Steroids, HGH, and the HOF

[SoxFanInDallas]

We all know the Barry Bonds story. Scuttlebutt is that it may take him quite awhile to get voted into the HOF, even if he is acquited of the Federal perjury charges. With names like Clemens and other future HOF players, do you think that this report will impact their getting into the HOF like Bonds may be?

 

Just curious.

[lostfan]

Meh there's really nothing you can do. Hell, you just named a pitcher and a hitter, if both of them have the same advantage, does it matter anymore? You can't really delete records or anything, there's so many. You just have to be aware of the caveat that there was a decade-plus period (at least) where everyone was juicing and consider that for all the stats coming from that era.

 

BTW Bonds was already easily a legit first-ballot HOFer before he became the incredible hulk.

[Steve9347]

Can a mod just move this to the MR thread? Maybe should have left a redirect in this forum.

[jackie hayes]

Can a mod just move this to the MR thread? Maybe should have left a redirect in this forum.

This seems distinct enough to merit a separate thread. Imho.

[HuskyCaucasian]

There is an argument that well, they were hall of famers before before staroids, so they still deserve to go in. Well, Pete Rose isnt in the hall. While they are different situations, as a PLAYER Pete Rose was a LOCK for the hall of fame.

 

You can NOT have it both ways. Either they deserve to be in, or they do not. If the policy is to ban those who viotaed rules or were "unethical", then it applies to all.

Edited December 13, 2007 by Athomeboy_2000

[Balta1701]

There is an argument that well, they were hall of famers before before staroids, so they still deserve to go in. Well, Pete Rose isnt in the hall. While they are different situations, as a PLAYER Pete Rose is a LOCK for the hall of fame.

The problem with that line of thinking is, how exactly do we know when a person started juicing? Palmeiro may well have started in the early 90's when Canseco joined the Rangers and his numbers exploded. IRoid may have done the same thing. Yeah, it's possible Bonds didn't start until late in his career, but how do you know when a person started juicing? I'll give you an example, say by some miracle Jason Giambi came back and hit 600 home runs for his career, started hitting 40 again this season and won another MVP award or two. When do you say he started juicing? He's been playing baseball for 15 years now. Do you count the first 300 of his home runs? The last 300?

 

I say, if they are accused and named somehow, then if they want in the HOF, then the burden of proof is on them to provide documentation or tests to prove exactly what they did. And it wouldn't hurt if they named other names.

[NorthSideSox72]

Look at the recent Hall votes for McG and Canseco. You bet your ass the Hall voters take this into account - in fact I think because Selig lacks testicular fortitude, the HOF voting may be the area MOST impacted by this report. Guys on that list like Clemens may suddenly have a hard time getting in.

 

[jackie hayes]

Look at the recent Hall votes for McG and Canseco. You bet your ass the Hall voters take this into account - in fact I think because Selig lacks testicular fortitude, the HOF voting may be the area MOST impacted by this report. Guys on that list like Clemens may suddenly have a hard time getting in.

Yeah, but Clemens and Bonds are much, much better than McGwire and Canseco. If you don't vote those two in, you may as well skip the whole era.

[Balta1701]

Yeah, but Clemens and Bonds are much, much better than McGwire and Canseco. If you don't vote those two in, you may as well skip the whole era.

Hopefully, 30% or so of the HOF voters will be angry enough that this will be exactly what they do with anyone accused. Frank Thomas and Ken Griffey Jr. May wind up as the only 2 big bats going into the HOF from this entire era. And I for one wouldn't complain at all. Just think what their numbers might have been had they not been facing juiced up pitching while they were clean.

Edited December 13, 2007 by Balta1701

[SoxFanInDallas]

Yeah, but Clemens and Bonds are much, much better than McGwire and Canseco. If you don't vote those two in, you may as well skip the whole era.

 

Your comment is why I started this thread. Although there will be 50-70 players named in the report, this is not a complete list of every player that did 'roids and HGH during the juicing era. So, what happens? Do the voters exclude only those named in the report from HOF consideration? Do they also exclude others that they 'suspect' were juiced? Or, do you just look at the numbers for the era and vote that way?

 

My opinion is the latter. Everyone, including Bonds, Palmiero, etc. should be considered based on thier numbers. If you want to create a section of the HOF that includes the 'Steroid Era' and put all players that played during that time period there, fine. If you want to have a sub-section of that area of Mitchell Report players, that is fine. But, if you exclude the named players, I don't think that is really a fair representation of the era and there will be players making it that were juiced.

[Texsox]

Hopefully, 30% or so of the HOF voters will be angry enough that this will be exactly what they do with anyone accused. Frank Thomas and Ken Griffey Jr. May wind up as the only 2 big bats going into the HOF from this entire era. And I for one wouldn't complain at all. Just think what their numbers might have been had they not been facing juiced up pitching while they were clean.

that you are correct on Thomas and Griiffey

[jackie hayes]

Hopefully, 30% or so of the HOF voters will be angry enough that this will be exactly what they do with anyone accused. Frank Thomas and Ken Griffey Jr. May wind up as the only 2 big bats going into the HOF from this entire era. And I for one wouldn't complain at all. Just think what their numbers might have been had they not been facing juiced up pitching while they were clean.

Can't prove that anyone was clean. I mean, I think Frank was, but what does that mean? What the hell do I know?

 

If we want to acknowledge via HOF voting that the game was tainted, I don't think there's any way to do that except to exclude EVERYBODY. Personally, I don't want that, but I think that's the only consistent way to go about it.

[NorthSideSox72]

Yeah, but Clemens and Bonds are much, much better than McGwire and Canseco. If you don't vote those two in, you may as well skip the whole era.

Agree they are much better. Disagree about skipping the whole era.

 

As with any situation of analysis, you judge on the data in front of you. The data does not say all were tainted. It does say some people were. Your judgement is effected, for those people.

 

[jackie hayes]

Agree they are much better. Disagree about skipping the whole era.

 

As with any situation of analysis, you judge on the data in front of you. The data does not say all were tainted. It does say some people were. Your judgement is effected, for those people.

But then more data emerges saying that player X, who was voted in already, used steroids. Can't take him out, and now how do you justify the rest not being in?

 

What is the threshold level of belief to justify excluding someone, anyway? Do you not vote for someone because you believe there is a 75% chance he used? 50%? 25%? 5%?

[Balta1701]

But then more data emerges saying that player X, who was voted in already, used steroids. Can't take him out, and now how do you justify the rest not being in?

 

What is the threshold level of belief to justify excluding someone, anyway? Do you not vote for someone because you believe there is a 75% chance he used? 50%? 25%? 5%?

I think there's some benefit in the way the HOF system is constructed here...because they're humans. Humans have the ability to judge things based on the information they have, which is not always complete. If you're trying to construct an algorithm to feed to a computer to determine who goes in and who doesn't, then you can't do it; you need all these arbitrary dividing lines that you're trying to draw. But since the voters are humans, let them decide what they'll use to allow people in and out. People have a habit of being pretty smart sometimes if you let them be.

[NorthSideSox72]

But then more data emerges saying that player X, who was voted in already, used steroids. Can't take him out, and now how do you justify the rest not being in?

 

What is the threshold level of belief to justify excluding someone, anyway? Do you not vote for someone because you believe there is a 75% chance he used? 50%? 25%? 5%?

Nothing in the HOF voting is precise. Its entirely subjective (though yes, stats are involved). This is just more subjective information to consider.

 

As for guys they found about after the fact... it is what it is. Nothing can be done, I suppose. Doesn't change the legitimacy of the process in place.

 

[jackie hayes]

I think there's some benefit in the way the HOF system is constructed here...because they're humans. Humans have the ability to judge things based on the information they have, which is not always complete. If you're trying to construct an algorithm to feed to a computer to determine who goes in and who doesn't, then you can't do it; you need all these arbitrary dividing lines that you're trying to draw. But since the voters are humans, let them decide what they'll use to allow people in and out. People have a habit of being pretty smart sometimes if you let them be.

No, that's just a way of avoiding the real issues involved. You said that YOU hoped the voters would exclude everyone but those they strongly believed did not use steroids. You did not say that you hoped the voters would do whatever they wanted to do. So I'm asking, what standard do YOU believe they should use? Probability is SUBJECTIVE -- no need for computers in this.

[Balta1701]

No, that's just a way of avoiding the real issues involved. You said that YOU hoped the voters would exclude everyone but those they strongly believed did not use steroids. You did not say that you hoped the voters would do whatever they wanted to do. So I'm asking, what standard do YOU believe they should use? Probability is SUBJECTIVE -- no need for computers in this.

I believe they should follow whatever standard they believe in.

 

The standard I would personally follow? If a guy had been linked to steroids in some fashion, whether it be a criminal case, the Mitchell Report, a book, whatever, I would take that as evidence and expect the player to have some sort of counter-point to it otherwise I'd believe it. Not sure if I'd trust it if the only book linking a player was the Canseco book, but that would be my thought process. If there's an accusation out there, I want to know about it, what evidence they presented, and what counterpoint the player had made. If the player did like Palmeiro, fluttered around and eventually blamed Tejada, I wouldn't buy it one bit. If the player was accused by a newspaper that presented no evidence and the player fired back hard and that's the only thing we ever heard of it, that's a situation where I might be inclined to believe the player, but I would usually side with anyone who gives a shred of actual evidence.

[jackie hayes]

Nothing in the HOF voting is precise. Its entirely subjective (though yes, stats are involved). This is just more subjective information to consider.

 

As for guys they found about after the fact... it is what it is. Nothing can be done, I suppose. Doesn't change the legitimacy of the process in place.

You know very well that one standard looked at by voters is, How does X compare to similar players already in the Hall? As such, I think it very much affects the legitimacy.

 

And as I said to Balta, beliefs are subjective, including beliefs about probabilities. Every voter will have to answer the question I asked, if they take the task seriously and believe they should exclude steroid users. It's not honest to wave it away just because it involves numbers.

[jackie hayes]

I believe they should follow whatever standard they believe in.

 

The standard I would personally follow? If a guy had been linked to steroids in some fashion, whether it be a criminal case, the Mitchell Report, a book, whatever, I would take that as evidence and expect the player to have some sort of counter-point to it otherwise I'd believe it. Not sure if I'd trust it if the only book linking a player was the Canseco book, but that would be my thought process. If there's an accusation out there, I want to know about it, what evidence they presented, and what counterpoint the player had made. If the player did like Palmeiro, fluttered around and eventually blamed Tejada, I wouldn't buy it one bit. If the player was accused by a newspaper that presented no evidence and the player fired back hard and that's the only thing we ever heard of it, that's a situation where I might be inclined to believe the player, but I would usually side with anyone who gives a shred of actual evidence.

Again, how confident would you have to be? If some guy with no evidence made a claim that could be neither confirmed nor refuted, should a voter support the candidacy or not (assuming he would on the strength of the player's career)?

[NorthSideSox72]

You know very well that one standard looked at by voters is, How does X compare to similar players already in the Hall? As such, I think it very much affects the legitimacy.

 

And as I said to Balta, beliefs are subjective, including beliefs about probabilities. Every voter will have to answer the question I asked, if they take the task seriously and believe they should exclude steroid users. It's not honest to wave it away just because it involves numbers.

Except that baseball's HOF has that major difference with other sports': the "character clause". Was this person good for the game? Did they respect it? Those are written (in similar words, I don't know them exactly) as the conditions for entry. And there is nothing objective about those points. They are entirely subjective.

 

[Balta1701]

Again, how confident would you have to be? If some guy with no evidence made a claim that could be neither confirmed nor refuted, should a voter support the candidacy or not (assuming he would on the strength of the player's career)?

If some guy with no evidence made a claim and no one refuted it, I'd probably be inclined to believe him just on the grounds that no one spoke up about it. But that would depend on a deeper evaluation; who is the guy making the claim, how credible is he, can he be believed, how would he have come by any information he is giving (i.e. might he actually know something or is he just guessing.) what do my eyes say about the numbers of the person in question, etc. Without an exact scenario it's hard to give you a perfect answer because when you get close to whatever dividing line I'd draw, the answer can become muddled, and you do the best you can with the evidence you have.

 

I'll give you an example. If Canseco said Giambi used but didn't back it up at all (and that was the only information I had), I might believe him because they were teammates. If Canseco said Sosa used, and that was all the info I had (and I didn't see Sosa's body type change, etc.), I might not believe him, because Canseco isn't the most credible source and he wasn't a teammate of Sosa so all he'd have would be hearsay and the same logic I had.

[jackie hayes]

Except that baseball's HOF has that major difference with other sports': the "character clause". Was this person good for the game? Did they respect it? Those are written (in similar words, I don't know them exactly) as the conditions for entry. And there is nothing objective about those points. They are entirely subjective.

 

I KNOW IT'S SUBJECTIVE. But it is dishonest to say that voters should do something, then refer all clarifying questions to the notion that it's subjective, so one really can't say anything about what they should do.

 

If one believes that all voters should exclude those who they strongly believe used steroids, it still remains to clarify what "strongly" means. (And, yes, these are my words.) If you have absolutely no opinion on that, it means that you are equally happy with someone who'll exclude those with a .0000000000000001% chance of having used (which would surely encompass everyone playing today) and someone who'll exclude those only those with a 99.99999999999999999% chance of having used (which might include Giambi, but basically noone else -- sorry, but certainty in anything is a farce). If that's true, it makes the original statement about what voters should do essentially meaningless.

 

Again, I am talking about personally held, SUBJECTIVE probabilities.

[jackie hayes]

If some guy with no evidence made a claim and no one refuted it, I'd probably be inclined to believe him just on the grounds that no one spoke up about it. But that would depend on a deeper evaluation; who is the guy making the claim, how credible is he, can he be believed, how would he have come by any information he is giving (i.e. might he actually know something or is he just guessing.) what do my eyes say about the numbers of the person in question, etc. Without an exact scenario it's hard to give you a perfect answer because when you get close to whatever dividing line I'd draw, the answer can become muddled, and you do the best you can with the evidence you have.

 

I'll give you an example. If Canseco said Giambi used but didn't back it up at all (and that was the only information I had), I might believe him because they were teammates. If Canseco said Sosa used, and that was all the info I had (and I didn't see Sosa's body type change, etc.), I might not believe him, because Canseco isn't the most credible source and he wasn't a teammate of Sosa so all he'd have would be hearsay and the same logic I had.

So nothing based on hearsay should be considered?

 

Suppose it's a minor clubhouse employee who heard vague rumors that players were using steroids and once saw X use a syringe. X denies having used steroids, but obviously can't refute it so many years later, and can't recall if he ever used a syringe for anything.

 

More generally, how sure would YOU have to be to exclude a player? In percentages, but just based on your own, personal, subjective beliefs.

[NorthSideSox72]

 

I KNOW IT'S SUBJECTIVE. But it is dishonest to say that voters should do something, then refer all clarifying questions to the notion that it's subjective, so one really can't say anything about what they should do.

 

If one believes that all voters should exclude those who they strongly believe used steroids, it still remains to clarify what "strongly" means. (And, yes, these are my words.) If you have absolutely no opinion on that, it means that you are equally happy with someone who'll exclude those with a .0000000000000001% chance of having used (which would surely encompass everyone playing today) and someone who'll exclude those only those with a 99.99999999999999999% chance of having used (which might include Giambi, but basically noone else -- sorry, but certainty in anything is a farce). If that's true, it makes the original statement about what voters should do essentially meaningless.

 

Again, I am talking about personally held, SUBJECTIVE probabilities.

I simply cannot see assigning a percentage value. If it were me voting, if there was an amalgam of strong evidence - like there appears to be for Clemens and some others in the Mitchell report, for example - that to me would be enough to not vote him in. Bonds and others have very strong cases against them.

 

Some guys though, its a weaker case. I strongly suspect Sosa, but I have seen zero actual evidence of anything. So I think I'd have to try to keep that suspicion out of my judgement as a voter.

 

Now, if we are talking court of law here, and possible prosecution, then the bar would need to be higher.

 

Is that more what you are looking for? I can't see getting any more precise than that.