Loading ...
As anyone that follows RN can tell you, I REALLY enjoy John Erardi’s writing. He published an article this week sharing his view on the PED issue and the Hall of Fame. Here’s how it starts out:
I keep hearing that some of the higher profile voting members of the Baseball Writers Association of America want some help in determining how to handle the upcoming Halll of Fame candidates who used, or are suspected of using, performance-enhancing drugs.
Two words for you guys and gals, if there are any of out there with a vote: Dream on.
It’s not going to happen — although I’d welcome it if it did.
As one of the many 600 or so voting baseball writers who are not totally comfortable with where to draw the line between suspected, admitted, and obvious PED users for future ballots, I’d very much appreciate it if some Abraham Lincoln-esque figure with a way for words and a gift for brevity would step forward.
I am not submitting myself as the Solomon-like genius who can figure all this out.
But as somebody with considerable regard for the game (and a Hall of Fame vote), I’m willing to take a stab at it.
Consider it a starting point.
The thing with Rose… I dislike the argument that he never bet against the Reds. Had he bet every game for the Reds, I’d have no problem with it. But when you bet for the Reds 6 games in a row and then don’t bet, it tells everybody out there that you don’t think the Reds will win, which leaves just as much room for abuse. All this stuff came after his playing days though… In as a player, out as a manager.
I think this should not be an issue. Since we will never know whom all used and whom didn’t and since we already know we have “cheaters” in the HOF we just vote each candidate what they did on teh field and not concern ourselfs with what they might have or have not taken. Let the fan in their own view decide how they view each player.
I agree with most of what John said. I disagree about Rose. John gives Pettitte a break for contrition. Rose has yet to show any. Rose could have bet on dozens of sports. He chose to bet on baseball knowing that he was crossing a bright line against betting. A bright line, there for good reason. No sporting contest can be trusted if the participants are involved in betting on the outcome. Even in the shady world of the stock market there is a ban on “insider trading”. I’m sure we don’t “catch” all the inside traders, but when someone is caught they should face the music. Just ask Martha Stewart. A very small fish, but a small fish that had to do time. Should we have said: “Oh there are others that we haven’t caught so we will give you a pass, Martha”? There is, and should be a ban in “insider” betting as well. A ban that is enforced.
I followed Rose from the time he played in Class D ball with the Tampa Tarpons in 1961. He was thrill to watch, even back then and through out his career. He was an amazing phenomenon. I’m glad I got to see him play over many years. But I can not just give him a pass on the gambling.
John talks about Shoeless Joe. A better example might be Buck Weaver. He was banned from baseball, not for throwing any games and not for taking part in the conspiracy – he did neither. He was banned for knowing about the conspiracy and not reporting it. That seems like a lesser offense than Pete’s, and he was banned. Probably, rightfully so. And that seems more of a gray area than Pete’s.
To anyone (dn4192, for instance) who says we can”t really know all who did and who didn’t, I say fine, but when you clearly know somebody did, it is just passing the buck. Buck up and take a stand against cheating and known cheaters.
Why is taking a drug cheating? Players have taken drugs for years for a number of reasons to go out and perform or perform better and such. Also why is one form of cheating okay but another is not?
Sorry dn, I have to agree with Red. If someone is a known cheater, he should suffer the consequences. Just because another player might have gotten away with it is no reason to give the cheater a pass. Plenty of people get away with speeding, but if someone gets caught they still receive a ticket. And taking PED’s is cheating because it improves a player’s performance artificially beyond that which he would be able to achieve otherwise. I know, it wasn’t against the rules when much of the PED usage occurred, so those players did not officially “break the rules”. They still cheated.
@RedBlooded:
I always wondered why Shoeless Joe Jackson received so much empathy while the story of Buck Weaver seldom gets mentioned. Shoeless Joe took money to throw the Series. Buck was invited to be part of the group throwing the games, but refused to be involved. His wife visited the baseball commissioner every year until she died to beg for Weaver’s banishment to be removed. As much as I love Pete Rose, I believe Weaver should be forgiven before Pete.
How did Gaylor Perry get away with it? Everyone knew he was cheating, it was almost comical how it got with him and yet there he is in the HOF. Why is his cheating okay but say the taking of a drug to make you stronger isn’t?
I have some issues with Erardi writes. First, he makes judgments about the effect of steroids and greenies without any evidence. I’ve seen plenty to suggest that there’s a reason greenies were part of the game for a long time.
Second, everything about this new standard seems arbitrary. Frankly, I said with Poz and Neyer on this one. The character clause never seemed to be an issue until steroids came around. Never mind that players have been cheating forever. Mays, for instance, was a on a team that engaged in illegal sign stealing and directly affected the outcome of a pennant race. Do we pull him or what? Steroids seem to be the strikeouts of cheating. They bother people more, but and out is an out and cheating is cheating.
All I really want from the voters is consistency, and most of them aren’t giving it to me.
Offtopic but most recent thread…
Yanks trade Montero for Pineda, then sign Kuroda a few hours later.
So as of a few hours ago their rotation was:
Sabathia, Nova, Hughes, Burnett, Garcia
As of now its:
Sabathia, Pineda, Nova, Kuroda, Burnett/Hughes
@Jason Linden:
Jason, isn’t the evidence of steroids contributions to players stats in the results put up in that era? McGwire & Bonds hit 70 homeruns and Sosa hitting 60 HR three times amongst others.
Rose HAS shown contrition at this point. I considered him a pathological liar for many years, and maybe he still is, but the video of his statement at the Reds dinner (in 2010 ?) convinced me that for the first time he understood the damage he’d done, the disrespect he’d shown for the game, etc.. “Reconfigure your life” Giammati had said. When Rose said that for the first time that he understood what that meant, I believe him. (A joke could be made that he finally looked it up in a dictionary, but I’m not going there.)
Has he reconfigured ? I don’t know of course, but it could be looked into. Even if he has just as a matter of growing old, it’s time to let the writers vote on his admission to the Hall.
For better or worse, it’s just a matter of time before Bonds and Clemens, and later Sosa, are admitted to the Hall. (Palmiero blatantly and angrily lied before Congress and then blamed a teammate for his positive test, so he might never get in.)
In time (less than 15 years) future generations will for the most part view it as an era with widepspread abuse, and insufficient knowledge of who did what. The numbers put up by players like Bonds and Clemens will always be regarded as tainted, and most of the writers will eventually feel that’s punishment enough.
@pinson343: Whoops, meant to replace “future generations” by “writers” above. As it stands, that sentence makes no sense.
@MikeC: Right, and it goes beyond what 3 players did. The total annual HR numbers in the steroid era were totally out of whack with prior to then and since then. Is that a strict scientific proof ? Of course not, but such a proof is not even possible. To my mind it demonstrates the huge impact of that era’s brand of PEDs, beyond a reasonable doubt.
Actually the “strict scientific proof” question is a complicated one. Many scientists contend that a positive test from current anti-doping technology does not constitute strict scientific proof. If you want to know what I’m talking about, start by doing a google on Donald Berry.
@MikeC: There’s also a fair bit of evidence that the ball was juiced. I think there’s more evidence right now that MLB has taken steps to make the game appear clean than there is that it actually is totally clean. Also, I say again: what about other cheaters. Sign-stealing and spitballs both directly affect results of games and individual stats, yet we aren’t kicking those players out. I’m also much more of an opinion that stimulants have a positive affect on player performance. Again, I don’t mind people having and issue with what they perceive as cheating, I just want consistency.
I also always remember Buck O’Neill pointing out that it was availability more than anything else. If they had had them, they would have used them.
Last there are almost certainly some steroids users in the hall already. What do we do if we find out who they are?
Two things that also need to be factored in the power hitting explosion along with the PEDs was the fact you also had two rounds of expansion (Rockies, Marlins then D-Backs & Rays) and a whole slew of new parks that were really hitter friendly including the Reds GABP and the early years in Denver, which were off the charts.
How much of it was that? Big HR years always seem to come around expansion before, including Foster’s 52 in 1977 and Maris’ 61 in 1961.
I just don’t think those two things get brought into the PEDS discussion much at all and yet they were apart of the big boom too.
The top level of the pitching was just as good as ever during that period, but you had pretty much 40+ additional meatballs from AAA filling out staffs all over MLB.
And as a Reds fan and their pitching of that time, I can attest yes they had some meatballs that were not quite ready for primetime in the pitching staff.
@Jason Linden: @earl: Good points, reasons why you can’t measure the effect of steroids on performance. What’s convinced me personally is that the number of HRs has gone down in recent years, while I doubt that the ball has been de-juiced (other than the humidifier at Coors) and the parks are the same.
But even more telling than the HRs is that the production of hitters falls of in their mid-30s now, the way it did pre-steroids.
One argument that is a fallacy is that since a lot of the pitchers were juiced too, things balance out. That’s just wrong. Juiced pitchers throwing to juiced hitters means more HRs and more Ks.
@earl: About expansion years: The AL in 1961 saw an unprecedented 6 players hit 40+ HRs. And the NL in 1962 saw a lot of career years from a hitters, including Frank Robinson.
I personally feel that what Pete did as a manager has no bearing on what he did as a player. As a player, he earned the Hall of Fame. I would have no problem with there being a full display of his managerial transgressions next to his enshrinement, but, by god, enshrine the man. He earned it. I also have no problem with him being banned from ever working in baseball or being around the organization, but enough is enough, put the man in Cooperstown!