2013 MLB Hall of Fame Screechfest

I never told anybody they had to think as I do, either. I told the people I disagree with that I think they are being ridiculous, and that voters who are refusing to put guys in without any real evidence are misusing their votes. That's my opinion.

 

As I said, if you're going to do that, the logical conclusion is that everybody must wait the full 15 years before they can go in, at least everybody from the steroid era. Just because a player from that era hasn't been accused yet doesn't mean he is clean. My issue is with treating guesswork and accusation as evidence and using it as a reason to punish players who deserve to be in the Hall of Fame. As far as I'm concerned, that not only damages the integrity of the Hall of Fame, but it reflects badly on the voters who do it.

And I also think Bonds and Clemens should be in. Part of that is the argument you give, part is my belief that keeping them out leads to keeping guys out like Piazza and Bagwell, where the evidence doesn't really exist. It's all the era they played in, circumstantial crap and second hand anonymous accusations.

 

Optimally, baseball would use the waiting period - whether 5, 15 or some other number of years - to eliminate guesswork and empty accusation.

This it could do by convening a truth and reconciliation commission that would offer amnesty to every player in exchange for the truth of who used what and who did what. Then decide whether or not the era itself was so tainted as to create a level playing field - or simply vote players in on their merits because it's the baseball Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Medical Ethics and Moral Imperatives.

Also: take voting out of the hands of baseball writers.

 

Carved into the lintel of the entrance is this famous medical epigram:

"First, do no greenies."

- Hippocrates, 400 BC

 

OOP is trying to reduce my approach to an either/or, after I made it clear it was not that.

Some guys' careers have thrown off evidence of their PED use. Others have been the subject of rumors and speculation. Some have turned in performances and posted stats that raise serious doubts about their purity. Others have changed jersey and hat sizes for no other discernible reasons.

Should a rumor whispered by some fan or Screamin' A Bayless type dissuade a voter? Well, first, it's that voter's call. I would suggest no. But if there are rumors from within and/or curious stats and/or bursting muscle mass, that may trigger -- for me -- a waiting period for more context, further data, later evaluation.

The old thing about how, if something waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck ... the point of that is, I don't have to be in the clubhouse bathroom stall to see the egg hatched.

And there is a difference between your rumor and my speculation, if you (any ol' you) are on the outside and I've been close to the game for 10+ years. That's not arrogance, that's credibility and vantage point.

 

Ill follow Joe's last point with my "insider" perspective...

I believe they all cheated. (Well, a lot more of them than we think.) And I believe they did it because that was what the atmosphere in the game at that time dictated they do... Exactly like driving 80 in a 65.

That's why I don't equate using steroids with a deal-breaking violation of the integrity clause.

It's just not a big deal to me.

 

The one I always trust, perhaps naively after Rafael Palmeiro, and perhaps naively considering his football background, is Frank Thomas. He was so adamantly outspoken against PEDs. And he actually volunteered for the Congressional panel. Volunteered!

This is a guy who alienated plenty of teammates and managers - and also his general manager - through the years with some perceived selfishness and foot-in-mouth disease. So it's not like no one would want to sully him, if they could.

And yet not a whisper about him. Nothing.

Again: Perhaps I'm being naive. I wasn't around him or the game as much or as long as some others on here.

 

I get that your speculation is more informed than many others, but it is still rumor and speculation, even if it comes from inside. You are still basing your decision on things you don't actually know for a fact. That is my issue. Nobody is expecting you to see the guy shoot up, but I don't think it is unfair at all to say the line really should be a failed drug test or an admission of guilt. Perhaps strong testimony from multiple, credible witnesses. That isn't the standard you are using.

If you know something and just can't talk about it here, that is another matter. But that is not what you said. In fact, your message seems to be shifting as you post. Let's just assume that you have been kind enough to clarify for us.

Our disagreement is about where the line should be, or if players should be kept out at all due to PED use. I'm not arguing specific players with you, other than mentioning them as examples. Your access helps with specific players, but it doesn't make your opinion of what the standard should be any more valid than mine or any other poster on this board. To suggest otherwise, as I think you have, is arrogance.

Also, this claim that you aren't punishing players is just silly. You may not intend it as punishment. I don't know. I can't read your mind. But they are most definitely being punished even by being made to wait a few years, which can damage their chances of ever getting in.

 

I will reiterate here that one could make virtually the same statement about the culture of gambling/fixing/betting on baseball in the 1910s.

(And hell, in a way, Judge Landis did make that statement: Permanently ban the transgressors you can find and ignore the rest. Eventually it goes away. I could make a strong case that this strategy would work to stamp out PEDs, too. However, the legality/justice of such punishments was highly questionable then and virtually impossible to enforce today, with CBAs and a strong union. But it would work.)

 

Dick, I feel the same way about Jeff Kent. And not only has he been adamant in his denials, he has been pointed and confrontational about the guys who did do it. Can't see him taking that stand if it could come back to bite him.

 

A lot of this seems like a framing issue to me.

Was it going 60 in a 55? Yes. If your frame is the era in which they participated.

Was it going 90 in a 55? Perhaps. If your frame is all of baseball history.

 

I also don't know where the rules of courtroom evidence began to rule the day. What oop calls rumors and speculation is also known as the power of deductive reasoning. And I don't think a reasonable person can conclude that Bagwell and Piazza didn't do it. For that matter the Mitchell Report is not a legal matter either, so it isn't like that should be evidence.