My 2013 Hall of Fame Ballot Would Be...

[MNBrew]

...Sure, steroids was not illegal in baseball at the time, but neither is murder. Steroids is a banned substance in this country.

 

Some of your logic is flawed and your points are incorrect. Steroids are not a banned substance -- available under restricted circumstances, but not banned. Murder is illegal, period, so by what logic can you say it wasn't illegal in baseball?

 

If the writers are going to be so self-righteous about PEDs, then they need to go figure out who's in that needs to be kicked out. Otherwise it's highly selective and subjective moralities being applied. To fail to apply the same standards consistently undermines ALL credibility and validity.

 

But if the HOF is a museum of the best baseball players and best baseball accomplishments, then they should all be in, steroids or PEDs or not, and let their transgressions be told as part of the story.

 

Jayson Stark (http://espn.go.com/mlb/hof13/story/_/id/8826383/what-mlb-hall-fame-be) hit the nail on the head today, as did David Schoenfield (http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/31831/gaylord-perry-cheaters-and-the-hall) last week.

[JimH5]

If the writers are going to be so self-righteous about PEDs, then they need to go figure out who's in that needs to be kicked out. Otherwise it's highly selective and subjective moralities being applied. To fail to apply the same standards consistently undermines ALL credibility and validity.

 

The writers are only given the responsibility to vote for or against the guys on the ballot presented to them. They aren't in any position of authority to remove Hall of Famers.

[JimH5]

OH NO BACK ACNE

 

True it's not a smoking gun, but back acne is well known as a side effect of steroid use. And it was an era when a lot of players were using steroids. And Piazza went from a nothing as an amateur to the best hitting catcher of all time, in that environment? It's certainly enough to raise doubts.

[remfire]

Some of your logic is flawed and your points are incorrect. Steroids are not a banned substance -- available under restricted circumstances, but not banned. Murder is illegal, period, so by what logic can you say it wasn't illegal in baseball?

 

Didn't think I had to elaborate quite this much, but when you can show me these guys prescriptions for these steroids, I will correct myself. What they did under their circumstances was illegal, period.

 

If the writers are going to be so self-righteous about PEDs, then they need to go figure out who's in that needs to be kicked out. Otherwise it's highly selective and subjective moralities being applied. To fail to apply the same standards consistently undermines ALL credibility and validity.

 

That's the beauty, or ugliness as it appears to be in this instance, of the voting process. There will never be 100% consistency. Different voters voting on different eras. New age voters, old school voters. The voters that put Cobb or Stargell in the Hall aren't all the same ones that didn't put Bonds in. Values change. Eras change.

 

But if the HOF is a museum of the best baseball players and best baseball accomplishments, then they should all be in, steroids or PEDs or not, and let their transgressions be told as part of the story.

 

Their accomplishments are in the Hall of Fame. The Hall of Fame has 40,000 plus artifacts from almost 2 centuries of baseball. Balls, jerseys, cleats, bats. I'm sure some of those are theirs for all generations to see.

 

They just don't deserve a plaque.

[dlk9s]

Didn't think I had to elaborate quite this much, but when you can show me these guys prescriptions for these steroids, I will correct myself. What they did under their circumstances was illegal, period.

 

He's criticizing your silly comparison to murder when it comes to what was/was not in the rules.

[Point Beer Is Best]

OH NO BACK ACNE

 

True it's not a smoking gun, but back acne is well known as a side effect of steroid use. And it was an era when a lot of players were using steroids. And Piazza went from a nothing as an amateur to the best hitting catcher of all time, in that environment? It's certainly enough to raise doubts.

 

That's probably the weakest argument I've ever seen to connect someone to PED use. Back-ne? And his draft status is pretty irrelevant. Bart Starr was drafted in the 17th round. Tom Brady was a scrawny, average at best QB at Michigan and was taken in the 6th round. 32 teams passed on drafting Arian Foster through all 7 rounds of the draft. It's easy to raise doubts on just about everyone, but you've got to come with something a lot stronger than that.

[Ennder]

I had back acne in college and they gave me topical steroids to get rid of it. Guess they should have banned me from our softball team and took away our "drank the most beer" trophy we got that year. Seriously, I don't think it is the writers job to pass judgement on players who were never judged by MLB. A lot of players have some sort of slight against them that makes some sort of sense but back acne just points to how ridiculous this entire thing is. I'm a big fan of the idea of adding some sort of comment about their suspicions to the plaque they get but you don't keep someone out because he had back acne, that is just foolish. Showing up on the Mitchel report. Having to go to court because of strong allegations etc at least makes a little sense but lets not turn this into a witch hunt.

[dlk9s]

I'm a big fan of the idea of adding some sort of comment about their suspicions to the plaque they get

That would be terrible.

[JimH5]

We're all free to interpret information any way that we would like.

 

I don't think it is unreasonable to suspect Piazza used steroids, based on his meteoric rise from the very bottom to the very top, when you consider the era that he played in, and the reports of his back acne, one of the commonly recognized side effects of steroid use. If I walk in the house tonight with slurred speech, it would not be unreasonable for my wife to wonder if I had been drinking. She wouldn't need an eye-witness account, or a receipt from a bar.

 

Though I understand if you want more hard evidence before you reach the same suspicions as me.

 

My post was really in response to Louis Ely's words that no spikes in power and a slow regression of power after age 31 suggest no PED use.

 

My references to Murray Chass, Joel Sherman & Jeff Pearlman were to indicate that there are indeed suspicions. They aren't going to be enough to convince everyone, but they're out there.

[Ennder]

I'm a big fan of the idea of adding some sort of comment about their suspicions to the plaque they get

That would be terrible.

 

 

No. It would be completely logical. Let the people visit the hall judge the players one way or the other. The hall itself is a place of history. As long as you aren't just ignoring the history this is such a non issue.

 

When Braun comes up for a vote and he doesn't get in because of some stupid test that wasn't handled properly and leaked when it shouldn't have been I'll be completely pissed. There will be players who did steroids in the hall by that point without a shadow of a doubt and others will be held out because people decided they were guilty without any real proof. I guarantee at least 1 player gets held out of the hall because of suspicion while they are actually innocent and multiple players get in even though they are guilty. The entire situation is a mess and can't be handled properly.

[MNBrew]

Didn't think I had to elaborate quite this much, but when you can show me these guys prescriptions for these steroids, I will correct myself. What they did under their circumstances was illegal, period.

 

He's criticizing your silly comparison to murder when it comes to what was/was not in the rules.

 

Thank you, dlk9s. And please note, remfire, that I'm not remotely asserting that steroid use was right in any way, shape, or form.

 

Remfire, I also suggest you read the Stark & Schoenfield columns for which I posted links. Whether or not they deserve plaques is a matter of opinion and one on which we disagree. . . . Amphetamines were illegal (were those the "greenies," or were those something else, too?). Cocaine is a stimulant that was certainly illegal in the '70s & '80s. Gaylord Perry's doctoring the ball was shameless and done ON the field AND he was CAUGHT. Arguably none of those things are any lesser offenses than steroids or PEDs of the recent era, and that same "character/etc." clause the writers use to justify the exclusions of the accused/suspected/guilty existed in those times, too -- it's been there for over 60 years, according to Stark's article.

[SRB]

The BBWAA voters of today obviously have spoken. Sure, Bonds, Clemens, and a few others deserve a spot in the Hall of Fame. When you walk through it, their memorabilia is already there.

 

They just don't deserve a plaque.

 

So we are just conceding that getting a Hall of Fame plaque is entirely dependent on who baseball writers* (*nevermind the fact that a significant portion of the people voting do not even cover baseball, or are senile "honorary" members) personally like, and not merit? To me that is dumb. As fans we should not tolerate a minority of delusional writer dragging down the entire sport by turning the alleged "Hall of Fame" into a Hall of Arbitrary Popularity. They need to make the Hall of Fame either based on some objective measure of merit, or try to figure out some way to leave it to the fans. The writers have lost the privilege of controlling access.

 

To say that Barry Bonds should not be in the Hall of Fame because he took steroids at the tail end of his career (despite having an entire Hall of Fame worthy career before that) is laughable when one considers not only all of the vicious racists enshrined in the Hall, but the fact that the careers of half the players in the Hall have far more tainted numbers due to the fact that they played in a segregated league.

[Ennder]

Didn't think I had to elaborate quite this much, but when you can show me these guys prescriptions for these steroids, I will correct myself. What they did under their circumstances was illegal, period.

 

Fair enough but a counterpoint is show me even a tiny shred of concrete evidence that they did steroids because most of these guys don't have anything. They have the court of public opinion condemning them with no real proof other than his head looked big or his back had acne. This is a pretty clear case of guilty until proven innocent.

[jerichoholicninja]

You guys have it all wrong. The biggest travesty is that someone voted for Aaron Sele.

[DuWayne Steurer]

This is like the Salem Witch Trials (Except without the drowning and burning and stuff)

 

Back acne? GUIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIILTY!!!!!!!!!

 

Big head? GUIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIILTY!!!!!!!

 

You were a teammate of Jose Canseco for 3 months? GUIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIILTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Heck..........."You played in the 80's or 90's?" GUIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIILTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I hope that sometime within our lifetimes, the way the HOF chooses to put new members in is completely overhauled, and we look back at this period, and realize how completely ludicrous this witch hunt really was.

[Invader3K]

At this point I think you have to vote in anyone worthy from a statistical standpoint if they haven't been banned by MLB. I think that's the only fair and evenhanded way to do it. That means that yes, I would vote for Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens even though I think both of them cheated and I dislike them as people.

[JohnBriggs12]

You guys have it all wrong. The biggest travesty is that someone voted for Aaron Sele.

 

True. Cirillo is thinking Sele gets a vote and I get shut out?

[Raw Biz]

At this point I think you have to vote in anyone worthy from a statistical standpoint if they haven't been banned by MLB. I think that's the only fair and evenhanded way to do it. That means that yes, I would vote for Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens even though I think both of them cheated and I dislike them as people.

 

Exactly how I see it. If your argument is that almost everyone was doing it, then wasn't there basically a level playing field. As much as I dislike the players who used, the steroid era is a part of baseball history. And the Hall of Fame is about honoring the best players in baseball history. I don't see how you can exclude all these players from a 15-20 year span, especially when a lot of their numbers are mind-boggling and historic. Sure they might have had help getting there but as long as the record books say those numbers stand, then they should be treated as such and used to decide whether a player is worthy or not.

[Funketown]

... tail end of his career (despite having an entire Hall of Fame worthy career before that) is laughable when one considers not only all of the vicious racists enshrined in the Hall, but the fact that the careers of half the players in the Hall have far more tainted numbers due to the fact that they played in a segregated league.

 

I've felt that way for some time now. Deliberately pushing (or at the least supporting) management to keep black players out of the major leagues is clearly the greater evil, and may have well created an even greater statistical advantage for early ballplayers.

[JimH5]

I hope that sometime within our lifetimes, the way the HOF chooses to put new members in is completely overhauled, and we look back at this period, and realize how completely ludicrous this witch hunt really was.

 

It's not a witch hunt to deny someone a lifetime achievement award (on their first of fifteen tries, no less) when there is reasonable suspicion that those achievements were made in part by chemically altering one's body.

 

Fair enough but a counterpoint is show me even a tiny shred of concrete evidence that they did steroids because most of these guys don't have anything. They have the court of public opinion condemning them with no real proof other than his head looked big or his back had acne. This is a pretty clear case of guilty until proven innocent.

 

How would you explain Luis Gonzalez hitting 57 HR in 2001? Or Brady Anderson hitting 50 in 1996? Or Shawn Green hitting 49 in 2001? In the era when other players were known to be using steroids, does it seem likely to you that these guys were playing without drugs?

 

Piazza wasn't drafted out of high school. He didn't play college ball at a major baseball school. He was drafted as the 1390th player in the 1988 draft. And he has a higher career WAR than any of the 1389 players taken before him. Do you think he achieved that just on his own?

 

He went from 6 HR and a .390 SLG as a 21-year old to 29 HR and .540 SLG as a 22-year old. Doesn't that kind of progression at least raise suspicion in your mind?

[Ennder]

Why did Bert Campaneris hit 22 HR in 1970. Why did Brady Anderson not keep hitting 50 HR a year? How do you explain Dale Sveum's power in 1987 or Phil Plantier in 1993? Are we just assuming everyone in Toronto is on steroids now that Bautista did what he did followed by Encarnacion? Why wasn't Keith Hernandez taken until pick #785? How did Sandberg make the HOF after being pick #511?

 

I'm fine with people not voting for someone with a serious link to steroids but when you are just looking at the numbers and assuming they did it, that is bad, especially when you are talking about players with a full HOF resume.

[JimH5]

Why did Bert Campaneris hit 22 HR in 1970. Why did Brady Anderson not keep hitting 50 HR a year? How do you explain Dale Sveum's power in 1987 or Phil Plantier in 1993? Are we just assuming everyone in Toronto is on steroids now that Bautista did what he did followed by Encarnacion? Why wasn't Keith Hernandez taken until pick #785? How did Sandberg make the HOF after being pick #511?

 

I'm fine with people not voting for someone with a serious link to steroids but when you are just looking at the numbers and assuming they did it, that is bad, especially when you are talking about players with a full HOF resume.

 

 

So then should I assume that you think Gonzalez, Anderson, Green & Piazza were not using steroids?

 

Or are you just unwilling to pass judgment on them absent more concrete evidence?

[TooLiveBrew]

Piazza was drafted basically as a family favor from Tommy Lasorda (a la Stan Kyles's son being drafted by the Brewers in '10), who was friends with Mike's father. You could argue he wouldn't have even gotten into pro ball without family connections.

[Ennder]

 

 

So then should I assume that you think Gonzalez, Anderson, Green & Piazza were not using steroids?

 

Or are you just unwilling to pass judgment on them absent more concrete evidence?

 

What I think is far less important than what I know or don't know. I don't think Brady Anderson used steroids because I don't see why he would ever have stopped using it after that season. I don't think there is really any proof on Piazza and I would gladly vote him in rather than just assume. Is there any reason to assume all the players are clean now or do I have to just not vote in anyone who has some mediocre years and suddenly gets good because they must be on something?

 

I think the big HR explosion was as much about the expansion era pitching and a livelier ball as it was about steroids as well. I also think this is why it is important to lean on league adjusted stats instead of relying as heavily on counting stats.

[Ennder]

My 2014 ballot would probably be.

 

Maddux

Glavine

Thomas

Biggio

Trammell

Raines

Piazza

 

After that I would have to look a lot closer at guys than I have and there isn't much room left.