From TFA -- the best argument against voting for Bagwell:

So why did I vote for Bagwell? The mere suspicion of steroid use is not enough to hold against a guy with Hall of Fame numbers. Suspicion about many players is understandable, given the era and circumstantial evidence. Bagwell, for instance, was a 185-pound player with "no pop. None" when Houston acquired him from Boston in 1990, according to former Astros coach Matt Galante. Over the next 13 seasons -- the last 13 without steroid testing with penalties -- Bagwell ranked among the seven greatest home run hitters in baseball, keeping company in the heart of the Steroid Era with five guys linked to steroids (Bonds, Sammy Sosa, Rafael Palmeiro, Mark McGwire and Juan Gonzalez) and a born power hitter, Ken Griffey Jr.

Bagwell instructed a trainer to make him as big as he could possibly be (he did get freakishly big), took the steroid precursor andro and gave the hackneyed disclaimer that andro didn't help him hit home runs but only helped him work out. In four years Bagwell transformed his body and went from a prospect with no pop to posting the highest slugging percentage in baseball history other than ones by Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig and Rogers Hornsby.

Circumstantial evidence, however, is not enough to condemn a career. It was not preventing me from voting for Bagwell in 2010, but a development gave me pause just as I was filling out my ballot in his first year of eligibility: a perplexing interview in which Bagwell condoned steroid use and attributed his bulk to "eating 30 pounds of meat every single day and . . . working out," making no mention of the andro, the beta-hydroxy-beta-methylbutyrate, the zinc tabs, creatine and whatever else. I needed more time, didn't have it, and so, knowing Bagwell would remain the ballot, I considered the 2010 ballot as a deferral on his candidacy.

One year later, Verducci voted for Bagwell, because there were no further revelations to support a finding of PEDs.

Good ballot, decent reasoning by Verducci, that he honestly went back and changed his vote the next year. A little upset that he considers Morris to be a borderliner, and not to include Trammell(not that it's going to make a difference)

His comments on Larkin was great, His McGriff comments made me think I was wrong not to include him(third all time in games played at first base? Really?)

Heck even his Morris comment was pretty well reasoned.

Matt Galante is certainly an expert on "no pop." But wasn't the New Britain ballpark a dead zone for HR hitters in the period (1990) when Bags was there? He did lead the league in doubles and had an .880 OPS (in a league that was like .660 overall).

And the highest SLG is a single-year total, in a strike year. Dude was absolutely on fire the last month before the strike (.432/.530/.916). And whatever he was doing that year made him uber-beastly against LHP: he slugged 1.095 against. (Nope, not his OPS, his SLG. I'll have what he's having...)

Oh, and the quote form Herges (in TFA) could just as easily be applied to greenies.

So Verducci is stretching things. Hey, at least he voted for the guy (this time).

Barry Bonds committed an obstruction of justice felony rather than admit it and Mark McGwire could not bring himself to answer questions about steroids under oath in front of Congress.

An "obstruction of justice felony." That sound so much better than "he rambled on before answering the question."

But I like how Verducci can't say "committed perjury."

Sport loses its essence if you even suspect the competition is unfair. And I talked to too many clean players back in the Steroid Era -- and please stop this sloppy nonsense that "everybody" was doing it so let 'em all in -- not to know that steroid users corrupted the basic fairness of the game.

Amps?

I agree with Hank Aaron, who said about steroid users, "There's no place in the Hall of Fame for people who cheat." I agree with Joe Torre, who said, "It's like letting some guys use metal bats and other guys have to use wood."

Actually, it's like some guys chose to use metal bats and some guys chose to use wood.

Over the next 13 seasons -- the last 13 without steroid testing with penalties -- Bagwell ranked among the seven greatest home run hitters in baseball, keeping company in the heart of the Steroid Era with five guys linked to steroids (Bonds, Sammy Sosa, Rafael Palmeiro, Mark McGwire and Juan Gonzalez) and a born power hitter, Ken Griffey Jr.

Sosa was not linked by anything except a smear piece by the Times. And the fact that he hit more home runs than Maris.

Sosa corked his bats if memory serves although I don't remember that causing the massive power enhancement to other guys.

eating 30 pounds of meat every single day

Are we talking about a human or a Bengal Tiger? How does one eat 30# of meat? Let's be generous and include all types of protein rich foods:

Breakfast: 1 doz eggs, pound of bacon, 8 oz top sirloin. 3#

Mid morning snack: 1# deli meat

Lunch: 4 fried chickens and a coke. 8#

Mid afternoon snack: (4) half pound hamburgers, and 2# seared tuna. 4#

Dinner: 36 oz porterhouse with a side of lobster tails, 3# pork tenderloin, half a leg of lamb. 12#

before bed treat: (2) six egg omlets with cheese and shredded chicken filling. 2#

Granted, it's no Michael Phelps diet, but still.

@ #6: Talk about Atkins on steroids! Thanks for cracking me up this evening.

If a person wants to call steroids a special form of cheating that's one thing, but how can someone claim there is no place in the HoF for generic cheaters with a straight face?

I agree with Hank Aaron, who said about steroid users, "There's no place in the Hall of Fame for people who cheat." I agree with Joe Torre, who said, "It's like letting some guys use metal bats and other guys have to use wood."


Actually, it's like some guys chose to use metal bats and some guys chose to use wood.

Actually, it's like some guys chose to use metal bats at a time they were against the rules, but there was no testing to determine whether the bat was metal or wood. If Bagwell only used Andro and creatine, then he complied with the rules and his stats are legitimately accumulated. If Bagwell used steroids (and I know that we will never know), then we should not pretend that it was a legitimate choice just because there was no testing at the time.

Actually, it's like some guys used metal bats and when it was pointed out that hey, that's a metal bat, all of Major League Baseball and the media said "Shut your mouth, you goddamn troublemaker, that's the most wonderful steel blue wood we've ever seen."

Actually, it's like some guys used metal bats and when it was pointed out that hey, that's a metal bat, all of Major League Baseball and the media said "Shut your mouth, you ####### troublemaker, that's the most wonderful steel blue wood we've ever seen."

Exactly...loved that post.

Over the next 13 seasons -- the last 13 without steroid testing with penalties -- Bagwell ranked among the seven greatest home run hitters in baseball, keeping company in the heart of the Steroid Era with five guys linked to steroids (Bonds, Sammy Sosa, Rafael Palmeiro, Mark McGwire and Juan Gonzalez) and a born power hitter, Ken Griffey Jr.

How do you write something like this and use the phrase "born power hitter" to describe the only player you don't want to smear/attack/accuse?

Isn't the evidence for Bagwell (and Sosa!) the same as it is for Griffey?

And I talked to too many clean players back in the Steroid Era -- and please stop this sloppy nonsense that "everybody" was doing it so let 'em all in -- not to know that steroid users corrupted the basic fairness of the game.

And how exactly do you know that they were clean? Because they had a physique like Manny Alexander?

And where was all this reporting from you when it was all going on?

And where were the statements by the players about how they were getting shafted by 'roided players when it was all going on?

Heck even his Morris comment was pretty well reasoned.

I agree. Actually I had been looking at Morris again a week or so ago. He edged closer for me as well. Much to do with IP.

Actually, it's like some guys chose to use metal bats at a time they were against the rules,

Steroid use was not against the rules.

His comments on Larkin was great, His McGriff comments made me think I was wrong not to include him(third all time in games played at first base? Really?)

No kidding? Is Eddie M. up there? Must be. Can't think of the other... Makes sense though. On another thread Walt noted that with a few exceptions, for most of baseball history guys weren't groomed to have entire careers at first base.

edit: okay, I peeked. Jake Beckley comes in second. Mark Grace fifth?? Never woulda thunk it, but he was good enough young enough (had a very sweet swing when I saw him in AA, just a textbook follow through down to the picture perfect back foot pivot) to get an early call, and he stuck.

Speaking of TFA and its reference to Hanley Ramirez and his 132 OPS+ at SS, how badly does it murch his HOF chances to be moved off SS to 3B, the position at which HOF chances go to die? Ramirez doesn't seem to me to be Jeteresue-bad in the field, at least not yet, and he's a much, much better hitter.

This ground-level definition of an ace is what shapes Morris' candidacy. It's not about his ERA+ and it's not even about Game 7 of the 1991 World Series, which has been overblown as defining his candidacy. It's not that Morris threw 10 shutout innings and refused to come out in Game 7; it was that such an effort was totally within his established profile.

Precisely, and as noted previously herein. Game 7 did not add to Morris's reputation and resume as much as confirm it.

Also nice that he took note of the other important indicia, including how highly Morris was valued once he hit the open market.

Verducci, among the best in the business, gets it completely. He'll almost certainly be a yes vote in year 14 and/or 15. Nice to see.

Also nice that he took note of the other important indicia, including how highly Morris was valued once he hit the open market

Wayne Garland for the HOF!

FTFA:

When McGriff retired in 2004, his career OPS of .886 ranked 17th among all players who retired with at least 8,000 at-bats. All 16 others are Hall of Famers, most of them inner-circle icons.

Is the "retired" caveat supposed to distract one from seeing Bonds, Sosa, and Palmeiro ahead of McGriff on the list through 2004?

Spanning Multiple Seasons or entire Careers, From 1901 to 2004, (requiring AB>=8000), sorted by greatest On-Base Plus Slugging


Rk         Player OPS   AB   From  To   Age
1       Babe Ruth 1.164 8399 1914 1935 19-40
2      Lou Gehrig 1.080 8001 1923 1939 20-36
3     Barry Bonds 1.053 9098 1986 2004 21-39
4     Jimmie Foxx 1.038 8134 1925 1945 17-37
5  Rogers Hornsby 1.010 8173 1915 1937 19-41
6    Mickey Mantle .977 8102 1951 1968 19-36
7      Stan Musial .976 10972 1941 1963 20-42
8          Mel Ott .947 9456 1926 1947 17-38
9          Ty Cobb .945 11434 1905 1928 18-41
10     Willie Mays .941 10881 1951 1973 20-42
11      Hank Aaron .928 12364 1954 1976 20-42
12    Tris Speaker .928 10195 1907 1928 19-40
13  Frank Robinson .926 10006 1956 1976 20-40
14      Al Simmons .915 8759 1924 1944 22-42
15    Mike Schmidt .908 8352 1972 1989 22-39
16      Sammy Sosa .892 8021 1989 2004 20-35
17 Rafael Palmeiro .889 10103 1986 2004 21-39
18  Willie McCovey .889 8197 1959 1980 21-42
19    Goose Goslin .887 8656 1921 1938 20-37
20    Fred McGriff .886 8757 1986 2004 22-40


Source: B-R PI

By OPS+, McGriff was tied for 23rd (out of 103) with Al Kaline and Paul Waner. That's still rather impressive.

By OPS+, McGriff was tied for 23rd (out of 103) with Al Kaline and Paul Waner. That's still rather impressive.

McGriff's peak is criminally underrated. I'm actually surprised he doesn't get more support from the peak crowd; through his first 9 years in the majors (7 full seasons), Crime Dog's career OPS+ was 153.

McGriff and Will Clark are both similar players that were overlooked because the bulk of their peaks came in the mini deadball era of 1988-1992. Not many people seem to realize just how low offense was in those years, and thus no one seemed to notice how great both these guys were during that time.

I think he gets downgraded because his nickname was "The Crime Dog". Imagine if Carlton Fisk's nickname was "Steve". He wouldn't make it into the HOF either.

Actually, it's like some guys chose to use metal bats at a time they were against the rules,

Steroid use was not against the rules.

I do not think those words mean what you think they mean. Since at least June 1991, use of steroids without a prescription was against MLB rules.

COMMISSIONER FAY VINCENT'S JUNE 7, 1991, MEMO

Each team and the players' union received the memo, which begins, "This memorandum sets forth Baseball's drug policy." The memo goes on to say, "The possession, sale or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance by Major League players or personnel is strictly prohibited.... This prohibition applies to all illegal drugs ... including steroids or prescription drugs for which the individual in possession of the drug does not have a prescription."

It's not that Morris threw 10 shutout innings and refused to come out in Game 7; it was that such an effort was totally within his established profile.

10 inning shutouts were such a part of his established profile that he did it exactly once. Also led the league in IP once. And Shutouts once.

Jack Morris was the 3rd best player on the 1980's Tigers. If Tram and Lou aren't in, we shouldn't even be discussing Morris.

I do not think those words mean what you think they mean. Since at least June 1991, use of steroids without a prescription was against MLB rules.
COMMISSIONER FAY VINCENT'S JUNE 7, 1991, MEMO...

I do not think you know what a "rule" is, Mr. Montoya. It isn't "as you wish." Vincent's memo carried all the authority and effect as if he had been shouting it at a random bus station. If Jose Canseco had issued a memo in June 1991 requiring all players to use steroids, it would have had the same legal force.

Fay Vincent admits that he made no effort whatever to enforce the memo, presumably because it was unenforceable. The Basic Agreement with the union is, starting with its name, the basic agreement.

An example of the power behind Vincent's proclamations came a year later when he unilaterally and permanently suspended pitcher Steve Howe for repeated cocaine offenses; Vincent's suspension was tossed by an arbitrator. In light of his failure to impose new rules on 1 player, the idea that the Commissioner could have singlehandedly created a system of drug punishment for 600 is even more foolhardy.

Milwaukee Brewers manager Jerry Royster discussing steroids with reporters in the spring of 2002, eleven years after Vincent's memo: "To be honest, until they make it a rule, I don't care what anybody does."

I do not think those words mean what you think they mean. Since at least June 1991, use of steroids without a prescription was against MLB rules.

No, it wasn't.

Steroid use was not against the rules.

I see this perspective frequently and I really don't get it. It was against the law. If it's against the law, what difference does it make if it was against the rules?

Is the "retired" caveat supposed to distract one from seeing Bonds, Sosa, and Palmeiro ahead of McGriff on the list through 2004?

Absolutely. Verducci cherry picks like this all the time. Look at his list of SS in the article. He chooses 150 SB, says 50 SS have done it and then lists them by OPS+, stopping with Yount's 115 so he doesn't have to acknowledge that Trammell is on the list at 110 just a tick behind Larkin. He does this sort of cherry picking with Edgar Martinez, too.

I see this perspective frequently and I really don't get it. It was against the law. If it's against the law, what difference does it make if it was against the rules?

HGH wasn't against the law or banned by baseball. There are also legal ways around a steroid ban. Of course speeding is also against the law and I don't see people trying to keep players out of the hof who have a speeding ticket on their record.

#23

I think Lance Parrish and Chet Lemon are also in the discussion for 80's Tigers better than Jack Morris.

Jack Morris was the 3rd best player on the 1980's Tigers. If Tram and Lou aren't in, we shouldn't even be discussing Morris.

disagree here, Morris is on the ballot, Lou isn't, you have to be willing to discuss Morris. Yes you can bemoan the fact that Lou isn't on the ballot and should be(or even in already) but any name on the current ballot should always be open to discussion. And it's not like being the second best or third best player on the team automatically disqualifies you from the hall until the others make it in. (when Edmonds name comes up on the ballot, people shouldn't say we shouldn't discuss him because Pujols and Rolen aren't in yet)

Of course I don't think Morris should be in the hof, but he should be open for discussion.

If it's against the law, what difference does it make if it was against the rules?

cfb points out that this logic would ban players with speeding tickets. It would also ban any player who smoked pot, had an alcoholic drink before age 21, uploaded his favorite single to youtube, etc., etc. An awful lot of things are against the law that aren't exactly the epitome of evil.

Steroid use was not against the rules.

I see this perspective frequently and I really don't get it. It was against the law. If it's against the law, what difference does it make if it was against the rules?

The concept of jurisdiction isn't arcane. Punch an umpire, get suspended. Punch your wife, get arrested.

While active within baseball, players have committed assault, evaded taxes, committed theft, distributed narcotics, driven without a proper license, destroyed property, scalped tickets, had sex with underage girls, been involved with mail fraud, and murdered humans or seagulls, among other crimes. Their cases were handled (or not) by the legal system. MLB has typically not been involved. A player's contract, in conjunction with the Basic Agreement, spells out baseball's powers (or lack thereof) to administer punishment for something.

If you were charged with any of the above crimes, your case would not decided by Bud Selig.

While active within baseball, players have committed assault, evaded taxes, committed theft, distributed narcotics, driven without a proper license, destroyed property, scalped tickets, had sex with underage girls, been involved with mail fraud, and murdered humans or seagulls, among other crimes. Their cases were handled (or not) by the legal system. MLB has typically not been involved.

The idea is none of those actions affected their performance on a baseball field. One can understand why once baseball players started to perform illegal actions that affected their performance directly within MLB's bailiwick and screwed with two of MLB's most cherished marketing points - nostalgia and home run records, MLB got involved.

The idea is none of those actions affected their performance on a baseball field. One can understand why once baseball players started to perform illegal actions that affected their performance directly within MLB's bailiwick and screwed with two of MLB's most cherished marketing points - nostalgia and home run records, MLB got involved.

The point though, is just pointing to something and saying it's illegal, is not a good enough reason to say it's reason to ban someone, or take their records away. MLB didn't get involved until after they realized the fans might care a little bit about it, if flamed enough by a congress seeking something to distract the masses from their own incompetence and writers trying to fan the flames.

But many illegal actions do affect the performace on the baseball field and were commonly accepted. As pointed out multiple times, amps affect players and were illegal. HGH wasn't against the law and wasn't against the rules of baseball, not sure how that constitutes cheating. I mean as many people have pointed out time and again, shouldn't laser eye surgery be considered illegal? same with Tommy John surgery, heck the wearing of glasses or contacts could be arguable as something that affects the performance on the field directly. Working out even without roids affects performance, taking an aspirin after a night of binge drinking probably will affect performance on the field.

Why is one worse than the others? Why is something that is perfectly legal(HGH until 2005?) that is not against the rules, and that possibly(probably doesn't) make a player a better player for the team, is considered a bad thing? Yet you have guys like Smoltz who are probably going to go into the hof after having Tommy John surgery, a product of his times that the players of the past weren't capable of exploiting? Why is one form of taking advantage of newer and better breakthroughs acceptable, while others are not?

If you were charged with any of the above crimes, your case would not decided by Bud Selig.

Which is fine. But what I was trying to say is that people often post things such as, "It wasn't against the rules," as if that makes it all OK. I'm not saying anyone should be banned by baseball or HOF because/if they used, but the attitude I perceive, perhaps wrongly so, is that there is NOTHING wrong with using AAS if it's not specifically banned by the CBA. It's as if the fact it is illegal is completely irrelevant or overlooked (and please don't anyone try to make the case there are legal ways to use; cfb I'm looking at you :-). Sure, someone could leave the country, use and return, or get a script for a legit medical purpose. The idea any MLB athlete looking to gain an edge in their sport did so is beyond absurd). I suppose that's all well and good as long as we're all registered and voting Libertarian. ;-)

It's as if the fact it is illegal is completely irrelevant or overlooked

HGH wasn't illegal. So the fact that it was illegal is completly irrelevant is correct, because it wasn't illegal.

I'm mostly a steroid agnostic, but yeah, of course PEDs were (and are) cheating. But it was the kind of cheating that wasn't merely tolerated... it was celebrated, rewarded and specifically abetted by MLB, the commissioner's office, team doctors, fellow players, the union, and the media.

Within baseball, steroids were "cheating" in the same way that it was also impermissible for a catcher to obstruct the runner. Less, even; obstruction involves a genuine baseball rule, agreed to by all parties. Plus, assault is a crime.

It's as if the fact it is illegal is completely irrelevant or overlooked

Not "as if." That's how it was.

Now the rule actually exists, and penalties are appropriate. Today. What's been happening is like setting a speed limit on the Autobahn, then reviewing old traffic footage from 2001 to see who gets their license revoked.

HGH wasn't illegal.

Seriously? I'm talking about AAS, not HGH.

Seriously? I'm talking about AAS, not HGH.

So Bonds is fine for the hof, but not McGwire?

Of course I don't think Morris should be in the hof, but he should be open for discussion.

What I was getting at was that he is only the 2nd best Tiger ON the ballot (and the best ain't getting a sniff) and there was another, better, purely contemporary teammate who failed to get 5%. If the best of them is likely to end up on the wrong side of the line, the 2nd-best couldn't even clear the stay-on-the-ballot hurdle, why are we wasting breath on the 3rd?

Sure - let's discuss him. About as much as we discuss Rafael Palmeiro.

Heck even his Morris comment was pretty well reasoned.

Verducci cherry picks like this all the time.

Partial quotes taken from separate posts...
IMO, the second refutes the first. The Morris cherrypick that bothered me most was his 1979-92 peak, being compared to other pitchers' peaks of exactly 14 years occurring precisely 1979-92. (If I'm using a wrong assumption there, it's not because Verducci presented it clearly, and I'm assuming a typo where it reads "79-82".)

Would it not be more meaningful, if one must compare 14-yr peaks, to include all those having some overlap with Morris', perhaps limiting it to those with at least 7 yr overlap? That would include all such peaks 1972-85 thru 1986-99. That way one would pick up guys like Carlton, Niekro and Ryan on the front end and Clemens on the back (plus Blyleven, whose 72-85 IP is only 3% short of Morris 79-92 deaspite a season with just 20 innings.)

So Bonds is fine for the hof, but not McGwire?

I really don't know what you're talking about. I asked a question relating to an attitude towards AAS use by some posters here. How you got to here, "So Bonds is fine for the hof, but not McGwire?" from there is completely beyond me.