Go back into the ivy, please.

Rice, Gossage and Dawson... we're being punk'd, right?

Ahhh, the Screaming Trees. Miss that band.

He really thinks he only played against a few HOF'ers? He's really small hall then. Does he think he belongs?

“You don’t just suddenly have 20 or 30 Hall of Famers in both leagues at one time, but that’s what the numbers said. That’s what all the commentators said.

Well, you do if you played before the 60's.

I don't think there was ever a moment in the lat 90's or 2000's where anyone thought there was 20 to 30 HoF'ers playing. When all is said and done you might get 20 to 30 guys who played during that time that have a solid case for it though.

Greg Maddux
Tom Glavine
Roger Clemens
Randy Johnson
Barry Bonds
Mark McGwire
Ken Griffey Jr
Cal Ripken Jr
Tony Gwynn
Rickey Henderson
Tim Raines
Mike Piazza
Craig Biggio
Frank Thomas
Jeff Bagwell
Roberto Alomar
Paul Molitor
Wade Boggs
Alex Rodriguez
Mariano Rivera
Barry Larkin
Ivan Rodriquez
Manny Ramirez
Jim Thome
Pedro Martinez

That's 25 at a rather cursory exam.

How about 1980 to 1990?

Mike Schmidt
Joe Morgan
Andre Dawson
Ryne Sandberg
Jim Rice
Paul Molitor
Robin Yount
George Brett
Nolan Ryan
Ozzie Smith
Kirby Puckett
Dave Winfield
Gary Carter
Carlton Fisk
Tony Perez
Rickey Henderson
Eddie Murray
Rod Carew
Tom Seaver
Reggie Jackson
Rollie Fingers
Steve Carlton
Fergie Jenkins
Phil Niekro
Don Sutton
Bert Blyleven
Dennis Eckersley
Wade Boggs
Bruce Sutter
Cal Ripken
Tony Gwynn
Rich Gossage
Greg Maddux
Randy Johnson
Barry Bonds
Mark McGwire
Carl Yastrzemski
Willie Stargell
Gaylord Perry

That is something like 40 HoF'ers playing at some time during that stretch.

Yes that is a small Hall. I mean I don't know what he means by a few but to take one mediocre organization that he played against--the Phillies--they had at least four guys who were solid HOFers on their team when they played against Dawson--Schmidt, Carlton, Morgan, Sandberg--plus a fifth who would obviously be in the HOF if he could keep his slips to himself.

How many HOF inductees did Dawson play against? My guess would be 25, though maybe with the lack of interleague games it's smaller.

How many more of these articles are we going to have to suffer through. Ugh.

“The thing is, I played a long time in the majors (21 years), and a couple more in the minors, and I didn’t play with that many Hall of Fame-caliber ballplayers,” Dawson said.

Dawson played with Gary Carter, Ryne Sandberg, and Tony Perez, who are already in. He played with Greg Maddux, who's going in next year, and Tim Raines, who might be going in soon. And he played with Roger Clemens, Rafael Palmeiro, Pete Rose, Gary Sheffield, and Kevin Brown, who likely aren't getting inducted in the immediate future, but seem like reasonable choices as Hall-of-Fame caliber ballplayers. Oh, and there's Dawson himself.

Anyone want to bother finding all the HoFers Dawson played against?

Just eyeballed this real quick -- looks like there were thirty HOF players active in Dawson's rookie year of 1976 (including Dawson). Eleven more debuted before Dawson retired in 1996. And of course, there are more than a few no-doubt HOF players who overlapped with Dawson and are not yet eligible (Maddux, Glavine, Griffey, Jeter, Rivera, etc).

EDIT: in case it's not clear, the 30 and 11 refer to players who have already been inducted; also fixed typos.

Dawson played against 35 players that would eventually get inducted into the Hall of Fame. I would guess that he played against another 15 or so players that will eventually get inducted.

Dear Keeper of the Keys,

We get the idea. Current HoF'ers don't want to sully themselves by sharing their exalted status with steroid users. They're much more comfortable with the amphetamine abusers who are in their exclusive little club, not to mention the drunks, drug addicts, racists, spousal abusers, tax cheats and assorted bat corkers and ball scuffers.

Please, for the love of God, stop posting these articles.

Thank you,

Raffy

Mike Schmidt
Ozzie Smith
Gary Carter
Ryne Sandberg
Tony Gwynn
Joe Morgan
Barry Larkin
Dave Winfield
Johnny Bench
Roberto Alomar
Tony Perez
Eddie Murray
Willie Stargell
Steve Carlton
Tom Seaver
Fergie Jenkins
Rollie Fingers
Willie McCovey
Dennis Eckersley
Rich Gossage
Phil Niekro
Gaylord Perry
Bruce Sutter
Lou Brock
Bert Blyleven
Nolan Ryan
Don Sutton
Paul Molitor
Wade Boggs
Rickey Henderson
Cal Ripken
Kirby Puckett
Robin Yount
George Brett
Carlton Fisk

I would not have expected the Screaming Trees in a Repoz intro.


How many more of these articles are we going to have to suffer through. Ugh.

The beatings will continue until morale improves.

How many more of these articles are we going to have to suffer through

Every idiotic article by a member, writer or defender of the HOF and the status quo of the election system prolongs the debate and makes it more likely that voting power will eventually be spread around and include people that possess actual congitive abilities.

How stupid are these guys? Read Al Kaline's quote and it was similar.
They think time stopped in 1976 when Hank Aaron retired?
There was a 40-year interval from Babe Ruth's retirement to Hank Aaron's. It's now been almost 40 years since Hank Aaron's retirement.
True, nobody retiring in the 50's got that close to 600 home runs. But Ted Williams certainly would have exceeded 600 if not for World War II. Foxx would have if not for whatever caused his early decline. There were no men of color playing at that time.
Then, several players whose careers began immediately after integration would get more than 550 home runs (Aaron, Mays, Robinson, Killebrew). Four of the top 11 retired in a span of 5 years. Mantle probably would have made 600 if surgeries were a little bit better.
There was a lull in accumulation of home runs for players who started in the early 60s and 70s, but what possible rationale is there that players shouldn't be able to hit as many home runs as guys did in the past? Just on number of players retired and better conditions there should be crowding in the 500s, pushing into the 600s, even the 700s. So 6 more guys in the top 11 started in the 80s and 90s? This distribution is not anomalous.
Yes, Barry Bonds was better than you whoever you are. That's not a big deal. It never was impossible for someone to be better than you.

He really thinks he only played against a few HOF'ers? He's really small hall then. Does he think he belongs?

Ouch.

Certainly he's in the bottom half of the lists posted upthread.

Every idiotic article by a member, writer or defender of the HOF and the status quo of the election system prolongs the debate and makes it more likely that voting power will eventually be spread around and include people that possess actual congitive abilities.

"Spread around", yes. But no matter which group you involve, you're going to get enough different opinions on what makes a Hall of Famer, probably enough so that you won't necessarily like the outcome any better. It's not their "cognitive abilities" that are the problem, it's that once you get past a select few players it becomes harder to get agreement on the characteristics that make a Hall of Famer.

-- MWE

The writers have been electing about 1.5 per year for a while so, for any recent 20 year period, there'd be about 30 HoFers who played. Almost any HoFer is going to play for about 20 years so he'll see about 15 guys who retired in the first 10 years of his career inducted in the 2nd 10 years of his career, about 15 guys who shared his career span inducted in the 10 years after he retires and about 15 guys he played against in the last 10 years of his career inducted in the 10 years following that. Throw in some VC selections and he's likely to have about 50 HoFers he played against by the time all is said and done.

And that's without any consideration to expansion.

Dawson's first AS game was 1981. He was joined by:

(Rose), Schmidt, Carter, Ozzie, (Raines), Carlton, Ryan, Seaver, Sutter, Carew, Brett, Winfield, Reggie, Fisk, (Morris), Murray, Fingers, Gossage

That's 16 right there including Dawson and not counting Rose, Morris (sure to be there eventually) and Raines (good chance). Looks like a really packed AS year but then three of them are closers.

The rest of his AS games and new HoF names

1982 (5): Henderson, Yount, Eck (AS start), Yaz, Niekro
1983 (3): Bench (as a 3B!), Rice, Ripken
1987 (4): Sandberg, Gwynn, Boggs, Puckett, (McGwire), (Trammell)
1988 (3): Molitor, (Clemens), (Palmeiro), Larkin, Maddux
1989: (Smoltz)
1990 (3): Griffey, Johnson, Alomar, (Bonds)
1991 (1): Glavine, (Biggio)

So that's 35 HoFers plus Rose, Morris, Biggio, Raines, Smoltz, Mac, Palmeiro, Bonds, Clemens. Lee Smith is in there lots too but I don't like his chances.

Other players inducted that either weren't on an AS team in those years or I missed them, mostly from very early in his career: Blyleven, Perez, Sutton, Jenkins, Perry, Morgan, Palmer, Hunter, McCovey, Stargell, Brock. So no we're up to 46+.

And I think of the time period of Dawson's career as one of the weakest in baseball history in terms of standout talent.

Thing is, if somebody would actually point this fact out to Dawson, he might well back off this silly assertion. Like pretty much every human alive, he remembers his youth and career as being more special than today. He probably still wouldn't want PED users in the HoF but he at least might accept that 30+ HoFers is about what you'd expect (depending on what time frame he's thinking about). Possibly it gets him to accept that Bonds and Clemens (at least) were HoFers "before they started using."

Thing is, if somebody would actually point this fact out to Dawson, he might well back off this silly assertion.

I think you are right. The would imagine that the reason we are being deluged with articles like this one is more because writers and reporters are incapable of coming up with a unique twist and thus call up a random HOFer and bait and prod them into giving them the story they want to write.

Dear Keeper of the Keys,

We get the idea. Current HoF'ers don't want to sully themselves by sharing their exalted status with steroid users. They're much more comfortable with the amphetamine abusers who are in their exclusive little club, not to mention the drunks, drug addicts, racists, spousal abusers, tax cheats and assorted bat corkers and ball scuffers.

Please, for the love of God, stop posting these articles.

Thank you,

Raffy

I agree the articles are tedious, and often badly written.

But, I do think it adds something to the debate to know that the actual guys in the Hall view steroids as different from amps, booze, coke and spitballs.

That's the whole debate right? Is steroids "cheating" or not.

I take it pretty seriously when great major leaguers say "hell yes, it's cheating".

It seems the weakest HOFers complain the most.

“You knew something was wrong when numbers were getting obliterated in a short period. That many great players don’t just show up like that. It just doesn’t happen. You don’t see 40 Hall of Famers show up out of nowhere in five years.”

...“I don’t let bitterness and anger weigh me down, but I won’t pretend it doesn’t offend me,” Dawson said. “I was talking to Frank Robinson about it last year, and he’s really angry about what’s been done to the history of the game.

“The guys who took steroids disrespected the game, and disrespected the history. Our history relies so much on the numbers, and the numbers have been destroyed.”

At least he's honest enough to admit it's about the numbers. Which it is.

I take it pretty seriously when great major leaguers say "hell yes, it's cheating".

It turns out that according to the users of Performance-Enhancing Drug A, the users of Performance-Enhancing Drug B cheated and the users of Performance-Enhancing Drug A did not. You never could have seen that coming.

It turns out that according to the users of Performance-Enhancing Drug A, the users of Performance-Enhancing Drug B cheated and the users of Performance-Enhancing Drug A did not. You never could have seen that coming.

Nevertheless, if players were openly using amps in the clubhouse, but felt they had to hide steroids, that is evidence that the players thought A was OK, but B was cheating.

You don’t see 40 Hall of Famers show up out of nowhere in five years.

This actually could be the germ of a better argument than " dIidn’t play against more than a few Hall of Famers." Of course, we'd have to decide which five years and then look at whether there really were 40 HOF resumes that showed up out of nowhere during that period.

Like pretty much every human alive, he remembers his youth and career as being more special than today.

Which is funny because good lord, Dawson's days were the late 70s and 1980s. Hardly the peak of American civilization.

How many more of these articles are we going to have to suffer through. Ugh.

Are you kidding? This conversation has only been going on around here for about eight or nine years now. It's one of the primary staples of this website. Where the heck have you been? There are hundreds, if not thousands, more of these still to come!

if players were openly using amps in the clubhouse, but felt they had to hide steroids, that is evidence that the players thought A was OK, but B was cheating.

Maybe. Were open use of amps in the clubhouse and hidden use of steroids happening at the same time? Or had open amp used waned before steroid use really got rolling? How did Rick Helling know that so many players were using steroids if they were all being so careful to hide it?

Maybe. Were open use of amps in the clubhouse and hidden use of steroids happening at the same time? Or had open amp used waned before steroid use really got rolling? How did Rick Helling know that so many players were using steroids if they were all being so careful to hide it?

I'd love to know the answers to these questions.

But, I do think it adds something to the debate to know that the actual guys in the Hall view steroids as different from amps, booze, coke and spitballs.

That's the whole debate right? Is steroids "cheating" or not.

I take it pretty seriously when great major leaguers say "hell yes, it's cheating".

Or, as my (at the time) 17 year old sister told my 14 year old sister: "Me and my friends think what you and your friends do is stupid".

It adds nothing to the debate.

The writers have been electing about 1.5 per year for a while so, for any recent 20 year period, there'd be about 30 HoFers who played.

To me, this is a really useful way of looking at it. When I was a kid, I probably would have guessed that there were 10 or fewer active HOFers at any given time, and I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people continue to have this intuition. 10 or fewer seems pretty special. 30 really doesn't. Every team might have one!

The point is, though, that we don't know at the time who those 30+ players will turn out to be. We only know who the 10 or so obvious ones are (the hit-by-a-bus ones).

Can you guys think of people who were actually referred to as Future HOF after ten years all the time but fell to pieces (or just didn't make it)?

Garvey is certainly number one on the list, right?

After several days of general public response to this year's Hall of Fame result, is anyone still maintaining the process and tone hasn't hurt the Hall?

It turns out that according to the users of Performance-Enhancing Drug A, the users of Performance-Enhancing Drug B cheated and the users of Performance-Enhancing Drug A did not. You never could have seen that coming.

I would imagine that the reason we are being deluged with articles like this one is more because writers and reporters are incapable of coming up with a unique twist and thus call up a random HOFer and bait and prod them into giving them the story they want to write.

Here's a wild twist: "Mr. Dawson [or whoever], did you ever take amphetamines?" Or is future access still Concern A?

If players were openly using amps in the clubhouse, but felt they had to hide steroids, that is evidence that the players thought A was OK, but B was cheating.

Forever and ever with this? Pete Rose lied under oath about amphetamines, which is more than Mark McGwire ever did about steroids. What other second felonies to cover up felonies are OK in the clubhouse culture?

It seems the weakest HOFers complain the most.

if rice and dawson think they're among the best players in the game -- and rightly or wrongly, since they were elected to the hall of fame, that's not an unreasonable thought for either of them to have -- and then within years of their retirement, there are dozens of players who completely blow their accomplishments away, it does actually make some sense that they would view what those players did as illegitimate just because they can't get their heads around the fact that their best isn't actually anywhere near THE best.

Folks, it could be that I am too kind to Dawson, but I think that his words are being misinterpreted.

THis is how I read him: 1. You don't usually have 20 to 30 HoFers in the AL and 20 to 30 HoFers in the NL, playing concurrently ("You don’t just suddenly have 20 or 30 Hall of Famers in both leagues at one time, but that’s what the numbers said. That’s what all the commentators said")

if I read Dawson correctly, he is saying that at the same time (say, June 6th, 1985, a date I am tossing out), you didnn't have between 40 to 60 HoFers playing in the majors.

2. During a 5 year period, you don't have 40 NEW players of a HoF caliber ("You don’t see 40 Hall of Famers show up out of nowhere in five years.”).

Now, Dawson may be wrong here, but I think he is trying to say that you don't get THAT many new HoFers coming into MLB in a 5 year period (say, 1982-1986). That's probably an unimportant point (they could be a little bit more or a little bit staggered at specific times), but it doesn't seem to me that it is being read correctly.

One final comment here: for reasons that are neither here nor there, some late 70s-1980s players that SHOULD HAVE BEEN HoF level players (Gooden, Mattingly, perhaps Mike Scott, Dave Parker, Strawbery, Fred Lynn) didn't get over the hump, be it because of injury, drugs, etc.

THAT could be clouding Dawson's judgement (or perhaps he thinks that some 90s-00s players managed to get over some humps that crushed earlier players because of PEDs, though I don't see it).

I think of Hank (Aaron) and Willie and Mickey, it makes me really angry,” Dawson said. “We worked really, really hard to get to a certain level. They did it with drugs.

Andre, you are stretching a little putting yourself in with these three guys.

I think of Hank (Aaron) and Willie and Mickey, it makes me really angry,” Dawson said. “We worked really, really hard to get to a certain level. They did it with drugs.

Grammatically speaking, the "They" in that final sentence could as easily refer to "Hank (Aaron) and Willie and Mickey" as any unnamed steroids abusers. Practically speaking, the same is true.

I wonder what the relatives of Rick Ferrell, Rabbit Maranville, and High Pockets Kelly think of the Hall of Fame/steroids debate.

Nevertheless, if players were openly using amps in the clubhouse, but felt they had to hide steroids, that is evidence that the players thought A was OK, but B was cheating.

MCoA handled your earlier point fine. Here -- it's hardly clear that players were "hiding" steroid use.

First, by the time these guys came in, amp use had been going on for 20+ years. It was perfectly clear this was "OK" and nothing was being hidden. In that interim though and perhaps especially with Ben Johnson in 1988, it was clear that steroid use was not going to get the public and media free pass. Also, especially early, roid use involved injections. It's easy to pop pills in a locker room, injections is a bit much. The actual taking of steroids was always going to be a private thing although it wouldn't shock me if Bonds took some flaxseed oil or used the cream in the locker room. Pretty clearly McGwire was using andro in the locker room. And I assume the "personal trainers" with clubhouse access were there to tend to their clients' needs someplace private -- but maybe that was just a perk so they could fulfill their man crush needs.

The Mitchell Report, Radomski, McNamee, etc. make it pretty clear that players discussed this reasonably openly among themselves, shared contacts, etc. If Player A bulked up, player B asked him how he did it and, clearly pretty often, player A obliged. I mean no matter how those roids got into Palmeiro's wee, everybody seems agreed that he let Tejada give him a B-12 shot -- WTF? One of the "crucial" inadmissable pieces of evidence against Bonds is the recording of Anderson talking to somebody (was it a reporter?) about steroid use.

And then you have BALCO. A high profile athletic performance company (legally incorporated) with lots of major clients. Nobody seemed to be "hiding" exactly -- I mean they were trying to hide the illegality of what they were supplying but it wasn't hiding the activities. Bonds had a NYT Magazine reporter come out for a couple of weeks and observe his insane workout regimen so PR polish but not exactly hiding.

And at an even more minor note, I recall a game when McGwire hit a monster -- if I recall, it was the one where he put a hole in the McDonald's sign in LF in Busch. Whichever it was, it was off Hershiser. The camera caught Hershiser's face after watching the ball fly out there and you could easily read his lips. His response was "Wow!" with what I took to be a look of amazement and admiration on his face. It wasn't "you dirty cheater" or even \"####\" nor did he start yelling at McGwire or anything. I also recall an article on the 98 HR chase from the players' perspective which was basically full of "first thing everybody asks when they walk into the clubhouse is how many did Sammy hit today?" kinds of remarks.

This may just have been reluctance to slay the golden PR cow but almost nobody was griping about it. The vast majority of players had to know what was going on and they seemed to be accepting of it. If they felt cheated in real time, they had a funny way of showing it.

And then there's MLB (and the MLBPA). The Olympics banned amps in the late 60s and introduced testing for the 72 Olympics I think it was. Steroids were added around 75 with testing in 76. Lots of people caught culminating in Ben Johnson in 88. The NFL banned steroids in the late 80s. The NBA had a recreational drug program in the 80s although apparently didn't add roids until 99. What exactly are we supposed to say about a league that is obviously aware of the issues, obviously aware that almost every other sport in the world had instituted bans, testing and penalties, and yet nothing happens. Are we to conclude from that behavior that steroids are "cheating"? It would be one thing if baseball players had been early adopters but, if anything, they seem the last to join the party.

It's certainly possible to make a case that steroid use in baseball was not as acceptable as amp use but "not as acceptable" is a pretty thin line for "cheating" and especially for "cheating" which is so severe as to be a nearly unprecedented assault on the game's values. Besides the reality is that players feeling cheated has nothing to do with this. The issue is that a chunk of the voters and the public feel "cheated" and they will have their pound of flesh. Any player who now claims to have been cheated is just convenient support for a conclusion that many voters have already drawn.

"We worked really, really hard to get to a certain level. They did it with drugs."

This is perhaps the thing that bugs me the most about the steroid debate, as it seems to show a deep misunderstanding of what steroids are and how they work. To my understanding, steroids are only effective if you're also "working really, really hard." They are not a "magic pill," and it's disappointing that so many people still think of them that way -- because I think that makes them even more tempting for young people and amateurs to try them.

When high-school athletes are told over and over by sportswriters and former players that steroids are such a quick, effective shortcut to massive improvement, why in the world would those high-schoolers NOT try them? Especially if they understand that their sports career will realistically end in high school or college, before serious testing and penalties. They think that if they take steroids they will quickly get these massive bodies and will be good at sports and girls will like them and maybe they'll even get scholarships.

repoz has been trolling the site for a decade now with anything remotely related to the peds issue. it has certainly driven traffic so if that the business goal it has been achieved in spades.

repoz has been trolling the site for a decade now with anything remotely related to the peds issue. it has certainly driven traffic so if that the business goal it has been achieved in spades.

You kind of wonder where this site would be without Murray Chass blogs and those Weird Old Tip ads.

("You don’t just suddenly have 20 or 30 Hall of Famers in both leagues at one time, but that’s what the numbers said. That’s what all the commentators said")

Yes, this is what he was saying. But he has no evidence to back this up. Nobody was talking about 20-30 HoFers in each league. Commentators weren't saying that. In fact, very quickly, you started hearing things like "500 HRs is no longer a major milestone." I don't think anybody ever called Luis Gonzalez a HoFer. There were a number who said Edgar was but there are a lot who say that Vizquel is. You will always have more guys labelled _by somebody_ an HoFer as they close out their career ... but when all is said and done, they won't be.

I don't expect players to be aware of the ins and outs of era comparisons but that's really all that Dawson is reacting to. It was an era when HR were easy to come by. So, sure, at first it was "amazing" that some guy hit 50 HRs. And we all reacted with wonder and said what a great season it was. But, after a few years, that became less amazing. Now we have scouts whining about how they can't find any kids with 35-HR power.

If you look at the league-relative stats it's easy to put the 90s players into context. If you look at the top of the OPS+ leader boards, the first 35 years of the 20th century baseball and the middle 35 years and the last 35 years all look pretty much the same except for Ruth. If you look at counting stats, Bonds barely beat Aaron, then you get Aaron/Ruth/Mays then you get Griffey just short of Mays. That doesn't look wacky at all. But if you look at the career (min 8000 PA, 1901 onwards)) BA list, you don't get to an expansion player until Gwynn at #9. Then not another until Boggs at #16. Moreover, Williams and Musial are the only two post-war players in that top 16. In the first 40 years of 20th c baseball, it was really easy to hit for a high BA. That hasn't kept the HoF from inducting pretty much every 300 career hitter from the era into the HoF while holding sub-300 BAs against more modern players.

So, sure, some of the numbers got silly -- so we adjust for it being an era of silly numbers and conclude, rightly or wrongly, that McGriff's 493 HR and Delgado's 473 and maybe even Sheffield's 509 weren't really that impressive. The voters certainly haven't displayed any problems in sifting out the "over-accomplishments" of the 90s. If McGriff puts up those numbers and retires in 1977, I'm guessing he's sharing the dais with Lou Brock in 1985. (Remember, Killer had to wait a few years, chances are McGriff would too.)

Like I said, I don't expect players to see it that way. But Dawson is remembering that early reaction and some of the PR that went along with bringing fans back to the game while not realizing that even BBWAA voters are smart enough to do some basic era adjustments.

And it's true we have a rare and massive glut of legit HoFers hitting the ballot. It happens but maybe never before to this extent. But then about half of them are pitchers and another quarter of them are excellent all-around types, not sluggers.

Dawson was probably an illegal PEZ user

http://www.amazon.com/PEZ-Chicago-0-87-Ounce-Candy-Dispensers/dp/B0018QV15I

I think that makes them even more tempting for young people and amateurs to try them.

Yup. Despite what people say, it's pretty clear that the don't actually care about the children.

Player A:

1785g 7722 pa 222HR / 1099 RBI / 14SB / .307 /.358 /.471 .830 127 OPS+

Player B:

1583 g 6326 pa 335HR / 1000RBI / 221SB .259 / .357 /.505 .862 138OPS+

Who would you rather have?

repoz has been trolling the site for a decade now with anything remotely related to the peds issue. it has certainly driven traffic so if that the business goal it has been achieved in spades.

He posts things that interest people and thus generate conversation. I'm not sure what the reason for the negative comment ("trolling") is. Isn't that supposed to be his objective?

Has anyone seen an extensive interview with Rick Helling as to this subject? I don't think his name appears in the Mitchell Report.

Player A:

1785g 7722 pa 222HR / 1099 RBI / 14SB / .307 /.358 /.471 .830 127 OPS+

Player B:

1583 g 6326 pa 335HR / 1000RBI / 221SB .259 / .357 /.505 .862 138OPS+

Who would you rather have?

The one on amps but not roids of course.

The one on amps but not roids of course.

how do you feel about cocaine?

Another problem might be that Dawson and others are not adjusting for league average. Juan Gonzalez might look like a borderline HOF just based on counting stats, but when you adjust for his insane run environment he's not particularly close (even before accounting for defense).

The problem there is that a lot people simply don't understand things like adjusting for park and league average. Even allowing for this Andre is still either a moron or lying, because as people have showed above, he clearly played with a ton of obvious hall of famers.

how do you feel about cocaine?

About the same as I feel about Vitamin C.

About the same as I feel about Vitamin C.

it's a hell of a vitamin?


player A was don mattingly.
player B was darryl strawberry.

[30] Andruw Jones?

Can you guys think of people who were actually referred to as Future HOF after ten years all the time but fell to pieces (or just didn't make it)?

Garvey is certainly number one on the list, right?

Like smileyy said, Andruw Jones for sure. How about Nomar Garciaparra? Dwight Gooden? Darryl Strawberry? Eric Davis?

[30] Andruw Jones?

There are other players who just fell apart. When Dale Murphy was winning MVP awards, I think a lot of people thought of him as a HoFer. Heck, I'd put Jim Rice in this category except that they went and elected him anyway.

Can you guys think of people who were actually referred to as Future HOF after ten years all the time but fell to pieces (or just didn't make it)?

Garvey is certainly number one on the list, right?

Pete Rose, though he doesn't really count.

In addition to those already mentioned, maybe Fred Lynn and Juan Gonzalez (who were both already named tangentially). Tony Oliva surely had some supporters, possibly Dave Concepcion (9 All Star Games by age 34), maybe Bill Madlock (after 1983 he had 4 batting titles and a .317 career average, when that still meant something -- I don't think people were ever crazy about him, but they might have reluctantly acknowledged a "Hall of Fame path" at that point).

Before my time -- so I don't know what the popular perception was -- Elston Howard (9 straight All Star Games, MVP, 4 World Series titles) and Harvey Kuenn (8 straight All-Star Games, MVP votes in 8 straight years, led league in hits four times) seemed to be cruising to the HOF after 10 or so years.

Cesar Cedeno, Fred Lynn, Dave Parker, Steve Garvey, Dale Murphy, Don Mattingly, Darryl Strawberry, Eric Davis. That's a lot of guys who were contemporaries of Dawson who might have been considered, at one time or another, the best player in the game, whose careers just petered out and never got there. Add Doc Gooden and Fernando.

Part of it is perception, of course. You can easily say that the best players in the game during Dawson's career were always Morgan, Schmidt, Rickey, Raines, Boggs.

What exactly are we supposed to say about a league that is obviously aware of the issues, obviously aware that almost every other sport in the world had instituted bans, testing and penalties, and yet nothing happens.

That much of the management structure didn't think steroids enhanced baseball performance. It's dead easy to document this. There was a widely held belief that adding upper body strength slowed bat speed. Sparky Anderson was the most public on this, but he was far from alone.

At which point we're at the mid-90s. That takes us to roughly the labor wars of the mid-90s. I have little doubt that had they broken the PA, MLB would have put Vincent's memo into practice -- along with off-season testing. But they lost. And had poisoned the relationship with the PA. Precisely zero chance of them getting any kind of testing. They were busy negotiating away potential punitive damages from their bad faith bargaining.

So we come to the first post-strike negotiations. Selig (and others) are not interested in anything contentious. And the PA (with good reason -- remember, Selig's lied to congress, MLB's been found guilty of bargaining in bad faith. All in the not too distant past) doesn't trust MLB.

Maybe they'd have agreed to some kind of testing if MLB threw out a big enough bone. But remember -- the strike did an awful lot of damage. MLB as a whole probably still hadn't recovered completely. Selig spent the time coalition building. And building a substantially less confrontational relationship with the PA.

All in all, I think it fair to say that MLB got testing as soon as it was possible given what happened in 1994.

I should note that the NHL had even even stranger stance on steroids. That they were nothing to worry about because Canadian boys don't use steroids. Swear to God that was their official position.

He posts things that interest people and thus generate conversation. I'm not sure what the reason for the negative comment ("trolling") is. Isn't that supposed to be his objective?

Yes, no question that there is a cadre of true fanatics here at BTF that is apparently content to spend the rest of their days on this earth discussing this topic. The overwhelming majority of them are enablers who can't get over the fact that they have been soundly routed in this debate.

Unfortunately, this has come at the expense of driving away a broader base of baseball fans who aren't quite as obsessed with the topic as the dead-enders. That's why the Game Chatters are now basically dead, where many of them were quite active up until a couple of years ago.

You have several huge logical leaps in #58.

I think you are right about the casual fans being driven away, I suspect it is the policy of forcing them to click and read all the steroids threads (and the penalties for not posting in those threads are bad to, I bet that is why you had to post). If only we didn't do that the site would be so much better and they would not have been driven away.

Yes, no question that there is a cadre of true fanatics here at BTF that is apparently content to spend the rest of their days on this earth discussing this topic. The overwhelming majority of them are enablers who can't get over the fact that they have been soundly routed in this debate.

Soundly routed? We won on the only battleground available to us: this forum. The point of view of the minority who still sees a meaningful distinction between steroids and amps - expressed most vocally by Andy - is not taken seriously by the vast majority of people here. That point of view may have won the day in the mainstream, but it has decidedly lost in this forum, and in any forum where the arguments have been given a serious hearing.

As Jim has said numerous times the people who post on this site are an extremely small percentage of the people that visit this site on a daily basis. The world spins regardless of Joey B posting or not.

As Jim has said numerous times the people who post on this site are an extremely small percentage of the people that visit this site on a daily basis.

And yet the content of the site remains almost exclusively tailored to the fanatical ultra high volume posters.

It is? Even if that is true, which I don't believe is true, what I said in 61 is still true.

Soundly routed? We won on the only battleground available to us: this forum. The point of view of the minority who still sees a meaningful distinction between steroids and amps - expressed most vocally by Andy - is not taken seriously by the vast majority of people here. That point of view may have won the day in the mainstream, but it has decidedly lost in this forum, and in any forum where the arguments have been given a serious hearing.

So the circle jerk is still circle jerking to the dulcet tones of "BUT WHAT ABOUT THE GREENIES!!!!". Wow. Impressive.

In the broader world, of course, this meme is losing traction, not gaining it. Plenty of writers read this site and not a one is carrying the meme's water in print that hasn't carried it from day one. Mark McGwire's vote has gone down by a third over seven years. Comtemporaneous opinion in the Amp Era barely pondered the notion of amp use bearing on HOF worthiness; on the contrary, every faction of the sport, right down to HOFers themselves, has vetoed the HOF case of two of the sports' best all-time numbers generators for HOF membership based solely on their roiding. Bonds and Clemens got barely over a third of the vote.

But congratulations -- like the modern liberals, the anti-anti-roiders will always have each other.

Darryl Strawberry, Eric Davis

To be fair to the original proposition (10 year no-doubt guys who didn't make it), Davis only had 7-8 years before injuries took their toll, and the shine started coming off of Strawberry after about 9 years.

When the Pearlmans and Baylisses of the world are on your side it's time to rethink your position. You really want to hang your hat on what sportswriters write in their latest column?

We won on the only battleground available to us: this forum.

Won? (and bear in mind my position is pretty much the same as yours) Doubtful.

Obviously I believe in the arguments I've made, but I've seen precious little evidence that the arguments have swayed anybody.

Greenies:

The anti-steroid voters just don't care about what was done in previous years. They don't care to go into whether some drug available to Mantle, Mays, and Aaron was used or what the effects might be.

Now if you had a player today get suspended for such use, I don't think they'd make much distinction between the types of drugs, and such player would suffer just like the roiders. That or HGH. It's all PEDs, and everyone with a taint is a cheater. If strong evidence came out that Craig Biggio was a speed freak during his playing career, his HOF chances would be toast.

We don't have a test case though, as there are no HOF caliber players on this ballot or coming up who are known users of greenies but not suspected of steroids. If Carlos Ruiz had 12 years like 2012, he'd be in that category, but he doesn't, and would never sniff the HOF anyway.

That much of the management structure didn't think steroids enhanced baseball performance.

That's true but it's not an excuse for not making serious efforts to ban them while all other sports were. And is only slightly more rational than "Canadian boys don't use steroids."

Look, it's like somebody proposing to build a bar across the street from a school and the local zoning board denying it. After the bar builder points out that there is no law in that town restricting bar locations, the zoning board responds "well, we never thought anybody would ever propose to do so." The bar builder then points out that every town within 100 miles has such a restriction, the local council has twice voted down proposed legislation with such restrictions but has passed a law saying bars can't be operated across the street from churches. That would be clear evidence that bars across the street from schools is A-OK in that town.

Anyway, you're just making my point. It wasn't that MLB leadership was ignorant of steroids, it's that nobody cared until the post-BALCO PR nightmare began. You're just trying to wave off this disinterest as ignorance of its potential effects which I don't really buy. But if management was A-OK with steroid use and players were A-OK with steroid use and fans loved the product supposedly produced by steroid use -- where is the cheating?

If management considered steroids to be cheating, they could have gone after them more aggressively. They did not. If the Union thought steroids were a danger to the players and/or the game, they could have gone after them more aggressively. They did not. If a large group of players felt cheated by steroids, they could have complained more loudly through the media. They did not. If the media considered steroids to be cheating, they could have gone after them more aggressively. They did not.

What conclusion can we possibly draw other than steroid use in baseball was A-OK with damn near everybody?

We don't have a test case though, as there are no HOF caliber players on this ballot or coming up who are known users of greenies but not suspected of steroids.

We do have a known user of greenies whose use is almost completely forgotten in favor of his suspected steroid use. That's close.

Obviously I believe in the arguments I've made, but I've seen precious little evidence that the arguments have swayed anybody.

I'm a convert on the issue of greenies vs. steroids. I didn't think the two were comparable, but I've come around to the other side. The only difference I see now between them is how the players themselves viewed usage, but that minor distinction isn't enough to overcome the overwhelming similarities between the two acts.

Won? (and bear in mind my position is pretty much the same as yours) Doubtful.

Obviously I believe in the arguments I've made, but I've seen precious little evidence that the arguments have swayed anybody.

Really? I can't name anyone off the top of my head, but that's not the impression I've gotten.

Kiko and SoSH, what is your against-conventional-wisdom timeline argument, again? Do you argue that Bonds had nothing to do with the steroids witch hunting? Is that it? Or is it something else?

Because he has been one of the faces of this - and in the cross hairs of the ant-steroids crusaders - for many years now. And was blackballed from the game. And of course fell short of this year's HOF election.

Kiko and SoSH, what is your against-conventional-wisdom timeline argument, again? Do you argue that Bonds had nothing to do with the steroids witch hunting? Is that it? Or is it something else?

The argument Kiko and I have made (and he's done the heavy lifting on supplying the evidence) is against the oft-stated contention that the steroids story (frenzy, witchhunt, whatever you want to call it) was all about Bonds, or that he was a major driving force in it.

Both he and I would and have acknowledged that he has since become the unmistakable face of steroids (with Rocket as his unwilling sidekick). But in terms of driving the story, the evidence simply doesn't support the idea that Bonds-mania was a signicant factor. Kiko's laid out a pretty compelling timeline, which has basically been refuted with, "yeah, but you know it was REALLY about Bonds," type of silliness.

There's been more media coverage in the last 5 years of amphetamine use in the 1960s, 70s and 80s than there was during the entire 1960s and 1970s and 1980s. It's a side dish to the steroid story, so it's not "winning," but it's certainly a big change.

There's been more media coverage in the last 5 years of amphetamine use in the 1960s, 70s and 80s than there was during the entire 1960s and 1970s and 1980s. It's a side dish to the steroid story, so it's not "winning," but it's certainly a big change.

Pretty much the only media coverage of greenies in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, was Bouton writing about them in Ball Four, for which he was raked over the coals. "Everyone may have known", including players, writers, and management, but there was most certainly a code of silence about them to outsiders. Kind of just like steroids.

Yeah, nobody covered the drug trials that included Willie Mays at all or the Phillies with Pete Rose, Steve Carlton, et al buying amphetamines from a doctor and Pete Rose pretending on the stand that he didn't even know what a greenie was.

Yeah, nobody covered the drug trials that included Willie Mays at all or the Phillies with Pete Rose, Steve Carlton, et al buying amphetamines from a doctor and Pete Rose pretending on the stand that he didn't even know what a greenie was.

Point taken, but pretty much nobody remembers those trials and your casual fan has never even heard of them. Whereas I suspect it will be a very long time before the steroids debate disappears from the national scene or that someone can say "Barry Bonds" and the first thought that comes to everyone's mind is PEDs. Certainly those trials resonated not one whit when it came time to vote Steve Carlton into the HOF, nobody called for Willie Mays to be removed, and were Pete Rose on the HOF ballot he would have sailed in with barely if any mention of them.

The cocaine drug trials had very long legs complete with future hall of famers getting their election held up and didn't go away until steroids popped up.

The cocaine drug trials had very long legs complete with future hall of famers getting their election held up and didn't go away until steroids popped up.

That may be so (is it? Molitor went in on his first year, Jenkins on his 3rd but it was going to take him a few years regardless) but the question was of amps and steroids and the general larger question of PED use. The reason Joe Fan and the baseball establishment (writers, etc.) are ticked about PEDs is very different than the reason they were ticked about cocaine, despite the fact that they both involved drug use.

Well, you had Hank Aaron admitting in his book that he took amphetamines but that they didn't do anything and that was the common lie coming out of most athletes for decades. It was also the line steroid users gave up until records started to fall and a couple of surly ballplayers were the ones breaking the records. Steroids were following the same path as greenies up until Mark McGwire and Barry Bonds started hitting 70 or more homers a year.

What gives the lie to the lie that they did no good? What makes you think they did do good? Bouton and others in Ball Four think they were ineffective as performance-enhancers.

People keep throwing greenies into the discussion like a little boy presenting a little girl with a gift box containing a mouse.

The argument Kiko and I have made (and he's done the heavy lifting on supplying the evidence) is against the oft-stated contention that the steroids story (frenzy, witchhunt, whatever you want to call it) was all about Bonds, or that he was a major driving force in it.

Ok, well, I can't weigh in having not seen the evidence. It's not my recollection of events.

Yeah, nobody covered the drug trials that included Willie Mays at all or the Phillies with Pete Rose, Steve Carlton, et al buying amphetamines from a doctor and Pete Rose pretending on the stand that he didn't even know what a greenie was.

And Sports Illustrated put amphetamines, steroids and other drugs on its cover in 1969. The fact is, those stories were covered like flareups. The press duly noted the Pete Rose testimony or the Willie Mays "red juice" at the time, and then wished them away. Because the writers were selling "say hey" and stickball in the street and Charlie Hustle and diving headfirst into third base, not aggressive and ongoing drug coverage and opinion.

What gives the lie to the lie that they did no good? What makes you think they did do good?

What gives the lie to the response typically given when these questions are asked about steroids? Namely, why would so many players use them if they didn't help?

If management considered steroids to be cheating, they could have gone after them more aggressively.

Actually Walt they couldn't have. That much was settled in the series of arbitration hearings on recreational drugs.

What conclusion can we possibly draw other than steroid use in baseball was A-OK with damn near everybody?

One can draw a somewhat different conclusion. PEDs were by Vincent's own admission a lower priority than recreational drugs in the early 90s. MLB wanted recreational drugs (and PEDs more or less on a "since we're testing ..." gone but were not willing to bargain this point. IOW they were not necessarily "fine" but were unwilling to pay the price to bargain them away.

And it's worth noting that MLB never really did pay any price to get PED testing. Or to get stronger penalties

#81 I've posted excerpts of Dr. Steve Patterson's posts about steroid safety before. He mentions greenies and athletic performance too.

"amphetamines decrease reaction times, improve resistance to fatigue and improve performace in quite a few sports related tasks. There is good reason to believe that amphetamines can help people hit a baseball. That is obvious from the medical literature.

see

Tokish, Kocher and Hawkins Am.J.Sp.Med 32:1543 (2004); and references cited therein. "

Again, nobody's specifically studied greenies and baseball, but then nobody's studies steroids and baseball. (I have seen a documentary of a true clinical trial of testosterone and track and field. "High Performance")

And it's worth noting that MLB never really did pay any price to get PED testing. Or to get stronger penalties

Yes. And I believe that bothered Miller, particularly the latter part.

There's been more media coverage in the last 5 years of amphetamine use in the 1960s, 70s and 80s than there was during the entire 1960s and 1970s and 1980s. It's a side dish to the steroid story, so it's not "winning," but it's certainly a big change.

You do realize that, for much of that period, amphetamines were commonly perscribed as a diet pill?

That 1969 Sports Illustrated cover from #83 must have been their special Food Issue.

"Over 50 percent. Easy."

-- Moises Alou, Astros outfielder, on how many players use steroids or amphetamines. August 20-26, 2000.

May 27 - June 2, 2002:

If he [Ken Caminiti] wanted to address that [crap], he should have said it when he had the MVP award in his hand. 'I thank my mom; I thank the steroids that I took.' It's the timing of it. Cammy's a good dude, but it's hypocritical to come back now and start pointing your finger at guys."
--Delino DeShields, Cubs infielder, on Ken Caminiti's revelations that he took steroids during his MVP season

"As far as testing, I'd be open for that. The other sports do it. I have never heard one guy openly talk about steroids. Guys don't sit around and talk shop like that. I can't even imagine [half of baseball using steroids]. I look around this clubhouse, and there's some bad bodies in here. Half these guys need to be on something."
--DeShields

"The article said 50 percent. Well, I'm not one of them, so that's 49 percent right there."
--Rickey Henderson, Red Sox outfielder

"Let's say you go out there and hit .270 with 12 homers and 50 or 60 [runs batted in]. Then the next year, you come out and hit .320 with 45 homers. Do you really think the front office is going to say, 'Well, he's using steroids. We've got to release him.' It just doesn't happen like that."
--Paul LoDuca, Dodgers catcher

"If I took steroids, I could dunk. Never mind baseball, I could play in the NBA."
--Bret Boone, Mariners infielder