999).

A chart showing this:

I was friends with a bunch of kids who went to a pretty ritzy high school in Portland, Oregon, and they told me of at least a few kids with athletic dreams and too much money to spend taking steroids just to make it into their football team. Baseball writers have done wonders to the youth of America, I tell you. Also, #### Jesuit.

15: I guess that makes Jose Canseco the anti- Dick Allen. He made his teammates better!

17: Jose Canseco: Lifetime MVP Award?

Jose Canseco embiggened them all.

Well if he got dirty more often he might have been more gritty and clutch.

He was, simply, one of the game's dominant hitters during the prime of his career. But comparing him to Bonds, Sosa, and McGwire will of course make his numbers look small, because all those guys put up their enormous numbers in the late 1990s and early 2000s, when McGriff was already in his mid 30s and in his decline.

Well ... yeah. You just made the columnist's point for him. Crime Dog was one of the best hitters in the game for a nice spell and his numbers were made to look small(er) by the numbers put by guys in the heart of the Steroid Era.(**)

Don't feel alone, though; these threads frequently wind up with apologists engaged in furious combat with varying mixtures of straw men and themselves.

(**) McGriff is only a year older than Bonds and from 88-91 they compare very favorably in OPS+ -- McGriff 157, 166, 153, 147; Bonds 148, 126, 170, 160. Bonds took off in 92 (and then again after 98), but McGriff's numbers were still very, very good through 94. McGriff's the same age as McGwire and beat him in OPS every year from 88-91. McGwire wins 92-94.

I don't think he's saying McGriff shoulda used. He's saying he shoulda used and got away with it.

Fred McGriff should have people's children given to him.

And Tom Emansky.

Well ... yeah. You just made the columnist's point for him. Crime Dog was one of the best hitters in the game for a nice spell and his numbers were made to look small(er) by the numbers put by guys in the heart of the Steroid Era.

The point - which perhaps I did a poor job of making - is that McGriff's numbers only look small if you don't know what you're looking at. If the BBWAA (or whoever) overlooks McGriff's numbers because of the bright twinkly lights from the steroid era, that's their own fault, not the fault of the "cheaters".

Bottom line is, McGriff isn't a guy who stayed clean and so couldn't compete. He's a guy who put up a borderline HOF case regardless of what he or anyone around him did or didn't do.

I'd further add that when it comes to McGriff, this isn't a new phenomenon, as he was pretty clearly overlooked at the time, before the steroid era began. As you say, he was a better player than McGriff from 1988-1991, but in that time McGwire had 4 All-Star appearances to McGriff's zero. In 1991, he was left off the NL team while John Kruk made it as a 1B, for crying out loud. He was perenially underrated in terms of MVP voting throughout the peak of his career. He's always been underrated, as Palmeiro was even before his positive steroid test ended the discussion about him.

In 1991, he was left off the NL team while John Kruk made it as a 1B, for crying out loud.

A quick glance suggests Kruk might have been the only Phils rep (and he had a pretty good year) that year. Eddie Murray's selection may have been less defensible on its merits. OTOH, he was Eddie Murray.

And we know McGriff didn't roid how?

More importantly, who f-ing cares?

The point - which perhaps I did a poor job of making - is that McGriff's numbers only look small if you don't know what you're looking at. If the BBWAA (or whoever) overlooks McGriff's numbers because of the bright twinkly lights from the steroid era, that's their own fault, not the fault of the "cheaters".

No one's laying blame on the "cheaters" for somehow misleading the writers. That's another straw man.

The case made by the column and other defenders of guys roughly McGriff's age is that the numbers put up after him made his numbers look more "tiny." Which they did. That isn't blaming anyone for anything, but instead simply pointing out reality. Yes, the writers should be able to deliberate and reason their way to a better conclusion about the 80s guys, but to date they've shown little ability to do so.

I'd further add that when it comes to McGriff, this isn't a new phenomenon, as he was pretty clearly overlooked at the time, before the steroid era began. As you say, he was a better player than McGriff from 1988-1991, but in that time McGwire had 4 All-Star appearances to McGriff's zero. In 1991, he was left off the NL team while John Kruk made it as a 1B, for crying out loud. He was perenially underrated in terms of MVP voting throughout the peak of his career.

All true and insightful. You have a guy who was underrated in his day who now has the additional obstacle of writer confusion placed in the way of his HOF candidacy.

No one's laying blame on the "cheaters" for somehow misleading the writers. That's another straw man.

From the article: "...the Tampa native and former Ray did not curse the cheaters who conspired to make his numbers look small." Emphasis mine.

I don't know how to square your contention with what Shelton actually wrote. I would only suggest that when someone says something, and someone else argues with it, that is not what a "straw man" is.

They stole from McGriff like an Internet swindler with your bank account number.

Facebook objects, arguing that you really did want to share your bank account number.

No, but seriously, thanks for the hip analogy. It really added to my understanding of the concept of "stealing." 2110 version of this article: "They stole from Moyer like a SPACE swindler who swindled your SPACE Mandatory Citizenship Card and got away on a SPACESHIP. IN SPACE."