Here are the most popular rationalizations:
1. “It wasn’t against the rules.”
The conspiracy of silence to this day tells you all you need to know about the hollowness of such a claim. Again, we were a decade outside of the steroid bust of Ben Johnson. Steroids were a well-known taboo. Everyone knew, including those who took them, steroids were a conscious, elaborate, covert decision to go outside the boundaries of fair competition, not to enable performance but to enhance it beyond what was naturally possible.
Pitcher Matt Herges, who said steroids made him “superhuman . . . an android, basically,” once said, “We didn’t have drug testing anyways. But it was still wrong.”
When George Mitchell conducted his white paper investigation into steroids in baseball, his investigators contacted 68 players. Only one of them was willing to talk about steroids: Dan Naulty, the former Twins and Yankees pitcher whose chilling story I profiled last year. Naulty lived the lie. His debunking of the “it wasn’t against the rules” nonsense is as thorough as anything I’ve ever heard:
“I was a full blown cheater and I knew it,” Naulty said. “You didn’t need a written rule. I was violating clear principals that were laid down within the rules. Whether they were explicitly stated that I shouldn’t use speed or testosterone didn’t need to be stated. I understood I was violating mainly implicit principals.
“I have no idea how many guys were using testosterone. But I would assume anybody that was had some sort of conviction that this was against the rules. Look, my fastball went from 87 to 96! There’s got to be some sort of violation in that. It was not by natural cause. To say it wasn’t cheating to me was . . . it’s just a fallacy. There’s just no way you could say that’s not cheating. It was a total disadvantage to play clean.”
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
But of course Verducci is correct.
Did he actually give a succinct reason?
it's principles.
Isn't this disingenuous on the part of Verducci? Jackson threw games, which has nothing to do with the broad issues of PEDs. (In fact, it's the opposite, as, say what you will about steroids players, nobody disagrees that steroids players were doing their level best to win.)
If Verducci wanted to be intellectually honest, he would tell us all the times the character clause was applied to keep amps players out of the Hall. Which of course he can't do, because it never happened. But the issues surrounding amps usage are much closer to the steroids issues than freaking game-throwing.
111 ERA+, 691 innings, almost all in relief. Best season probably 2003 - 79 IP, 2.62 ERA, 7.7 K/9.
If nobodies like Dan Naulty were going to suddenly hump up and throw 96 mph, isn't there an argument that Bonds doing something similar is more a level playing field than if he does nothing? And if Bonds is still the best player in the game on this new elevated plateau, this new level playing field, then that just confirms (along with his play through 1998) that he deserves to be in the Hall of fame.
Oh wait...
Maybe people don't talk about it because of the insane overreactions from the press.
On the MLB Network show last night with Costas and Verducci and a few others, the general consensus of the anti-steroids crusaders was that amps weren't really relevant because steroids were much more effective.
Even if that's true - it's quite debatable - the position is retarded, because it basically boils down to excusing one set of players and penalizing another simply because the latter set had better drugs.
Also, there is (or at least was as of 2001) a framed Matt Herges jersey at the Tumble Inn, a townie bar in Champaign, IL.
It also, as I have pointed out before, punishes players for not knowing that at some point in the future, steroids were going to work better than amphetamines did.
The Dan Naulty stories are swallowed whole, while if McGwire says that steroids didn't help him hit better - they only helped him stay on the field - he is laughed at.
Either player testimony is relevant or it isn't, to any fair minded and intellectually honest person.
And it's not like there aren't plenty of Alex Sanchez's out there.
As are bat corking and scuff balling. I don't argue that any such stuff is not cheating. Just have an issue with the degree of punishment handed out.
He quotes Naulty saying that speed was just as against the rules as steroids, which he then ignores.
I got through about 45 seconds of it. Long enough to hear Verducci pat himself on the back for his 2002 article. As someone who was in the stands during the 1988 ALCS while 35,000 people were chanting "steroids...steroids" at the top of our lungs at Jose Canseco the number of media types asking why nothing was done when the problem became notable in the late 90s is laughable.
Verducci and the rest completely failed at their jobs in such spectacular fashion that it says an awful lot about the business of media that any of these people have jobs today.
I don't care who gets in today and in the future. I don't think the Hall of Fame is going to collapse as an institution or anything like that but for me personally, I'm done arguing about this stuff. I'm sure I'll visit because I love the history of the game but if Jack Morris gets in today (which I expect) good for him. If Craig Biggio gets in, good for him. The Hall is no longer about the best of the best, it's about playing "gotcha!" and that's sad to me.
Chemical additives that change your brain chemistry, give you energy to play the game, and theoretically help you concentrate during at bats - perfectly okay.
Chemical additive that change your musculature, allow you to heal quickly after weight room training, and theoretically help you drive pitches further - of the devil.
The primary difference, and the reason amps are ignored (aside from the point Carrigan makes @15) is that the sportswriters really, really like an "eyeball test" and you can't eyeball brain chemistry.
I'm not sure what your opinion is worth, Esoteric, if you won't stick around to support it.
It's just an empty conclusion.
And no Piazza either. This despite him going on at length during MLB Network's roundtable as to how he couldn't withhold a vote for a player on suspicion alone.
And those who refused to play with black people weren't eroding the fairness of competition?
"Maybe we sportswriters should have recused ourselves from '13 Hall of Fame voting in penance for blowing coverage of Steroids Era for years."
I have a lot of respect for you, Ray, but you've behaved like a boor towards me on this issue -- which is particularly appalling because I've made a conscientious effort to avoid character and ad hominem attacks on my end when talking about this subject -- and you aren't really owed the benefit of the doubt at this point. Furthermore, what's the point of me "sticking around?" It seems disingenuous for you to demand it, given that you know full well that A.) you are NEVER going to change your opinion on this issue; B.) you have already (in your opinion) reviewed, assessed and dismissed anti-steroid arguments like Verducci's (or mine). What is it your looking for? A continued scrum? A nonstop catfight? Somebody to rhetorically beat up on? I don't get it.
In fairness that may not be the issue, Verducci could simply be incompetent.
Morality is subjective and a slippery slope given the competitive nature of baseball. Who knows how many HOFers would've taken steroids if they played in the steroid era (some like Schmidt have admitted they would've succumbed)? Amps, scuffing baseballs, stealing signs, corked bats, etc. are all questionable from a morality perspective. And that's before you get into immoralities like racism that can be tied to several HOFers.
The argument regarding 'integrity of the game' is that steroids distorted statistics to an unprecedented degree. Mainly, HR totals went through the roof and that impacted pitching approaches which led to a ridiculous level of walks for a guy like Bonds. Since steroid testing, there has been a significant regression in HR rates amongst league leaders (no one coming close to 60). I think there's a valid, quantitative argument that steroids impacted the integrity of the game in a way that amphetamines did not.
While I disagree with Verducci's stance on never voting for a known steroid user (and favor Posnanski's and Costas's more relativistic stance that would vote in any known steroid user who is non-borderline - e.g., Yes to Bonds & Clemens while No - for now - to McGwire, Palmeiro, Sosa), I think Verducci's stance has merit.
Isn't Gaylord Perry in the Hall?
I will give Verducci credit at least for (a) not tarnishing players who have pretty much no PED evidence against them, like Bagwell; and (b) elevating pretty good "clean" players like Fred McGriff.
Baseball stats have always been distorted by era and playing conditions. You can't compare deadball stats to Babe Ruth-era stats, to 1968-stats anymore than you can compare any of them to sillyball-era stats.
Did not RTFA, but doesn't this depend on how he defines "known" and whether he is absolutely consistent in applying that definition?
HR per Game:
Year HR2009 1.04
2008 1.00
2007 1.02
2006 1.11
2005 1.03
2004 1.12 (testing with punishments)
2003 1.07 ("anonymous" testing)
2002 1.04
2001 1.12
2000 1.17
Is it clear when testing started just by looking at the (unmarked) chart? I wouldn't think so. How about for individual leaders?
2009: 47
2008: 48
2007: 54
2006: 54
2005: 51
2004: 48
2003: 47
2002: 57
2001: 73
2000: 50
Agreed that every era has distortions. You can't compare counting stats across eras but you can certainly compare players based on stats like WAR, OPS+, ERA+, etc (with a massive asterisk for pre-integration years).
But how many of those distortions would you attribute to questionable player behavior? Distortions caused by mound height, liveliness of ball, stadiums, etc. are environmental. We'll never know if the baseballs were livelier during the sillyball era (wouldn't be surprised) but, assuming that's not the case, the distortions in HR totals + the aging curve (e.g., Clemens, Bonds, Sheffield) are fundamentally different in that they were driven by questionable player actions.
6: Ray, if you want an even easier way to distinguish Shoeless Joe, isn't the obvious point that the writers voting on the 1936 ballot rejected a guy who had been banned from baseball? That fact, it seems, would go beyond mere "character" concerns (although conspiring to throw a WS could certainly implicate one's character too). I mean, now there's the Pete Rose Rule, but even without it, isn't it reasonable to say that it's putting the cart before the horse to give the "highest honor" the game has to a guy who's not even eligible to participate in it? (I suppose this is a Bill James argument from the NHBA.)
Don't take it personally, Esoteric. Ray throws around "dishonest" like a spastic sprays piss all over a bathroom floor. He's utterly incapable of not conflating his subjective premises and preferences with some sort of "objective" POV, and the fact that he won't even respond to your spot-on comment means that he knows that he hasn't got a leg to stand on.
Or it just means that I don't want the thread to devolve into namecalling and mudslinging, try as you might to take us there.
I generally enjoy Esoteric's posts and think he's an intelligent poster. I'll leave it at that.
Didn't you just respond to it by saying that you weren't going to respond to it?
If you didn't want to respond, you shouldn't have posted anything at all.
Touche. The only HR totals that jump off this page for me (http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/HR_top_ten.shtml) are McGwire (1998/1999), Sosa (1998,1999,2001), and Bonds (2001). The fact that 6 of the 8 seasons of 60+ HRs occurred in this four year span seems statistically odd, no?
Or the fact that Bonds put up the top 3 WAR batting seasons (and the 7th + 11th) for 35+ (2000-2004). Or that Bonds' top four offensive seasons occurred from 36-39. Or that 4 of Sheffield's top 5 occurred from 31-35, McGwire's 1st/3rd best batting seasons were at 34-35. 4 of top 5 for Sosa were 30-33.
While I'm sure there are some other greats that had odd aging curves, I would wager that the sillyball era is distorted vs. other eras in this regard.
But then his post wouldn't count in the demonimator.
No I think we should deal with it like my family does. Bring it up for years afterwards, especially when drunk.
I disagree. He was acknowledging that he read the post w/o responding to it.
... anything is more interesting than more HOF discussion...
Steroids, and greenies, its incredibly important to include them, both give you a rush of energy that lets you do things like hit the gym harder. Steroids, and greenies, don't make you superhuman, you still have to put in the necessary work, but they sure make you feel like you're superhuman. And guys like Verducci, and Costas, who haven't the first clue about what steroids, and greenies, do to your body, hear these lines, see the records of their youth being broken and say things like comparing steroids to "nuclear weapons", while everything else from amps, to scuffing the ball and corking the bat are "conventional weapons". Verducci said this last night, and no one called him out on it, much less even try to get him to explain how much more steroids help a player than any other form of 'cheating', whether it was banned at the time or not.
Somehow, someone needs to put these guys at the table and pretty much depose them on steroids until they finally realize they don't know jack #### about them. As long as guys like Verducci think they already know all they need to about steroids, which to them is that they pretty much turn you into a home run hitting machine, we're not going to get anywhere.
EDIT: Goddamnit, this thread is going to turn into some stupid fight. Eso, I mentioned this back in the other thread, but you had abandoned it by this point, but I think you somewhat fall into the group mentioned here, though at the sane end. You said steroids increase the permanent baseline, while greenies get you back to 100% (please correct me on that paraphrase if necessary). But greenies are used for the same thing steroids are, to hit the gym harder, and increase that permanent baseline.
In fairness, you did explain your position in detail a couple of days ago, multiple times, but you can't expect that everyone will just let something like #1 go--not at BTF on the HOF/steroids thing.
I generally enjoy Esoteric's posts and think he's an intelligent poster. I'll leave it at that.
Right, until the next time that you pull the "dishonest" gun out of your everready holster.
First, we have no idea if Sosa use steroids. He also changed his offensive approach in his late-20s and even then 30-33 is not that old to peak. Sheffield had his best offensive season at 27, his next best (by rate) at 26 and another of his top 5 at 23. McGwire and Bonds, sure, but that's two players out of hundreds who took steroids.
Yes it is odd, but steroid use isn't the only obvious answer. I would say that the contraction of the strike zone had as much or more to do with the explosion of power. Also, Bonds altered his approach to the batting as he got older. I think he grew to really appreciate the value of only swinging at what he could destroy, rather than what he thought would be in the strike zone. His *ahem* improved power provided a powerful negative feedback to not throw the ball anywhere near his power alley, further increasing walks and giving him latitude to wait for mistakes. He may have been chemically enhanced, but he was also a hitting genius.
Along with expansion, smaller parks, and some reports of a juiced up ball. I'm not sure why we wouldn't have expected home runs to peak.
All of these would tend to increase home runs, at least for some players. The increased working out would balance out somewhat with pitchers also being in better shape, and the increasing expansion of the bullpen presumably would have an effect also. But with a number of changes occurring in a relatively small point in time, it shouldn't be a shock that the number of outliers increased both for hitters and for pitchers (seen in some incredible ERA+s).
But what does he know, as against the lawyers and the spreadsheets ....?
EDIT: (Answer: no: Verducci is just so incompetent that he can't even cut-and-paste.)
EDIT 2: Coke to Howie.
EDIT 3: Incidentally, Verducci is patting himself on the back for "profiling" Naulty, but Naulty had said the same things five years earlier to the Daily News.
EDIT 4: We made fun of Verducci's "logic" last time around, too. Glad to see he's recycling the same article.
That's a pretty good rule to follow actually. If you are going to do something illegal or shady, that should be your first order of business.
Yes it is odd, but steroid use isn't the only obvious answer.
But it is an answer. Please let's not do another round of 'steroids don't really help you hit a baseball' lunacy.
For the record, I don't personally think the anti-PED contingent is necessarily dishonest. I just think they're stupid on this issue. Totes diff.
Well, the choices, given the cartoonish steroids vs. amps/spitballs arguments they make, are between stupid and dishonest. I try to give them the benefit of the doubt that they're not idiots.
Yes, exactly.
So, just use shitty versions of steroids and you're ok?
They're not idiots either. They're stupid on this issue. For some complex of reasons, they have taken a morally absolutist stand on the issue of "unnatural enhancement" of baseball players in the 1990s. I think they fail to think through the question with any rigor, but I don't think this means their idiots. Idiots are incapable of thinking through any issue. Kehoskie, for example. Esoteric isn't an idiot. He's just painfully wrong on this issue.
Does it concern you that many players used steroids and do not show an increase in performance?
How would that not fit stupid and dishonest?
EDIT: Coke to David.
I think the main issues were (1) and (2). (3) and (4) are factors in (1), but not the primary factors.
Expansion and smaller parks have remained and we haven't seen further 60 HR seasons. Don't see how that's a variable.
Juiced ball is a potential explanation.
Understand that we should question whether the assumed impact of steroids = Bonds/Sosa/McGwire reaching 60+ HR totals (and crazy HR/AB rates for years where Bonds had 200 walks) vs. 40-50 HR totals is true. But do people here really believe that steroids isn't responsible for at least 50% of this delta?
It's not dishonest because it's a genuine belief (of course it can lead people to make dishonest arguments, but anything can). Maybe it is stupid, but that kind of thing happens to everyone and it certainly doesn't make you a stupid person.
Well, as we move away from expansion, the effects will be diminishing. And I think we've seen a turn back towards pitcher's parks recently.
Not to mention that many of these guys have covered/do cover NFL football, where steroids suspensions are usually followed by a vote to the Pro Bowl team.
I think any argumentation that is developed by putting the conclusion first and reasoning backwards is stupid, by definition.
(Do you have any idea how much it pains me to be lining up with Ray and David in public?!)
IIRC, since the late '90s virtually all ball park changes have favored pitchers. Dodger Stadium's decreased foul ground is one of the few changes to favor the hitter. But there have been a number of changes - not least, the Rockies infamous humidor, that decrease offense.
Not as much as it pains us?
Do you have any idea how much it pains other members to read the congratulatory circle jerk you, Dave, and Ray just completed while demonstrating exactly why esoteric doesn't want to discuss the issue with you?
Really? Besides the humidor, what else was there?
Look, the first HR spike in the 1990s occurred, when? 1993-1994. What happened in 1993? Expansion.
The peak of HR hitting occurred when? 1998-2001. What happened in 1998? Expansion.
Expansion gives 25 replacement level pitchers jobs. Dan Rosenheck's research for the HOM suggests that the expansion hangover can last 5+ years. Perhaps even more in an era when MLB is competing more hotly for young talent with the NFL and NBA. So MLB expands, and offense goes way up. Then MLB expands just before the talent pool catches up, and WHAMMO! offense goes up even more.
To me, this is the most sound explanation for both the HR spikes of the 1990s (and the batting average spikes), and one that at least has some research behind it. And could have further research if we wanted to examine where players were coming from.
Agreed. There's a distinct difference between finding 12 starters and 40 relievers, from scratch, in 1993, and having two fully functional, 20 year old farm systems drafting and developing those players in 2013.
Parks opening from 1991-1996:
US Cellular (New Comiskey) 1991
Oriole Park @ Camden Yard 1992
Mile High Stadium/Coors Field 1993/1995
Progressive Field (Jacobs Field) 1994
The Ballpark @ Arlington 1994
Turner Field 1996
The only park in that list that was less hitter friendly than the park it replaced was Turner Field, a neutral park that replaced "The Launching Pad" of Atlanta-Fulton County Stadium. The rest were offense producing environments.
Parks opening from 1997-2001:
Tropicana Field (debuted with the Rays in 1998)
Chase Field/the BOB 1998
Safeco Field 1999
AT&T Park 2000
Comerica 2000
MinuteMaid/Enron 2000
PNC Park 2001
Miller Park 2001
Two of those are offense creating parks - Enron/MM and Chase/BOB. Maybe Miller. Three are run reducing environments: Trop, Safeco and Comerica. AT&T isn't notably different from Candlestick, that I know.
#80 answered it nicely.
I remember seeing analyses of the offensive explosion of the early mid '90s, where a significant percentage in the NL could be attributed to playing in Denver alone. Since then it has come back to Earth (so to speak) with the use of the humidor.
But as I said, in the '90s a number of factors were being pointed to as leading to offensive increases - now many are claiming it was solely due to steroids, and that doesn't seem to match up with what actually happened. Especially since pitchers could use steroids too.
I think the anti-roid zealots, like to say they wouldn't base a vote on suspicion alone, but if they have suspicion, they will create other reasons to withhold a vote... In Piazza's case "poor defense" in Sosa's(and Bagwell for others) case "not enough career"...etc...
Basically Bonds and Clemens are the only two players who are a lock by their careers, and fortunately they have enough public knowledge on their usage* that it's easy to blackball them. All the other players if you have suspicion, you can create a different reason to keep them out.
*It doesn't matter whether they have been exonerated or not.
I think one big HR factor was that the juiced pitchers and their increased MPH resulted in my Ks and more HR. The faster the pitch, the faster it comes off the bat. So its additive, rather than balanced.
He didn't include the Reds' and Phillies' new parks because he was only looking a '97-'01.
First good tweet of the year(if not history) by a sports writer.
Personal perception isn't a fact. Statistically it's been proven there is no such thing as the "hot hand" in basketball, yet people will claim that they feel like they just couldn't miss(even if they go 20 for 25). Amp users have claimed they can see better and that the world is going in slow motion. Corked bat users claim they can hit the ball farther(even though physics says that is incorrect)
I understand people have a tendency to take personal testimonies as gospel when it supports their already made conclusions, and ignore all the other evidence, but it's still a rather weak argument to bring to the table.
Expansion doesn't remain, eventually the talent catches up to expansion.
Another point is that the bats have changed, got smaller and lighter and maple. Which led to a lot of splintered bats and now they have set up new standards for bats. (only recently, coinciding with testing) (I see this was addressed rather well in following posts)
I imagine that pitchers using roids, would help the homerun explosion, assuming that roids helped pitchers throw harder. A harder thrown ball met squarely is going to have more distance than a slower pitch.
How true is this (I'm sincerely asking)? It's not like slow pitch softball or hitting off a tee prevents guys from being able to crush a ball. Even if it is a significant difference, doesn't the increased speed create fewer squarely hit balls, meaning fewer homers? I'd think that would greatly outweigh any benefit you'd see from hitting a harder thrown pitch.
The increase in HR hitting in 1993-94 had nothing at all to do with expansion. This has been well-researched. For example, if you look at pitchers who pitched before and after the HR explosion, their HR-allowed went up just as much as the league as a whole. I can't believe the staying power of this ridiculous myth......
True, but less balls are met squarely when the pitches are faster.
I was keeping my point to "the 90s" more or less. The notable spikes in HR/G occur in 1993 and 1998. Those are both expansion years, and while you can trot out correlation vs causation if you like, it's a better logical case than something like "steroids weren't good in 1992, but they were in 1993, and then they got better in 1998 or something."
It's like watching all the crappy DC Sunday talk shows.
These aren't the only choices. We know that expansion had zero impact. We don't know how much impact steroids had, though probably about the same.
The increase in strikeouts indicates that is true also. There were more strikeouts, more homeruns during those eras, partially explained by an emerging acceptance of strikeouts as the natural result of obp and power, and arguably partially explained by increase velocity/difficulty to hit pitches.
I've never seen this before, and it really doesn't matter that much about the individual pitchers anyways.
say what?
This isn't a new thing which is why BBTF as a community sometimes looks like a bunch of suckers by obsessing about HOF and awards voting....
The subtitle of the book was "The Politics Of Glory," for god's sake. It's nothing new.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main