In Favor of Recognition

[Soxbadger]

Texsox,

 

I think what you said is absolutely fair.

 

If a guy was borderline, then maybe steroid use is what puts them in the no column.

 

But I dont think that clear HOF players should be kept out.

 

 

[Gregory Pratt]

I'll call it the way I see it with all of the individual cases.

 

I think you put too little "emphasis" on the authority of the commissioner, and maybe too much "emphasis" on misplaced scare quotes.

 

Umm, what authority? There was no testing, no punishment, and according to MLB itself it was not a formal ban there. It was a memo. It was nothing more, nothing less. As for scare quotes, I don't know what you're talking about -- please explain.

[Texsox]

Texsox,

 

I think what you said is absolutely fair.

 

If a guy was borderline, then maybe steroid use is what puts them in the no column.

 

But I dont think that clear HOF players should be kept out.

 

clear? I love the subtle humor

 

I think some people will place that border pretty far up the line.

[Pants Rowland]

Not to get away from the legality of it all, but I would like for something more than the Mitchell Report to come out of the last 10-15 years of inflated ballplayers. I always loved what South Africa did after apartheid. Rather than having long drawn out trials and sustained campaigns of revenge, they set up the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to talk about what went wrong and start the healing for years of wrongdoing.

 

I think baseball would do itself a huge favor by doing something similar. They should basically offer an amnesty to all parties that come forward and openly discuss everything they experienced. This should include players discussing the drugs they did, how they hid it, ways to beat the system, ways to address the cheating, etc. This should also apply to owners and media members who were privy to the matters.

 

If you come forward and are forthright, you will never be prosecuted or punished for prior acts. The media will still decide whether you deserve the HOF or not, but that is something baseball really has little control over anyway. However, if there is evidence against you and you do not come forward, then you risk being investigated with the penalty being a lifetime ban.

 

Going forward, the penalties should be pretty harsh and the testing should be frequent.

[jackie hayes]

I'll call it the way I see it with all of the individual cases.

Umm, what authority? There was no testing, no punishment, and according to MLB itself it was not a formal ban there. It was a memo. It was nothing more, nothing less. As for scare quotes, I don't know what you're talking about -- please explain.

It's not a suggestion: "...possession, sale or use...is strictly prohibited..." It states that the commissioner CAN discipline those involved: "...players or personnel involved...are subject to discipline by the Commissioner and risk permanent expulsion from the game." It then states that individual clubs, in addition to the Commissioner, can impose punishments.

 

There was no testing. There was no SCHEDULE of punishments, but the potential for punishment was certainly there.

 

Edit: Scare quotes, as in "emphasis" rather than emphasis.

Edited December 20, 2007 by jackie hayes

[Gregory Pratt]

It's not a suggestion: "...possession, sale or use...is strictly prohibited..." It states that the commissioner CAN discipline those involved: "...players or personnel involved...are subject to discipline by the Commissioner and risk permanent expulsion from the game." It then states that individual clubs, in addition to the Commissioner, can impose punishments.

 

There was no testing. There was no SCHEDULE of punishments, but the potential for punishment was certainly there.

 

Edit: Scare quotes, as in "emphasis" rather than emphasis.

 

I f***ing HATE my computer. It froze on me. It wasn't a "long" response I had but it was a few minutes I have to lose. Urrrrgh.

 

Anyway...

 

 

...I don't know how official that memo is. I've only ever heard that memo mentioned in the ESPN piece and by some posters, notably Balta, who love to cite it. According to MLB materials, steroids/HGH weren't banned then. That memo suggests otherwise. I am going to do some research because I want to know what it means, really.

 

As for punishments -- the way I look at it and will is, If Major League Baseball punished someone, that's it; it'd be bogus to pile on, unless they'd be expelled. If MLB didn't punish, then it's not up to the voters to, IMO. MLB was a consenting partner.

[ptatc]

I would look at what they accomplished with steroids and downgrade their stats based on a little research of their height/weight and go from there. Even if it is decided they didn't break any rules, they used steroids, it enhanced their performance, and to compare them to their non juicing peers, requires some thought and adjustment. So if I now place Palmeiro in the close but no cigar category like McGruff, I think it is defensible.

 

I wouldn't keep them out based on steroids, but I think it is fair to expect better power numbers, more strike outs, etc. then their non juicing peers.

 

Youv'e got to remember the majority of baseball who use these performance enhancing drugs are using it to maintain performance over the long season. The reason that bonds hits the home runs isn't necessarily that he has increased strength and the ball goes further but that he can maintain the strength over the season and he can hit them more consistently over time. So to expect more strikeouts would be a function of always trying to swing for the fences not necessarily from the drugs. Therefore attempting to "adjust" stats would not be accurate.

 

This concept is why many pitchers have used it. It allows them to stay strong over the season and not have a let down. Especially relief pitchers who can come in more often and pitch at their highest level.

 

[YASNY]

I f***ing HATE my computer. It froze on me. It wasn't a "long" response I had but it was a few minutes I have to lose. Urrrrgh.

 

Anyway...

...I don't know how official that memo is. I've only ever heard that memo mentioned in the ESPN piece and by some posters, notably Balta, who love to cite it. According to MLB materials, steroids/HGH weren't banned then. That memo suggests otherwise. I am going to do some research because I want to know what it means, really.

 

As for punishments -- the way I look at it and will is, If Major League Baseball punished someone, that's it; it'd be bogus to pile on, unless they'd be expelled. If MLB didn't punish, then it's not up to the voters to, IMO. MLB was a consenting partner.

 

But the human element is part of what makes HOF election so special. The voters are given the right to use their best judgement to determine who is and who is not worthy. The steroid issue WILL figure into the equation. The BBWOA members who vote will be the first to judge. I believe that if a Roger Clemens doesn't get voted in by the writers, that he'll never get in. The 'veterans comittee' is now made up of HOF'ers that got there without the benefit of PED's. I think they'd be much harder on these guys than writers, and the writers seem to be split about 70-30.

[jackie hayes]

I f***ing HATE my computer. It froze on me. It wasn't a "long" response I had but it was a few minutes I have to lose. Urrrrgh.

 

Anyway...

...I don't know how official that memo is. I've only ever heard that memo mentioned in the ESPN piece and by some posters, notably Balta, who love to cite it. According to MLB materials, steroids/HGH weren't banned then. That memo suggests otherwise. I am going to do some research because I want to know what it means, really.

 

As for punishments -- the way I look at it and will is, If Major League Baseball punished someone, that's it; it'd be bogus to pile on, unless they'd be expelled. If MLB didn't punish, then it's not up to the voters to, IMO. MLB was a consenting partner.

I think those "MLB materials" are a mistake. The commissioner has a good deal of latitude, and there were cocaine suspensions prior to testing. I don't believe there was any official schedule of cocaine punishments, then.

 

I'm not saying anything about the HOF. Technically, the HOF is independent, anyway, right?

[jackie hayes]

But the human element is part of what makes HOF election so special. The voters are given the right to use their best judgement to determine who is and who is not worthy. The steroid issue WILL figure into the equation. The BBWOA members who vote will be the first to judge. I believe that if a Roger Clemens doesn't get voted in by the writers, that he'll never get in. The 'veterans comittee' is now made up of HOF'ers that got there without the benefit of PED's. I think they'd be much harder on these guys than writers, and the writers seem to be split about 70-30.

I think that's taking a BIG leap of faith, at least as far as amphetamines.

[YASNY]

I think that's taking a BIG leap of faith, at least as far as amphetamines.

 

Mmmmm. Very good point.

[Texsox]

Youv'e got to remember the majority of baseball who use these performance enhancing drugs are using it to maintain performance over the long season. The reason that bonds hits the home runs isn't necessarily that he has increased strength and the ball goes further but that he can maintain the strength over the season and he can hit them more consistently over time. So to expect more strikeouts would be a function of always trying to swing for the fences not necessarily from the drugs. Therefore attempting to "adjust" stats would not be accurate.

 

This concept is why many pitchers have used it. It allows them to stay strong over the season and not have a let down. Especially relief pitchers who can come in more often and pitch at their highest level.

 

And that is why it will be necessary to adjust their stats, at least in the mind of the voters, when electing these guys. They are performance enhancing, they would not have taken them just for the shrunken testicles and pimples.

[Gregory Pratt]

But the human element is part of what makes HOF election so special. The voters are given the right to use their best judgement to determine who is and who is not worthy. The steroid issue WILL figure into the equation. The BBWOA members who vote will be the first to judge. I believe that if a Roger Clemens doesn't get voted in by the writers, that he'll never get in. The 'veterans comittee' is now made up of HOF'ers that got there without the benefit of PED's. I think they'd be much harder on these guys than writers, and the writers seem to be split about 70-30.

 

Certainly, we'll have to see what happens, but aside from the few who were raising the points in the 1990s (Bob Costas, for one...though I don't think he votes) I don't believe they have any moral or intellectual highground on which to stand and I'll be the first to call them hypocrites, users and phonies for referring to players as hypocrites, users and phonies.

 

By the way, Roger Clemens had better be careful. He's starting to play the same game Pete Rose once played.

[YASNY]

Certainly, we'll have to see what happens, but aside from the few who were raising the points in the 1990s (Bob Costas, for one...though I don't think he votes) I don't believe they have any moral or intellectual highground on which to stand and I'll be the first to call them hypocrites, users and phonies for referring to players as hypocrites, users and phonies.

 

By the way, Roger Clemens had better be careful. He's starting to play the same game Pete Rose once played.

 

While they may not have and moral or intellectual highground, what they do have is votes. It'll come down to those votes as to how this goes.

[Gregory Pratt]

While they may not have and moral or intellectual highground, what they do have is votes. It'll come down to those votes as to how this goes.

 

Certainly, but I'm not convinced that the Veteran's Committee will keep these guys out, or that the voters will. It is a wait-and-see. I'm only putting my opinion on what should happen. What do I think will happen? Probably initial rejections. Some guys will get it worse than others. Palmeiro probably won't get in, even though I think he's much better overall than Sosa or McGwire. Sometimes I think McGwire absolutely killed himself by refusing to "talk about the past", but then I think that everyone loved McGwire, he was classy, he's got great HR numbers...so I don't know. I think it'd be a travesty if Bonds and Clemens never got in. I think they're the "safest bets" to get in eventually. Then there's the fact that a lot can change in five years. Maybe Clemens keeps denying it, more evidence surfaces, and he winds up like Pete Rose. Maybe people come to the conclusion I came to and say, "They belong in, anyway." Maybe people completely reverse and say, Never, none, and start adopting that one lunatic's position that you don't vote for anyone from the era. It'll be... fun to watch.

 

EDIT: By "that one lunatic" I don't mean anyone from here. I mean that one voter who justified not voting for Ripken on those grounds.

Edited December 20, 2007 by Gregory Pratt

[YASNY]

Certainly, but I'm not convinced that the Veteran's Committee will keep these guys out, or that the voters will. It is a wait-and-see. I'm only putting my opinion on what should happen. What do I think will happen? Probably initial rejections. Some guys will get it worse than others. Palmeiro probably won't get in, even though I think he's much better overall than Sosa or McGwire. Sometimes I think McGwire absolutely killed himself by refusing to "talk about the past", but then I think that everyone loved McGwire, he was classy, he's got great HR numbers...so I don't know. I think it'd be a travesty if Bonds and Clemens never got in. I think they're the "safest bets" to get in eventually. Then there's the fact that a lot can change in five years. Maybe Clemens keeps denying it, more evidence surfaces, and he winds up like Pete Rose. Maybe people come to the conclusion I came to and say, "They belong in, anyway." Maybe people completely reverse and say, Never, none, and start adopting that one lunatic's position that you don't vote for anyone from the era. It'll be... fun to watch.

 

EDIT: By "that one lunatic" I don't mean anyone from here. I mean that one voter who justified not voting for Ripken on those grounds.

 

I agree on one point. Based on the way things stand today, Bonds and Clemens will get in eventually.

[Texsox]

I agree on one point. Based on the way things stand today, Bonds and Clemens will get in eventually.

 

And I do not have a problem with that, but I would like some mention of them playing in the "steroid era".

[YASNY]

And I do not have a problem with that, but I would like some mention of them playing in the "steroid era".

 

That elephant will be standing on the dias as they make their acceptance speeches.

[Texsox]

That elephant will be standing on the dias as they make their acceptance speeches.

 

Deserved but slightly unfair, if that makes sense.

[YASNY]

Deserved but slightly unfair, if that makes sense.

 

Unfair to whom? You? Them?

[ptatc]

And that is why it will be necessary to adjust their stats, at least in the mind of the voters, when electing these guys. They are performance enhancing, they would not have taken them just for the shrunken testicles and pimples.

 

How could you fairly adjust stirkeouts and walks which have absolutely nothing to do with the effects of the drugs? I can see a case for many of the categories of hits and SBs but not when the hitter doesn't make contact with the ball.

 

[Balta1701]

Unfair to whom? You? Them?

Unfair to the chemists and the drug manufacturers, who toil in obscurity until they wind up in jail. I say they should be honored along with Mr. Bonds and Mr. Clemens! Where would they be without those loyal servants, trying to do nothing but make an honest profit by creating and selling products in an illegal fashion!

[Texsox]

How could you fairly adjust stirkeouts and walks which have absolutely nothing to do with the effects of the drugs? I can see a case for many of the categories of hits and SBs but not when the hitter doesn't make contact with the ball.

 

Perhaps then the adjustment is zero on that stuff, bigger on other stats. Bottom line they enhanced performance and it seems unfair to straight up compare the two numbers. And unlike comparing era's, you had players at the same time playing under different circumstances. They knew it was wrong, notice no one came out and said, hey I'm playing better because of these drugs. So people can split hairs all day long but no player thought that doing the drugs was ok. They hid it all along.

 

YAS,

I meant in a few cases baseball condoned the drug use, Sosa and Mark come #1 to mind. So I think it is a little unfair, but deserved. It wasn't like the anyone was really after the players to stop, including other players.