I know that you were younger once, 'cause ya sure are older now.

Roger Maris has never been seriously considered for Hall of Fame honors.

Why not?

Because he wasn't really great?

his comeuppance will come in 2012. He will be eligible for the Hall of fame that year.

No he won't.

I realize this error isn't a huge deal, but considering the amount of conversation that already exists on the topic of the 2013 class, it's still jarring.

It don't matter who's in St Louis, 'cause Roger Maris is still the king?

Roger Maris has never been seriously considered for Hall of Fame honors.
Why not?

Mostly because he was grumpy and uncommunicative with the media during his playing days.

Maris was bland, a little sour, and unhappy at the fame the season brought and an old fashioned lunch pail baseball player. He did it for the money.

Maris just did his thing the old fashioned way.

What?

Off topic, but here's something that kind of freaks me out about Maris. He had 61 HR and 67 K in his 1961 season, which is a Pujols-like ratio. Yet his average was only .269, because his BABIP was .209. He was never a high BABIP hitter, but this is the lowest of his career by 27 points.

It don't matter who's in St Louis, 'cause Roger Maris is still the king?

Nice Waylon Jennings reference there. Very Repozian.

Hmmm... I think I may know who you are, too. ;-)

This website looks like it was designed by a 7 year old girl.

I'm casting my vote for the late, great Miss Sophie Tucker!

The level of vitriol in this article is kind of disconcerting.

It was as if the world was against him except for a few teammates, personal friends, family and a lonely sportswriter or two.

It's amazing what tricks a failing memory can pull on someone who believes only what he wants to believe. Maris got the occasional rap for his "surliness" (shades of Barry Bonds), and a few writers kept pointing out with bated breath that he wasn't Mickey Mantle or Babe Ruth***, but he was roundly applauded by the vast majority of fans and writers during his historic run. His reputation went completely South the following Spring, but during the home run chase itself, most writers were quite understanding of the pressures that Maris was going through, and acknowledged that in their writings. For the most part they would describe Maris's attitude without really condemning him for it, but that's probably too subtle a point for someone who insists in framing every issue in black and white terms.

***Has there ever been a more trite observation?

It's amazing what tricks a failing memory can pull on someone who believes only what he wants to believe.

Any particular reason we should believe your "failing memory" over his? How do we/you know you're not guilty of the same thing?


(Admittedly, anybody who has to seriously ask the question why Maris isn't in the HOF is a dumbass with no credibility. But still, that's an IQ test, not a memory test.)

Off topic, but here's something that kind of freaks me out about Maris. He had 61 HR and 67 K in his 1961 season, which is a Pujols-like ratio. Yet his average was only .269, because his BABIP was .209. He was never a high BABIP hitter, but this is the lowest of his career by 27 points.

I wonder if, as the season went on, he made more of an effort to hit homeruns, resulting in a lot of fly ball outs.

This website looks like it was designed by a 7 year old girl.

That's an insult to 7 year old girls.

It's amazing what tricks a failing memory can pull on someone who believes only what he wants to believe.

Any particular reason we should believe your "failing memory" over his? How do we/you know you're not guilty of the same thing?

No reason to believe it per se, but unlike you or Maury Allen, I'm more than willing to go back and look at the record. I've pored over enough old Sporting Newses from that year to know that Allen is simply conflating a small number of writers with the majority of them, and that there were only a handful of writers who in 1961 (as opposed to the years after that) were wholly unsympathetic to the pressures that Maris was going through. Whether or not you choose to believe me on this is of no consequence, since if I wrote that the Earth is round you'd likely sign up for the Flat Earth Society, but if you were actually interested in the truth rather than in your primal urge to react to everything I write, the record's right out there for you to pursue.

I wonder if, as the season went on, he made more of an effort to hit homeruns, resulting in a lot of fly ball outs.

He may have, but it doesn't show up in the month-to-month splits. He had sub-.200 BABIPs in four of the six months that year, and three of them were April, May, and June.

Still, it does seem likely that this was at least partly due to approach.

Roger Maris has never been seriously considered for Hall of Fame honors.

Why not?

Fail.

He may have, but it doesn't show up in the month-to-month splits. He had sub-.200 BABIPs in four of the six months that year, and three of them were April, May, and June.

That's really interesting--I would have guessed the BABIP would go down as the season went on and it became clear that he had a shot at 60. Maybe he just showed up that year hellbent on hitting a ton of homers. If that's the case, I guess it worked.

That's an insult to 7 year old girls.

Damn you, I was going to say that.

Roger Maris has never been seriously considered for Hall of Fame honors.

Why not?

In a way, having spent 15 years on the ballot, he's close to being tied for the most serious Hall of Fame consideration ever given. I'm pretty sure Bobby Grich and Lou Whitaker would love to have had that level of non-consideration.

I'm pretty sure Bobby Grich and Lou Whitaker would love to have had that level of non-consideration.

Or Dave Stieb, or Ted Simmons, or any of dozens of other more credible candidates who were one and done.

Maybe he just showed up that year hellbent on hitting a ton of homers. If that's the case, I guess it worked.

Maris's April was just generally awful - 1 HR in 61 PA, .286 SLG. It wouldn't surprise me if he altered his approach in some way after that.

Of course, if there was an approach that allowed him to hit 60 homers, it seems a little odd that he wouldn't have stuck with it, .209 BABIP or not.

McGwire thinks this mea culpa clears the air. He thinks it will help his sinking Hall of Fame ship. I have news for the former Bash Brother of the A’s with admitted steroid-freak Jose Canseco. He’s a liar and a cheat.

Let this be a message to all those jocks who picked on the nerds in high school.

No reason to believe it per se, but unlike you or Maury Allen, I'm more than willing to go back and look at the record. I've pored over enough old Sporting Newses from that year to know that Allen is simply conflating a small number of writers with the majority of them, and that there were only a handful of writers who in 1961 (as opposed to the years after that) were wholly unsympathetic to the pressures that Maris was going through. Whether or not you choose to believe me on this is of no consequence, since if I wrote that the Earth is round you'd likely sign up for the Flat Earth Society, but if you were actually interested in the truth rather than in your primal urge to react to everything I write, the record's right out there for you to pursue.

So Maury Allen makes a claim with no evidentiary support, and you make a contradictory claim with no evidentiary support and accuse him of relying on failing memory, and I'm not "actually interested in the truth" because I wonder why we should believe one person's recollections over another person's?

(Incidentally, since when is the Sporting News -- bible of baseball or not -- the "majority of" sportswriters?)

As I said, David, I couldn't care less whether you believe me. The record is out there for anyone who cares enough to look it up.

But "incidentally," The Sporting News in its heyday published the writings (and opinions) of more than enough sportswriters to be able to discern which way the majority view was blowing on pretty much any subject, and you didn't need Gallup or Roper to figure it out. Not to mention the fact (and it's almost embarrassing to admit this) that during the 1961 season I used to devour each and every one of the morning New York papers (Times, Trib, Daily News and Mirror) that were available for browsing at my local Washington drug store.

The Maris family has conducted themselves with dignity during this whole fiasco, so it's not easy to say this, but:

I would much rather defend the assertion that Roger got 2 homers out of 1961 being an expansion year, and so the record should still be Ruth's, than argue that Mark McGwire got ELEVEN homers out of steroids in 1998, so Ruth should still have it.

One of the things that has made me a contrarian about the steroids whoop is the size of the effect that puritans have to assign to steroids to preserve their sacred records, whichever ones those are to the individual puritan.

I would much rather defend the assertion that Roger got 2 homers out of 1961 being an expansion year, and so the record should still be Ruth's, than argue that Mark McGwire got ELEVEN homers out of steroids in 1998, so Ruth should still have it.

Wouldn't it be even easier to defend the assertion that Roger got 2 homers out of 1961's schedule being 8 games longer than 1927's?

I would much rather defend the assertion that Roger got 2 homers out of 1961 being an expansion year, and so the record should still be Ruth's, than argue that Mark McGwire got ELEVEN homers out of steroids in 1998, so Ruth should still have it.

I wouldn't argue with that, and even more pertinent is the argument noted at the time that Maris had an extra 8 games to work with. At the end of his 155th game (there was a replayed tie) he only had 59 home runs.

EDIT: Coke to Nieporent, who should frame and mount it in his trophy room....

One of the things that has made me a contrarian about the steroids whoop is the size of the effect that puritans have to assign to steroids to preserve their sacred records, whichever ones those are to the individual puritan

But you can be a skeptic about the exactitude of the advantage (to me it's a completely fruitless exercise) and still see that steroids afforded advantages that weren't available in any other form. It's not an either / or thing.

Wouldn't it be even easier to defend the assertion that Roger got 2 homers out of 1961's schedule being 8 games longer than 1927's?

*Ford Frick thought so.

I would much rather defend the assertion that Roger got 2 homers out of 1961 being an expansion year

Also, longer schedule.

One of the things that has made me a contrarian about the steroids whoop is the size of the effect that puritans have to assign to steroids to preserve their sacred records, whichever ones those are to the individual puritan.

Same here. How they affected the record book has pretty much zero meaning to me. It's not the Bible, it's not the Torah, it's not the Tripitaka; it's just a book of things that happened in baseball. I'm all for enforcing the rules combating drug abuse because they're the right things to do, but you can tell from what guys like Allen and Andy have written that protecting the record book is Job #1.

Same here. How they affected the record book has pretty much zero meaning to me. It's not the Bible, it's not the Torah, it's not the Tripitaka; it's just a book of things that happened in baseball.

Not only that, but almost every pre-steroid era record occurred due to conditions present at the time. Quoting them as if they were carved into stone for all time is laughable.

I know I have stated this only a million times, but it can't be stressed enough - baseball statistics without context lead to silliness.

Same here. How they affected the record book has pretty much zero meaning to me. It's not the Bible, it's not the Torah, it's not the Tripitaka; it's just a book of things that happened in baseball. I'm all for enforcing the rules combating drug abuse because they're the right things to do, but you can tell from what guys like Allen and Andy have written that protecting the record book is Job #1.

And one of the silliest parts about it -- thankfully Costas didn't fall into this trap -- is that the Maris record has been broken not once, but six different times, by three different players, by an average of ~6 home runs. It's not just about McGwire. One needs to engage in a lot of mental gymnastics to wash away 41 home runs, which is what it would take to get all three of these players back to just 60 home runs per.

I, too, don't care about "sanctity of records." I love watching players chase records and I don't consider records to be Sacred things that shouldn't be broken, or that should only be broken by the "right" players under the "right" conditions. I loved the 1998 home run chase, loved all the drama it brought, basked in it, and I look upon it fondly today. I let Bonds take me through 70 home runs to new heights, and I appreciated that I was watching greatness as he hit 73 and 600 and 661 and 700 and 715 and 756. I didn't want to cheat myself out of watching that.

The key to it all is to understand that all numbers and records throughout baseball history are a product of their times and conditions and circumstances and eras and ballparks and teams and the players who played at those times.

but you can tell from what guys like Allen and Andy have written that protecting the record book is Job #1.

What complete bullshit, and if you don't know it, it's only because you're too lazy to find out, or don't bother to read. All people like you care about is snark.

Oh, please. I've haven read literally hundreds upon hundreds of your posts on this matter, and ultimately they all veer towards the numbers. That's why you were so gleeful about having Bonds' home run ball branded, that's why you spend days and nights arguing about steroid records vs. amphetamine records. And you know what? I wouldn't care one wit about that because it's perfectly fine to love the old records, except that you've been so dishonest in making it. It pains me to say it, since I actually like you and agree with you on most topics here, but your postings the last few days are the most tortuously dishonest writings to infect BTF since kevin got booted.

Not only that, but almost every pre-steroid era record occurred due to conditions present at the time. Quoting them as if they were carved into stone for all time is laughable.

I know I have stated this only a million times, but it can't be stressed enough - baseball statistics without context lead to silliness.

Very good point. And that is what some people--not necessarily Allen or Andy--would like to see done: put the accomplishments of steroid users in their proper context. Whether Mark McGwire hit 70 or 60 HRs in 1998, his offensive performance relative to his league (as evidenced by his 216 OPS+ that year and 162 for his career) is what many people use to assert his greatness. But if he had an illegal advantage over many of his competitors, then that should be taken into account as part of the context.

And one of the silliest parts about it -- thankfully Costas didn't fall into this trap -- is that the Maris record has been broken not once, but six different times, by three different players, by an average of ~6 home runs. It's not just about McGwire. One needs to engage in a lot of mental gymnastics to wash away 41 home runs, which is what it would take to get all three of these players back to just 60 home runs per.

I'm not a very good gymnast, but let me try:

All three players who broke Maris' record were admitted or highly suspected steroids users. None of them hit more than 49 home runs in a season in which they weren't suspected of using illegal substances.

Now I don't really care about the record, and I'm not familiar enough with the latest evidence or lackthereof against Sosa, so I'm not going to say I think he used. However, if someone is convinced that all three of those guys used, it hardly requires mental gymnastics to think Maris is still deserving of the record.

Furthermore, it's easy to understand the position that the benefit of the doubt should be given to the guy who, as far as we know, didn't have an illegal advantage over his peers.

but you can tell from what guys like Allen and Andy have written that protecting the record book is Job #1.

What complete ########, and if you don't know it, it's only because you're too lazy to find out, or don't bother to read. All people like you care about is snark.

Heh. I knew as soon as I read that sentence that we'd hear an angry yet utterly unconvincing denial. Perhaps if everyone who reads your posts comes to the same conclusion - that what you care about is the record books - you ought to consider the possibility that you're in denial about your real motives. Your strained arguments are perfectly consistent with someone who's trying to protect his heroes' numbers, and inconsistent with someone who cares about health, unnaturalness, cheating, or any other possible rationale. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, all of its protestations that it's a hippo aren't going to convince anyone.

Very good point. And that is what some people--not necessarily Allen or Andy--would like to see done: put the accomplishments of steroid users in their proper context. Whether Mark McGwire hit 70 or 60 HRs in 1998, his offensive performance relative to his league (as evidenced by his 216 OPS+ that year and 162 for his career) is what many people use to assert his greatness. But if he had an illegal advantage over many of his competitors, then that should be taken into account as part of the context.

If McGwire was the sole abuser of steroids, then you might have a point. However, it wasn't just a handful of people. There's absolutely no way to sort this out, IOW, except to compare McGwire to everybody else during that era and take it from there. By this standard, Aaron has more career homers than Bonds, too (though the Bambino is still the Big Kahuna for career there).

All three players who broke Maris' record were admitted or highly suspected steroids users. None of them hit more than 49 home runs in a season in which they weren't suspected of using illegal substances.

Yes. But those balls still went over the fence.

I have no problem with additional commentary added to records in the record books, as everything needs context. However, those homers still happened, and they should be recorded in the record book — that's what it's there for.

30 years from now when some slugger breaks Bonds' single season record they are going to turn to Bonds' family and say it was for their father that they did thisand they are going to say that all the squabbles that came afterwards were stupid and petty just like they did for Maris. We have become the people we have mocked.

This thread could really use this guy

I'm not a very good gymnast, but let me try:

All three players who broke Maris' record were admitted or highly suspected steroids users. None of them hit more than 49 home runs in a season in which they weren't suspected of using illegal substances.

Ok, so here is what your gymnastics skills are managing to handwave away:

73 Bonds 2001
70 McGwire 1998
66 Sosa 1998
65 McGwire 1999
64 Sosa 2001
63 Sosa 1999
58 McGwire 1997
52 McGwire 1996
50 Sosa 2000

Nine seasons in which these three players had more than 49 home runs.

How gracious of you to let Sosa, Bonds, and McGwire each keep their one season of exactly 49 home runs. And for Bonds to keep his other six seasons of 40+ home runs. For Sosa to keep his two other seasons of 40 home runs.

Look, these guys were just extraordinary home run hitters. McGwire had five seasons before 1993 where he finished in the top three in home runs. Bonds had six seasons before 1998 where he finished in the top five. Sosa (less pronounced) had five seasons in the top 10 before 1998. And then they each went on a tear. To not see that these guys were special home run hitters is to be blind.

Now I don't really care about the record, and I'm not familiar enough with the latest evidence or lackthereof against Sosa, so I'm not going to say I think he used. However, if someone is convinced that all three of those guys used, it hardly requires mental gymnastics to think Maris is still deserving of the record.

Yes, it does. One has to first conclude that they all used (easy in McGwire's case, harder in Bonds's, hardest in Sosa's). One has to next conclude that steroids added the extra home runs in each of the six seasons in which these players eclipsed Maris's record. It takes a lot of magic.

Furthermore, it's easy to understand the position that the benefit of the doubt should be given to the guy who, as far as we know, didn't have an illegal advantage over his peers.

Once more, since this point is still not sinking in for you: even if Sosa was using, he could have used in jurisdictions where it was legal. Some of the substances Bonds is accused of using were not illegal at the time. We can reasonably conclude that McGwire was breaking the law (even though we still don't really know what he was taking and where).

All three players who broke Maris' record were admitted or highly suspected steroids users. None of them hit more than 49 home runs in a season in which they weren't suspected of using illegal substances.

If Maris had played during the '70s or '80s, does he come close to 61? Highly, highly doubtful for any season during those two decades, except possibly in 1987.

If Maris had played during the '70s or '80s, does he come close to 61? Highly, highly doubtful for any season during those two decades, except possibly in 1987.

Bonds might have hit 80 HR against the non-Yankee pitching staffs of the 1961 AL.

None of them hit more than 49 home runs in a season in which they weren't suspected of using illegal substances.

But... we only suspect Sosa of steroids in 1998 (as opposed to, say, his 40 homer year of 1996 or his 33 homer year of 1993) because he hit more than 49 home runs. Seems like textbook circular reasoning.

If Maris had played during the '70s or '80s, does he come close to 61? Highly, highly doubtful for any season during those two decades, except possibly in 1987.

I doubt he does it in 1987 he would have been dead for quite some time.

I doubt he does it in 1987 he would have been dead for quite some time.

Heh.

Oh, please. I've haven read literally hundreds upon hundreds of your posts on this matter, and ultimately they all veer towards the numbers. That's why you were so gleeful about having Bonds' home run ball branded, that's why you spend days and nights arguing about steroid records vs. amphetamine records. And you know what? I wouldn't care one wit about that because it's perfectly fine to love the old records, except that you've been so dishonest in making it. It pains me to say it, since I actually like you and agree with you on most topics here, but your postings the last few days are the most tortuously dishonest writings to infect BTF since kevin got booted.

LA, if you can't tell the difference between discussing numbers within the context of a steroids thread, and having that as your motivation for caring about steroids, I'm not sure what else to say. I would be saying exactly the same thing about steroids and greenies if Roger Maris had never been born. What you're attributing to me is no more or no less absurd than for me to keep insisting that the only reason that you and David and Dial and Ray and Szym keep harping on the horrors of greenies is to protect the records of your "hero" Barry Bonds---an argument I've never tried to make.

Once again, though, what I care about is relative competititve advantages within the framework of any given game. As far as history is concerned, what's done is done, and while it's interesting to discuss it, it's not as if I care about what you may or may not think about Roger Maris or Barry Bonds. But then this sort of pop psychology is pretty much what I'd expect from the likes of people who are so insecure about their own positions that they have to invent motivations for their opponents---not too surprising, considering that in other contexts they argue that their opponents are trying to "enslave" them.

Well, we can cross freakishly low BABIPs in record-setting seasons off of the list of effective aversions for potential steroid threads...

I doubt he does it in 1987 he would have been dead for quite some time.

It hadn't been THAT long. He'd only passed away in December 1985. I say he would have made a run at 61 in that environment.

That's why you were so gleeful about having Bonds' home run ball branded,

He also seems gleeful about these teary-eyed interviews.

That's why you were so gleeful about having Bonds' home run ball branded

.

What is going with Andy is that he thinks steroids are totally, hugely, qualitatively and undeniably different than amphetamines, in a baseball context. He winds up coming back to the numbers of the big HR guys from the last 12 years because those numbers back up the point the best. But, if Sosa, Bonds and McGwire had all topped out at 60 HR with the same backdrop and the same bodies, Andy's arguments would be the same. I don't think Maury Allen's would, though and I think it is possible the whole thing would never have happened in the first place if Maris' and Aaron's records had stood.

As to the Bonds ball, Andy's stated reason is that he thinks it preserves the "other side" of the discussion, and "stimulates" discussion, and he think this matters, as he seems to think that DiPerna and Dial are going to be running the HoF in 2025 or so. I think that is complete bullshitt and have told him so multiple times. The asterisk ball only gives one side of the argument, and is basically an expensive, juvenile way of mocking Barry Bonds--nothing more--sort of a cross between the worst features of RETARDO and Andy Warhol. But I think Andy is sincere and not "in denial" about what he says about that and everything else.

I think it is possible the whole thing would never have happened in the first place if Maris' and Aaron's records had stood.

I think that it is nearly certain that the whole thing would never have happened if Maris's and Aaron's records had stood.

-- MWE

I think that it is nearly certain that the whole thing would never have happened if Maris's and Aaron's records had stood.

Maybe. But I think Bonds even threatening the records would have driven some people to get after him.

LA, if you can't tell the difference between discussing numbers within the context of a steroids thread, and having that as your motivation for caring about steroids, I'm not sure what else to say.

It's al about the numbers with you, isn't it? You make my point: For you, steroids are wrong because of how they affect the numbers, and not because they're illegal, can be easily abused, etc.

What you're attributing to me is no more or no less absurd than for me to keep insisting that the only reason that you and David and Dial and Ray and Szym keep harping on the horrors of greenies is to protect the records of your "hero" Barry Bonds

Good thing you put hero in quotes — we both know how wrong that statement is. The only way I'm protecting Bonds' records is that I'm not going to pretend they didn't happen.

Once again, though, what I care about is relative competititve advantages within the framework of any given game.

In other words, amphetamines aren't cheating because it's not cheating if everybody's cheating. It doesn't matter that they acted as PEDS, or may have had the negative health effects you like to pay lip service to. So long as the old records are protected, it's all good.

What is going with Andy is that he thinks steroids are totally, hugely, qualitatively and undeniably different than amphetamines, in a baseball context.

The problem is that he has tried to justify that difference. His arguments have been tested and found wanting -- actually, he's unable to distinguish steroids and amphetamines with respect to the overall concept of performance enhancement in any meaningful way. That's why I've called his position irrational. If the difference between steroids and amphetamines even approached the level of being "totally, hugely, qualitatively, and undeniable," Andy wouldn't be having such a hard time making the argument. And, no, it's not that people like me, Chris, and David are "unreasonable." Who here signs on to Andy's position? (*) I see one comrade in arms: SugarBear, who comes to the steroids issue with his own baggage of unsustainable arguments, as demonstrated by his Rafael Palmeiro comments.

(*) No, I don't ask this to show that a position is "correct" based on the number of people who sign on to it. I ask this to counter his latest round of argument, which is basically to state that Chris, David, and I are being unreasonable.

(I actually haven't participated all that much in the amphetamines angle of this debate over the three years I've been here.)

Who here signs on to Andy's position?

I think Dave (No Cure for Francoeur) does.

Also, just to be clear, I was addressing the people talking about Andy's motivations and suggesting he may be intellectually dishonest about this. Your position is different than that if I am understanding you, as "irrationality" and "intellectual dishonesty" are different animals.

Do amphetamines increase the rate of protein synthesis within cells? Do they, in and of themselves, increase muscle and bone mass? If they don’t, then how are they comparable to steroids?

Steroids

How Steroids Work

Anyone who fails to vote for Barry Bonds for the HOF should have their children taken away from them, but only after the little bastards are forcibly sterilized in front of them.

None of them hit more than 49 home runs in a season in which they weren't suspected of using illegal substances.

Circularity alert...

EDIT: Coke to Barnaby

Do amphetamines increase the rate of protein synthesis within cells? Do they, in and of themselves, increase muscle and bone mass? If they don’t, then how are they comparable to steroids?

I have no dog in this catfight, but amphetamines affecting the body in a different way than steroids has no bearing on the actual question: did they both improve players' on-field performance? Two things can be starkly different and have effects of a similar kind (i.e. improved statistical numbers/on-field perfomance).

If McGwire was the sole abuser of steroids, then you might have a point. However, it wasn't just a handful of people. There's absolutely no way to sort this out, IOW, except to compare McGwire to everybody else during that era and take it from there.

I don't know, I can think of a lot of issues that people thought were too difficult to sort out over the years, that sabermetrics has taken on and attempted to make some sense of. If it was 90% of guys, I'd agree that there's no sense in trying to make any adjustment. If it was closer to 25%-50%, then I disagree. I realize it's extremely difficult but I guess I'm less inclined to give guys who verifiably used illegal substances the benefit of the doubt when we're dealing with difficult questions.

But...we only suspect Sosa of steroids in 1998 (as opposed to, say, his 40 homer year of 1996 or his 33 homer year of 1993) because he hit more than 49 home runs. Seems like textbook circular reasoning.

There are other reasons to suspect Sosa besides his HR totals, but from what I remember the evidence against him isn't as strong as it is for the guys who actually admitted it or got caught. Anonymous test leaks and unsubstantiated accusations, stuff like that. Not stuff I generally like to go on, but I realize some people have different thresholds than I do.

Yes. But those balls still went over the fence.

I have no problem with additional commentary added to records in the record books, as everything needs context. However, those homers still happened, and they should be recorded in the record book — that's what it's there for.

Of course. I don't even think I would go as far as you do. The record book documents the events on the field; there's no need for commentary in the record book. But when trying to assess and compare how different players performed in different contexts, I think it's relevant.

Ok, so here is what your gymnastics skills are managing to handwave away:

Nine seasons in which these three players had more than 49 home runs.

To be clear, I'm not trying to "handwave" them away, whatever that means. They still happened. I'm just saying it's reasonable to think that, without steroids, Maris' record might still stand. I don't think that position is provable any moreso than I think your position is provable. But it doesn't require "mental gymnastics".

Look, these guys were just extraordinary home run hitters. McGwire had five seasons before 1993 where he finished in the top three in home runs. Bonds had six seasons before 1998 where he finished in the top five. Sosa (less pronounced) had five seasons in the top 10 before 1998. And then they each went on a tear. To not see that these guys were special home run hitters is to be blind.

Who said that these guys weren't special home run hitters? But each of those guys went from Top 3, Top 5, or Top 10 in their league to "Best of All Time". In at least two of those cases, after using steroids. And not to be even curious as to what role steroids played in that development is, in my opinion, counter to what this site and sabermetrics is all about.

I think Dave (No Cure for Francoeur) does.

Just to be clear, I don't know all of Andy's positions on this topic, but I definitely disagree with some of them.

Signing off for the night to get some work done...

I don't know, I can think of a lot of issues that people thought were too difficult to sort out over the years, that sabermetrics has taken on and attempted to make some sense of. If it was 90% of guys, I'd agree that there's no sense in trying to make any adjustment. If it was closer to 25%-50%, then I disagree.

But then we're not really talking about performance enhancement, we're talking about access to performance enhancers, or trying to assess the degree to which performances had been enhanced. It's impossible to even begin to guess at how one would begin to adjust the numbers.

Again, the discussion of PEDs gravitates towards records, and we're not looking at the legal or ethical issues involved.

I have no dog in this catfight, but amphetamines affecting the body in a different way than steroids has no bearing on the actual question: did they both improve players' on-field performance? Two things can be starkly different and have effects of a similar kind (i.e. improved statistical numbers/on-field perfomance).

Right. Whether I fly from New York to Boston, drive, or take a train, I still traveled from New York to Boston. Maybe with amphetamines I'm staying in a different section of town from steroids, or maybe the amphetamines only got me to Framingham instead of all the way to Boston. That's a difference in degree, not in kind.

Is that your final answer? You're sure you don't want to use one of your phone calls?

I'm sorry you had to overnight in Framingham, Ray.

I don't know, I can think of a lot of issues that people thought were too difficult to sort out over the years, that sabermetrics has taken on and attempted to make some sense of.

You know, this sounds great as an abstract point, but it makes no sense all the same. We can't even establish whether it was 25% of guys using steroids, 50%, or 75%. How is "sabermetrics" going to get past even step one? Step two is to determine how steroids impact baseball performance. We don't know who was using what, when, how often, and how much. How is "sabermetrics" going to "take on" that problem? It makes utterly no sense.

If it was 90% of guys, I'd agree that there's no sense in trying to make any adjustment. If it was closer to 25%-50%, then I disagree.

Ok, it was 47.6%. Now: what kind of an "adjustment" are you going to make?

The question is built on a flawed implication, that all we need is a percentage of players who were using steroids, and the problem then solves itself. But as I said above, there is so much more information that we would need. *It is plausible that steroids had zero effect.*

I realize it's extremely difficult but I guess I'm less inclined to give guys who verifiably used illegal substances the benefit of the doubt when we're dealing with difficult questions.

It's not "extremely difficult." It's as impossible as Betty White running a marathon. A rational "adjustment" is not possible. Not in this lifetime, and not in the next.

To be clear, I'm not trying to "handwave" them away, whatever that means. They still happened. I'm just saying it's reasonable to think that, without steroids, Maris' record might still stand.

And I don't think that's reasonable at all. Home run levels went up. Once that happened, it was only a matter of time before Maris's record fell. And fall it did, as it was broken several times and by multiple players. If home run levels didn't go back down to more historically normal levels after a few years, it was only a matter of time before Aaron's career record was going to fall as well. A line was forming.

You may argue that home run levels only went up because of steroids. Ok, let's assume that for the sake of argument. Even if home run levels had not increased in the 90s, why should we assume that just because a record stood for 30 years, it should stand for 30 more? There were only going to be more opportunities for players to break the Maris record; there were never going to be less. Why should we have assumed that his record was going to stand another 15 or 20 years? Ruth's record had only stood for 30 years to begin with.

Is Ryan Howard clean? He nearly broke Maris's record, hitting 58 home runs in 2006. Griffey nearly did so, hitting 56 home runs twice in the '90s. The record was bound to fall. To find it "reasonable" to think that Maris's record was going to stand for half a century is really odd.

Ok, it was 47.6%. Now: what kind of an "adjustment" are you going to make?

If (a) Rafael Palmeiro started using steroids in 1993, when he became teammates with Jose Canseco, and used them every year until his suspension for a positive steroid test, how do you think his career statistical record would have been impacted?; (b) If Barry Bonds started using steroids in the 1997-98 offseason, and used them every year until he retired, how do you think his career statistical record would have been impacted?; and (c) If Mark McGwire stared using steroids in the 1994-95 offseason, and used them every year until he retired, how do you think his career statistical record would have been impacted?

You should be careful; the last time an anti-pro-amper actually took a stand, rather than throwing out platitudes and changing the subject upon the first blowback about details, he estimated that Mickey Mantle used amps in only 10% of the games he played. It wasn't Ricardo Montalban fessing up to Letterman that there was no such thing as "rich Corinthian leather," but there was more than a little humor in the whole thing.

Speaking of humor, I surely can't be alone in finding more than a little in the incessant deconstructing of the motives of anti-steroiders and the insistence that all they care about is preserving their fond memories of their heroes, and one of the more avid deconstructors writing this:

I love watching players chase records and I don't consider records to be Sacred things that shouldn't be broken, or that should only be broken by the "right" players under the "right" conditions. I loved the 1998 home run chase, loved all the drama it brought, basked in it, and I look upon it fondly today. I let Bonds take me through 70 home runs to new heights, and I appreciated that I was watching greatness as he hit 73 and 600 and 661 and 700 and 715 and 756. I didn't want to cheat myself out of watching that.

Bonds taking people "through 70 ... to new heights." "Basking." "Loved all the drama." The teenyboppers didn't say it any better after they got their first glimpse of The Beatles in Shea in 1964.

Once more, since this point is still not sinking in for you: even if Sosa was using, he could have used in jurisdictions where it was legal.

I've already said that without going back and examining the issue in more depth, I don't necessarily think the evidence against Sosa is strong enough to form a conclusion. But it seemed like you were arguing that even if you assume Sosa took steroids, it still would require "mental gymnastics" to think he wouldn't have broken 60 without them. If I'm misstating your positing, I apologize.

I don't see much sense in engaging in hypotheticals over whether he did them legally in another jurisdiction. Unlike many people, for what it's worth, I think his testimony was clear and unequivocal in its denial that he has ever done steroids or HGH, and I don't think he was trying to be weasely about it. If he did take steroids or HGH, he was plainly lying about it--both that day and previously.

Some of the substances Bonds is accused of using were not illegal at the time.

Assuming you're talking about the clear, this may be true, although it is not something that Bonds has used as a defense of his actions. He either was really using flaxseed oil, thought he was using flaxseed oil, or lied about what he thought he was using. If you think it was one of the first two, I'm not going to argue with you, because I don't know the answer. If you think it was the latter, you should be able to draw some inferences about what Bonds thought of his own actions.

Glad you liked my opus, SugarBear :-)

As for your Rafael Palmeiro thing, he did not become teammates with Jose Canseco in 1993. It was August 31 of 1992, though that's a minor point. The major point is that his home runs did increase from 22 to 37 in 1993, and his OPS+ went from 123 to 150 -- but he had already had 155 OPS+ in 1991, during his age 26 season. He had "only" 26 home runs in 1991 (in 34 less AB), but he also led the league with 49 doubles.

Again, the discussion of PEDs gravitates towards records, and we're not looking at the legal or ethical issues involved.

That's because there's a reasonable school of thought holding that the degree to which the usage impacted the statistical record affects the conclusion about the ethics of the usage.

If McGwire was the sole abuser of steroids, then you might have a point. However, it wasn't just a handful of people. There's absolutely no way to sort this out, IOW, except to compare McGwire to everybody else during that era and take it from there."

This is my position too. Too much information is unknowable for me to have any confidence in hypothetical adjustments.

Bonds taking [Ray] "through 70 ... to new heights." "Basking." "Loved all the drama." The teenyboppers didn't say it any better after they got their first glimpse of The Beatles in Shea in 1964."

On behalf of Ray, I apologize that he enjoyed these big moments in baseball history. I'm sure he regrets not viewing them through joyless and judgmental eyes.

Seriously, it would raise the level of discourse in these threads if we stop trying to psychoanalyze why people believe what they do, and stick to talking about the issues.

Glad you liked my opus, SugarBear :-)

Gotta give credit where it's due. :-)


As for your Rafael Palmeiro thing, he did not become teammates with Jose Canseco in 1993. It was August 31 of 1992. And his home runs did increase from 22 to 37 in 1993, and his OPS+ went from 123 to 150 -- but he had already had 155 OPS+ in 1991, during his age 26 season. He had "only" 26 home runs in 1991 (in 34 less AB), but he also led the league with 49 doubles.

Do you think that if he started using when he became teammates with Canseco and continued through to the time of his positive test that his numbers would have been impacted? If so, how much? I don't mean to be pointed or Socratic; keep in mind that I defended Bonds's HOF case by concluding that he would very likely have been over 700+ HRs steroid-free.(**)

Whether or not you feel like spending the time to answer the question -- and there's no obligation -- I'm having a hard time seeing how the answer to that question isn't entirely germane to the subject.

(**) Just so it's clear, I'll reiterate that it isn't incumbent on any adjustment of McGwire's record that he be deemed unable to have hit more than 61 HRs in a season. He was a better pure power hitter than Roger Maris, by any reasonable measurement; thus, Maris's record is not the upper bound of steroid-free human potential.

Do you think that if he started using when he became teammates with Canseco and continued through to the time of his positive test that his numbers would have been impacted? If so, how much?

I haven't the foggiest clue. That's a serious answer. I don't know how we could know these things. There are enough Marvin Benards and Alex Sanchezes that I can't see any patterns. Both hitters and pitchers were using. I can't even conclude that steroids impact baseball performance.

I do know that one can't look only at Bonds and McGwire to conclude that steroids have an impact. One must consider all the data points, not just the ones that support the theory.

The irony is that Maury Allen today is the direct descendant of the bitter old men who hated Roger Maris. Which means that 30 years from now there will be some young guy for bitter old men to hate as they wax nostalgic for that great man Mark McGwire.

I don't know how we could know these things. There are enough Marvin Benards and Alex Sanchezes that I can't see any patterns. Both hitters and pitchers were using. I can't even conclude that steroids impact baseball performance.

If there's an inflection point in straightforward metrics in Bonds's and McGwires' career -- and there is -- it strikes me as of no moment whether or not we see a similar inflection point or any other discernible pattern in Marvin Benard's or Alex Sanchez's careers. It might if we were asking "How do steroids impact the records of baseball players," but we're not; we're asking "How did steroids impact the records of Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire?"

In the same way, I wouldn't evaluate the impact of amp usage on Mickey Mantle or Pete Rose by asking whether and how amps impacted Cesar Gutierrez or Coco Laboy or Dick Dietz.

This is beginning to seem like searching for money one has lost in a dream. So much is not known, so much is presumed--I kind of agree with those who hold we'll never sort this out. But, there seems to be a mentality bent on suppressing any attempt at it.

This blank domino approach to performance enhancing drugs--specifically in the idea that amphetamines and steroids have the same effect--is woefully under-argued and supported by facts (yeah, yeah, I know we're dealing with a lot of anecdotal evidence, but still). It doesn't seem to me, at this point, to pass the giggle test. Not only are amphetamines not like steroids in the way they work, I don't know of any evidence pointing to their having an effect. What records in the '60's and '70's are generally attributed to amphetamines? If amphetamines are performance enhancing drugs that have the same effect and efficacy as steroids, how was that manifested in the records of the '60's and '70s that correlates to what happened in the "steroid era"?

To find it "reasonable" to think that Maris's record was going to stand for half a century is really odd.

Like Hugh Duffy's .440 batting avg. 1894, you mean? Or Roger Hornsby's modern record of .424 in 1924? Or Ty Cobb's career average of .366 lasting some 80 years? Or Ted Williams's .406 lasting almost 70 years? DiMaggio's 56-game hitting streak.

Which leads me to what's really odd--that so many threatened or broke it out of the blue.

Is Ryan Howard clean? He nearly broke Maris's record, hitting 58 home runs in 2006. Griffey nearly did so, hitting 56 home runs twice in the '90s.

These players are in addition to the aforementioned players who actually did break Maris's record. Doesn't it strike you as odd that all of a sudden a burst of hopeful monsters appeared in the ecology of MLB to break or threaten this record? This raises questions in my mind; in yours, though, the unprecedented home runs somehow don't have to be explained because an unprecedented number of big home run guys appeared simultaneously. That, to me, indicates to me there's something in the air--or in the soup. We know why home runs increased in the '20s and '30s, but what happened in the late eighties through the early 2000's? It should raise questions about why all these threats to Maris's record that you recount happened all within few years at that particular time, but instead for some of you it doesn't require any strict, systematic inquiry at all. For many here, it just goes without saying--but I say that attitude smacks of whistling past a graveyard. Sorry, but y'all are supposed to be the brains of baseball here: why don't you want to use your brains? Why are so many acting like the Pope who wanted to keep Galileo under house arrest until he recanted?

Ok, it was 47.6%. Now: what kind of an "adjustment" are you going to make?

I don't know. I also don't know how to calculate UZR, how to adjust Negro League stats, or how to do timeline adjustments, either. I'm about a decade removed from my last stats class. So I guess you got me there. But I doubt MGL came up with UZR in 30 minutes in response to a "gotcha" question on a BBTF thread.**

The question is built on a flawed implication, that all we need is a percentage of players who were using steroids, and the problem then solves itself.

No, again you are putting words in my mouth. I am saying that having a percentage gives you some information about whether an adjustment is even warranted, or whether steroids should just be considered part of the competitive environment that affected everyone, rather than an unfair advantage only available to some players.

But as I said above, there is so much more information that we would need.

Yes, and my position is we should seek that information as much as possible. What I reject is the attitude that because we don't have all the data or all the answers today, we should just assume they don't exist and stop seeking them.

I'm also willing to reserve judgment on things like Palmeiro's HOF case until we have better information.

**One thing you could start looking at is how the distribution of offensive and defensive performance changed during the "Steroid Era"--if variance increased, particularly at the top end of the range, you could begin to develop some hypotheses around what percentage of players were using, or at least what percentage benefited.

You may argue that home run levels only went up because of steroids. Ok, let's assume that for the sake of argument. Even if home run levels had not increased in the 90s, why should we assume that just because a record stood for 30 years, it should stand for 30 more? There were only going to be more opportunities for players to break the Maris record; there were never going to be less. Why should we have assumed that his record was going to stand another 15 or 20 years? Ruth's record had only stood for 30 years to begin with.

Is Ryan Howard clean? He nearly broke Maris's record, hitting 58 home runs in 2006. Griffey nearly did so, hitting 56 home runs twice in the '90s. The record was bound to fall. To find it "reasonable" to think that Maris's record was going to stand for half a century is really odd.

I don't really understand what you're asking here, particularly your use of the word "should".

If you believe everyone who broke Maris' record was on steroids at the time, and that steroids enhance performance, then it's reasonable to believe that the record wouldn't have fallen without their steroid use, because nobody else did break it. It's not provable, but it's as provable as claiming the record definitely would have fallen. And I don't see how Howard or Griffey are relevant to the conversation--they came close, but they didn't do it.

I don't think Maris' record "should" or "shouldn't" stand for any length of time. Maris' record itself was a fluke year, and I agree that someone would have broken it without steroids eventually. (It's possible Sosa already did, but as I said, we're talking about the "reasonableness" of positions based on the assumption that Sosa was using.)

EDIT: Adding, again, I really don't care about the records. As a Mets fan who grew up in the 80s and 90s, I don't really have any boyhood baseball heroes, only antiheroes. As a teenager during the height of the Steroid Era, guys like McGwire, Bonds and Sosa probably are my logical baseball heroes. I have no vested interest in trying to tear them down.

What records in the '60's and '70's are generally attributed to amphetamines?

"Attributed?" I can't answer that. But there were notable records and performances in the '60s and 70s. Rose was an admitted greenie user and of course broke the career hits record, which is largely a record of endurance. Mays is linked to amphetamines also, and hit 600 and then 660 home runs. I don't know that there's a specific link to Brock, but of course he stole 100 bases. Aaron was a teammate of House; Aaron broke the home run record.

We know why home runs increased in the '20s and '30s, but what happened in the late eighties through the early 2000's?

I don't know why we should find it odd that all eras are not similar in levels of offense. Why shouldn't different eras have different levels?

But if you're looking for reasons, there was a rash of new ballparks that popped up in precisely this time period. The ability to scout only got better. Perhaps there were changes to the ball. Etc. To isolate it to "Steroids!" seems odd.

If there's an inflection point in straightforward metrics in Bonds's and McGwires' career -- and there is -- it strikes me as of no moment whether or not we see a similar inflection point or any other discernible pattern in Marvin Benard's or Alex Sanchez's careers. It might if we were asking "How do steroids impact the records of baseball players," but we're not; we're asking "How did steroids impact the records of Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire?"

This betrays a striking lack of comprehension of basic science and logic. If you can't arrive at the foggiest clue of how steroids impact the records of baseball players, then the attempt to answer the question of how steroids impact the records of any particular baseball player (Bonds and McGwire most certainly included) is a fool's errand.

This betrays a striking lack of comprehension of basic science and logic. If you can't arrive at the foggiest clue of how steroids impact the records of baseball players, then the attempt to answer the question of how steroids impact the records of any particular baseball player (Bonds and McGwire most certainly included) is a fool's errand.

Not at all. Steroids may have had a great impact on Bonds and McGwire and a tiny impact on Sanchez and Benard because they're much more beneficial to really good players that are elite power hitters without them.

Would you think it was fair if Bonds's numbers showed no inflection point, but Sanchez's and Benard's did, and someone advocated adjusting Bonds's as a result?

Steroids may have had a great impact on Bonds and McGwire and a tiny impact on Sanchez and Benard because they're much more beneficial to really good players that are elite power hitters without them.

That's what would be called a "theory." That's a distinctly different thing from a "conclusion." In order to migrate from the former status to the latter, it must be tested on the basis of evidence, ideally in a controlled laboratory setting, but if not, at least in a robust protocol that does a good job of isolating independent variables.

You can go ahead and get started on that.

I haven't the foggiest clue. That's a serious answer. I don't know how we could know these things. There are enough Marvin Benards and Alex Sanchezes that I can't see any patterns. Both hitters and pitchers were using. I can't even conclude that steroids impact baseball performance.

Among the things we can't know, by the way, is if steroids improved the performance of Marvin Benard and Alex Sanchez. Since we don't know what their true talent level is or when either of them started juicing, it's possible Benard and Sanchez got more of a boost from steroids than anyone who's played.

Amphetamines are linked to endurance? The only buildup amphetamines have has to do with tolerance, which means you need more, which means they are less effective, with the side effects becoming worse. And they don't build up muscle, tissue, or bone. How about the other "endurance" records of the '20s and '30s? Or the '80s and '90s.

Is this your idea of an evidentiary link? That's seems so tenuous. Look, something happened in the "steroid era"; therefore there should be an explanation. You know, cause/effect. We have spoors, however. They should be used to do some tracking. And there may be some that are contr-indicative of steroids. I'm not sure about all this. You can can say #### it and just enjoy the game, but if you're into study, well, then, let's study it. Let's not just smother the whole issue with wild surmises and assumptions set in concrete.

Because something happened. You don't all of sudden have numerous hitters breaking or threatening season home run records while the "weak sisters" are hitting 40-plus homers a season. What happened in the '60's and '70s that needs explanation--and what best explains it? You don't even know that amphetamines did anything at all

This betrays a striking lack of comprehension of basic science and logic. If you can't arrive at the foggiest clue of how steroids impact the records of baseball players, then the attempt to answer the question of how steroids impact the records of any particular baseball player (Bonds and McGwire most certainly included) is a fool's errand.

Fair enough. But then people shouldn't hide behind the position that steroids had *no impact* as though it's not taking a position.

Some people think that trying to make any sense of the information is senseless, and we should just ignore the question of steroids and focus only on what happened on the field when considering things like the HOF. Fair enough.

I'd rather wait a bit, see what additional information comes to light and how this all sorts itself out. I don't think that's terribly unfair to guys McGwire, who chose to put themselves in a position where we couldn't properly evaluate them in a neutral context. McGwire has plenty of years left on the HOF ballot so it's not like his candidacy is an urgent question that demands a final answer today.

I don't agree with guys like Andy who want to disqualify anyone who took steroids, for many of the reasons Ray and others raise. To me, they're just one more factor to consider.

By the way, Morty:

Is Ryan Howard clean? He nearly broke Maris's record, hitting 58 home runs in 2006. Griffey nearly did so, hitting 56 home runs twice in the '90s.

These players are in addition to the aforementioned players who actually did break Maris's record. Doesn't it strike you as odd that all of a sudden a burst of hopeful monsters appeared in the ecology of MLB to break or threaten this record?

If steroids were responsible for the increase in home run levels and Howard and Griffey were clean, then it doesn't matter that they played in the "steroids era." If they were clean, then by the logic of the anti-steroids folks their 58, 56, and 56 home runs were 100% legit -- and, in fact, it could be argued that they would have hit more home runs if it were not the Steroids Era, since they were facing pitchers who were using steroids while they were not.

If only Norm Cash could have corked for a few years in his 30s, we'd have had a pretty good comp for McGwire...

Looking at Cash's 1961 and 1962 seasons is kind of strange. His HR, W and K rates are pretty similar, but his BABIP went from great to awful in one year resulting in a 120 point hit to the batting average.

This betrays a striking lack of comprehension of basic science and logic. If you can't arrive at the foggiest clue of how steroids impact the records of baseball players, then the attempt to answer the question of how steroids impact the records of any particular baseball player (Bonds and McGwire most certainly included) is a fool's errand.

Fair enough. But then people shouldn't hide behind the position that steroids had *no impact* as though it's not taking a position.

Do we conclude that steroids caused Lyle Alzado's brain tumor when we don't have evidence of that? Or is it more reasonable to assume that there was no connection.

Do we conclude that cell phones cause cancer when we don't have evidence of that? Or is it more reasonable to assume that there is no connection until shown otherwise.

The theory that steroids increase baseball performance is not unreasonable, but that's all it is -- a theory. It would be just as irrational to point to Alzado to "show" that steroids cause brain tumors as it is to point to McGwire's home run totals to "show" that steroids increase baseball performance.

"McGwire would only have hit 55 home runs without steroids" is NOT just as reasonable a conclusion as "McGwire would have hit 70 home runs without steroids."

I don't know why we should find it odd that all eras are not similar in levels of offense. Why shouldn't different eras have different levels?

Who's saying different eras aren't different in their output? The question is, why? Some here just want to leave it as \"#### happens", eh? It may be this, it may be that--it may be a lot of things--but if there is a question as to the integrity of the game, it's worth inquiring into. It's worth studying, anyway, I think.

To isolate it to "Steroids!" seems odd.

That's your strawman, that's not mine. Hey, it may simply come down to what you say about parks, plus there being a gradual expansion in the number of players who utilized "legitimate" weight-lifting regimens over the last twenty years to suddenly where everybody just about starts using it. But there are spoors.

There are steroid users, everyone concedes, and steroids most definitely increase strength and reaction times and not just as matter of being on a temporary amphetamine "high".

Doesn't it strike you as odd that all of a sudden a burst of hopeful monsters appeared in the ecology of MLB to break or threaten this record?

Odd? Sure.

Just like it was odd that the 60s and 70s saw lots of pitchers strike out 300 guys a year, 3000 in a career, win 250+ games, throw over 4000 IP.

Just like it was odd that the 60s, 70s and 80s saw the number of 500+ HR hitters increase from 4 to 14 and the career HR record broken and 6 of the top 7 career totals. [off the top of my head I don't remember when Jackson and Schmidt hit #500 ... call it an increase from 4 to 12 if you prefer and 4 of the top 5 careers.]

Just like it was odd that the 70s and 80s saw stolen base records all over the place.

And the career hits record and two guys who seriously challenged 400 and the games played record (3 times).

It was also odd that pitchers in the 50s decided it was a good idea to walk the ballpark, the 70s and 80s featured probably the worst collecton of SS in ML history, the 80s produced so few bonafide superstars (especially among starters), the 90s and 00s produced so many great pitchers (who struck out lots of guys and threw lots of innings) and Ron Santo didn't get elected to the HoF while Jim Rice did. Did any of us ever think we'd live to see the day when Jeter would win 4 gold gloves?

I find what Spahn did between the ages of 26 and 42 way more "incredible" than what Bonds and McGwire did.

Look, something happened in the "steroid era"; therefore there should be an explanation

Walt beat me to it but we can say the same thing for the "greenies era".

The theory that steroids increase baseball performance is not unreasonable, but that's all it is -- a theory.

Understanding that, and understanding that our knowledge of actual impacts is imperfect, the actual impacts are knowable.

As to steroid users, of what pertinence is the ultimate answer, under your philosophy, to (i) their place in baseball history; and (ii) the way their HOF candidacies are evaluated? We know Andy's as to (ii) -- ineligiblity regardless of the ultimate answer. What is yours? Is this ultimate answer, unknown but knowable, something that even matters to you?

That's why you were so gleeful about having Bonds' home run ball branded.

What is going with Andy is that he thinks steroids are totally, hugely, qualitatively and undeniably different than amphetamines, in a baseball context. He winds up coming back to the numbers of the big HR guys from the last 12 years because those numbers back up the point the best. But, if Sosa, Bonds and McGwire had all topped out at 60 HR with the same backdrop and the same bodies, Andy's arguments would be the same. I don't think Maury Allen's would, though....

Well, after two threads and a total of what, about 500 posts, someone finally seems to relate my position as it pretty much as, and not as they'd like it to be for their pinata purposes----although I'd stick with "qualitatively" and "undeniably" and let others make the case for "totally" and "hugely". But in any case, robin, I appreciate the honest effort.

As to the Bonds ball, Andy's stated reason is that he thinks it preserves the "other side" of the discussion, and "stimulates" discussion, and he think this matters, as he seems to think that DiPerna and Dial are going to be running the HoF in 2025 or so. I think that is complete bullshitt and have told him so multiple times. The asterisk ball only gives one side of the argument, and is basically an expensive, juvenile way of mocking Barry Bonds--nothing more--sort of a cross between the worst features of RETARDO and Andy Warhol. But I think Andy is sincere and not "in denial" about what he says about that and everything else.

Oh, I'm perfectly sincere about what I've said about the asterisk ball. I think it's a sublime piece of guerrilla theater that will provoke arguments between the future Rays and the future Andys for as long as it's kept on exhibit, which is more than enough justification for its existence. Of course the other justification for it is the way it makes people like Szym sputter in what seems like genuine rage that someone would dare to mock or "deface" their sacred record----think about the children! But that's merely a bonus.

And of course there's nothing "dignified" about the asterisk ball, and you can even call it "juvenile," but so what? What in the hell is "dignified" about steroids to begin with? We're talking about Drs. Van Nostrand and Canseco here, not the Mayo Clinic and Dr. Kildare.

But as to "denying" the records, the only records that matter are the ones in the book. And under "home runs---season" and "home runs---career" the only name I see up there is that of Barry Bonds. Whether you call Bonds' and McGwire's records "legitimate" or "illegitimate" is purely a personal preference, and I'll lack Ray and Szym argue that one out with Marc Ecko.

And my position is that they're not.

As to steroid users, of what pertinence is the ultimate answer, under your philosophy, to (i) their place in baseball history; and (ii) the way their HOF candidacies are evaluated? We know Andy's as to (ii) -- ineligiblity regardless of the ultimate answer. What is yours? Is this ultimate answer, unknown but knowable, something that even matters to you?

Given that we don't have a handle on what the impact of steroids is on baseball performance, I can't get worked up about it. There's also the mens rea aspect: I can't conclude that something that many players did, that was within the baseball culture, that wasn't against the rules, was "cheating." I just can't summon the outrage.

If hypothetically we had "perfect" information as to the effects -- say we "knew" that McGwire would have hit 452 HR instead of 583 -- I would consider adjusting for that when considering players for the HOF (I honestly would have to think it through more, given that it was still within the culture). I still wouldn't consider McGwire et. al. "cheaters" and flat ban them from the HOF for using steroids, for the reasons just stated above.

Using steroids was simply within the culture. Nobody cared. It went on for years and virtually nobody gave a hoot about it. Not the players. Not the owners. Not the league. Not the union. Not the fans. I can't find a player guilty of cheating under those circumstances, just like I can't get worked up about amphetamines users of the '60s and '70s. I think that people are being childish in viewing acts taken by Mark McGwire in 1994 through a shrill 2010 lens. It was a different time. At some point a little sanity has to seep in.

Mark McGwire's real crime is that he couldn't predict the future. He couldn't predict the sh!tstorm that would arise over this, years later, by a shrill, irrational, and flat unfair cabal of moral outragists. Mark McGwire has a lot more honor, dignity, and integrity than the Mike Lupicas of the world ever will.

The theory that steroids increase baseball performance is not unreasonable, but that's all it is -- a theory.

Understanding that, and understanding that our knowledge of actual impacts is imperfect, the actual impacts are knowable.

Given the scant evidence within our actual reach, and within our likely future reach, then the actual impacts are most definitely not knowable. Yet again, to say what you do betrays a dim understanding of the relationship between theory and knowledge.

I can't find a player guilty of cheating under those circumstances, just like I can't get worked up about amphetamines users of the '60s and '70s. I think that people are being childish in viewing acts taken by Mark McGwire in 1994 through a shrill 2010 lens.

People can get upset about it if they want. What bothers me is that people want to view the actions of McGwire, et al, in a certain way, but they won't do it with McGwire's PEDs-using predecessors.

Look, something happened in the "steroid era"; therefore there should be an explanation

No, that's the problem.

LOTS of things happened in the steroid era -- presumably greater/wider use of steroids, greater use of weight training, new ballparks, substantial changes to existing ballparks, improved nutrition and other health-related activities, possible changes to the ball (it's been frequently alleged), maple bats, thin-handled bats, a change in hitting approach to gain power at the expense of Ks and who knows what else (include good old fashioned randomness). We saw "huge" HR totals but also "huge" pitching seasons.

But we have only one time series with which to attempt to isolate all these effects.

The only way you could possibly hope to do something would be to look at all players over 20-odd years and specifically identify when each of those changes came into play (whether on a global scale or when it affected an individual player) and even then you probably don't have the statistical power or level of measurement needed to disentangle all of those effects. As to the impact of steroids ... sure, that's "knowable" but only if someone is going to set up an experimental study and nobody is going to do that.

It's bad enough that we humans obsess over "something happened therefore there must be an explanation" but it's much worse that we seem set on the notion that it has to be a single factor that explains it all.

And, yes, over any relatively short period of time, there's always something wierd going on and, no, it doesn't have to have an explanation ... or at least certainly not one we can find. One year Carlos Silva walked just 9 guys in nearly 190 innings -- one of the most incredible stats I think I've ever seen. In at least 150 IP, the 2nd lowest BB/9 in MLB was Mathewson at .62 in 1913. That record had stood for over 90 years and Silva beat it by 30%. Silva's second-best season is a BB/9 around 1.6 so he improved by 75%. What's the explanation for that?

It's bad enough that we humans obsess over "something happened therefore there must be an explanation" but it's much worse that we seem set on the notion that it has to be a single factor that explains it all.

This.

People can get upset about it if they want. What bothers me is that people want to view the actions of McGwire, et al, in a certain way, but they won't do it with McGwire's PEDs-using predecessors.

Is there a person anywhere -- a poster on BTF, a columnist, a blogger, a blogging non-blogger -- who has cast stones at amphetamine users? I have yet to see one, despite all the outrage. (No, saying that anti-steroids arguments apply to amphetamines also is not "casting stones.")