The long-dreaded Hall-of-Fame ballot has begun arriving in the mail
If Bill Madden doesn't want to vote for the baseball Hall of Fame anymore I am sure someone else will be glad to take his place.
and now the gorilla-in-the-room dilemma is upon us with all its
accompanying hand-wringing and gnashing of teeth: What to do about Barry
Bonds, Roger Clemens, Sammy Sosa and all the steroid cheats, proven,
accused or merely suspected?
If a person is suspected of using steroids, then I see no reason why that person shouldn't be voted into the Hall of Fame. This isn't a court of law, but it is not right to leave a player out of the Hall of Fame because he is "suspected" of using steroids. Why is Jeff Bagwell suspected but Craig Biggio is not? They played on the same team together for years and any idiot knows Biggio could have taken PEDs and not necessarily then hit 40 home runs in a season. Perhaps PEDs helped Biggio hit all of those doubles or helped him hit 291 home runs over his career. If someone is merely suspected of PED use and deserves Hall of Fame induction I see no reason this person shouldn't get inducted into the Hall of Fame.
If a person is suspected of using steroids, then I see no reason why that person shouldn't be voted into the Hall of Fame. This isn't a court of law, but it is not right to leave a player out of the Hall of Fame because he is "suspected" of using steroids. Why is Jeff Bagwell suspected but Craig Biggio is not? They played on the same team together for years and any idiot knows Biggio could have taken PEDs and not necessarily then hit 40 home runs in a season. Perhaps PEDs helped Biggio hit all of those doubles or helped him hit 291 home runs over his career. If someone is merely suspected of PED use and deserves Hall of Fame induction I see no reason this person shouldn't get inducted into the Hall of Fame.
Not surprisingly, I suppose, there is already a chorus of critics — none of whom, of course, have a vote —
And because someone doesn't have a vote then that means their opinion doesn't mean shit? That's quite high and mighty of Bill Madden to say. Baseball Hall of Fame voters are supposed to represent the fans and vote the best players in baseball history into the Hall of Fame. Imagine if a U.S. Congressmen said, "A lot of my constituents want me to vote one way---they don't have a vote of course, so I ignore their opinion." He would probably have to issue an apology. As much as I hate it, Bill Madden represents me as a baseball fan and he shouldn't take a piss on the opinion of some baseball fans simply because he is too lazy and old to adapt to a changing environment.
And because someone doesn't have a vote then that means their opinion doesn't mean shit? That's quite high and mighty of Bill Madden to say. Baseball Hall of Fame voters are supposed to represent the fans and vote the best players in baseball history into the Hall of Fame. Imagine if a U.S. Congressmen said, "A lot of my constituents want me to vote one way---they don't have a vote of course, so I ignore their opinion." He would probably have to issue an apology. As much as I hate it, Bill Madden represents me as a baseball fan and he shouldn't take a piss on the opinion of some baseball fans simply because he is too lazy and old to adapt to a changing environment.
who are pontificating that if the Baseball Writers Association does not
elect Bonds and Clemens in particular, on Jan. 9, then the Hall of Fame
should dismiss them as the voting electorate.
I have read no one who has taken this point of view. I did an Internet search and couldn't find anyone who stated if the BBWAA doesn't elect Bonds or Clemens then these electors should be removed from voting. This is simply Bill Madden creating a fake argument in order to make himself and his positions seem more reasonable.
I have read no one who has taken this point of view. I did an Internet search and couldn't find anyone who stated if the BBWAA doesn't elect Bonds or Clemens then these electors should be removed from voting. This is simply Bill Madden creating a fake argument in order to make himself and his positions seem more reasonable.
They’ll say they should replace them with a whole new body of supposedly
more worthy, unbiased voters selected from the ranks of broadcasters,
who are employed by the clubs (no conflict of interest there!)
Much like there is no conflict of interest in sportswriters who may end up voting for a player simply because that player was a nice guy and gave a good quote.
Much like there is no conflict of interest in sportswriters who may end up voting for a player simply because that player was a nice guy and gave a good quote.
historians and selected writers and bloggers (like themselves?)
Bloggers! The source of all society's ills. It's a good thing for sportswriters like Bill Madden there are bloggers or else who would they point the blame towards when a reasonable opposing opinion related to a baseball-related topic is presented?
Bloggers! The source of all society's ills. It's a good thing for sportswriters like Bill Madden there are bloggers or else who would they point the blame towards when a reasonable opposing opinion related to a baseball-related topic is presented?
who believe that overwhelming statistics, no matter how they were
achieved, should be rewarded with a plaque in Cooperstown. Otherwise,
they maintain, the Hall of Fame is a sham.
Maybe there are people like this, but the overwhelmingly majority of baseball fans probably don't hold this opinion. This is typical writing from an anti-Sabermetrics writer though. Make the pro-Sabermetric position very extreme and it will make your own opinion seem reasonable.
Maybe there are people like this, but the overwhelmingly majority of baseball fans probably don't hold this opinion. This is typical writing from an anti-Sabermetrics writer though. Make the pro-Sabermetric position very extreme and it will make your own opinion seem reasonable.
There’s one problem with that — which goes to the heart of this dilemma
for the Baseball Writers — and that is clause 5 under the rules for
election, which the Hall includes with all the ballots: “Voting shall be
based upon the player’s record, playing ability, integrity,
sportsmanship, character and contributions to the team(s) on which the
player played.”
I submit a partial list of players in the Hall of Fame who admitted to cheating, were caught cheating, were proven to cheat or were suspected of cheating. I'm a fair person and will use Bill Madden's standard for PED users.
Whitey Ford- supposedly would scuff the ball with his wedding ring.
Joe Niekro- caught using an emery board during a game. (Mistake on my part. I got Phil and Joe Niekro confused. Joe did get caught with an emery board during a game but he is not in the Hall of Fame, while his brother Phil is in the Hall of Fame. They did both throw knuckleballs. I am sure Murray Chass would consider Phil Niekro to be a cheater like his brother, due to the circumstantial evidence Phil cheated since Joe Niekro got caught with an emery board once. Either way, Joe Niekro is not in the Hall of Fame. Thanks to Anon for pointing this out in the comments.)
John McGraw- used trickery like holding belt loops or tripping runners.
Ty Cobb- his baseball spikes were more like baseball knives in order to spike defenders when he was stealing a base.
I submit a partial list of players in the Hall of Fame who admitted to cheating, were caught cheating, were proven to cheat or were suspected of cheating. I'm a fair person and will use Bill Madden's standard for PED users.
Gaylord Perry- threw a spitball.
Whitey Ford- supposedly would scuff the ball with his wedding ring.
Joe Niekro- caught using an emery board during a game. (Mistake on my part. I got Phil and Joe Niekro confused. Joe did get caught with an emery board during a game but he is not in the Hall of Fame, while his brother Phil is in the Hall of Fame. They did both throw knuckleballs. I am sure Murray Chass would consider Phil Niekro to be a cheater like his brother, due to the circumstantial evidence Phil cheated since Joe Niekro got caught with an emery board once. Either way, Joe Niekro is not in the Hall of Fame. Thanks to Anon for pointing this out in the comments.)
John McGraw- used trickery like holding belt loops or tripping runners.
Ty Cobb- his baseball spikes were more like baseball knives in order to spike defenders when he was stealing a base.
This list doesn't include players who cheated as a part of a team, like Hank Greenberg and his Tiger teammates who would have scouts in the stands to tip them off to what pitchers were being thrown. Bobby Thomson and his Giant teammates used a telescope and a buzzer to tip the batter off to what pitches were coming. This whole "integrity clause" is a crock of shit. It is used by sportswriters to keep PED users out of the Hall of Fame, but has never been applied consistently or else the Hall of Fame would lack 4-5 members that were inducted from baseball's past.
What's most interesting to me is these Hall of Fame writers hide behind the "integrity clause" as a reason to keep the Hall of Fame clean from cheaters, but they don't reward the players who had great morality and never cheated. If Barry Bonds is kept out of the Hall of Fame for being a cheater and lacking integrity then why not put Dale Murphy in the Hall of Fame for playing clean and being full of integrity? It doesn't go both ways though, does it? The "integrity clause" is only used to keep players out of the Hall of Fame, because as it is claimed when not voting for a guy like Murphy, the Hall of Fame is about a player's performance on the field and not how nice or virtuous of a person he was...unless that player wasn't virtuous, in which case Hall of Fame voting is suddenly also about a player's morals.
The key words there are integrity and sportsmanship, which go beyond just the numbers.
Congratulations Fred McGriff and Dale Murphy, you have been elected into the Hall of Fame!
Congratulations Fred McGriff and Dale Murphy, you have been elected into the Hall of Fame!
There had to be a reason the Hall’s founding fathers put those words in
the voting rules and a reason the current Hall Board of Directors have
chosen not to remove them. If they did, they’d make it a whole lot
easier for the voting Baseball Writers to overlook the irrevocable
damage the steroid cheats did to the game and its most sacred records
and just vote them in.
The Hall's founding fathers and those on the Board of Directors also chose to ignore this "integrity clause" they put in the voting rules when voting certain players into the Hall of Fame. It's very convenient for Bill Madden to overlook this important point, since it doesn't support his view.
The Hall's founding fathers and those on the Board of Directors also chose to ignore this "integrity clause" they put in the voting rules when voting certain players into the Hall of Fame. It's very convenient for Bill Madden to overlook this important point, since it doesn't support his view.
As long as integrity and sportsmanship are to be part of the voting
criteria, how then do you justify to Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, Frank
Robinson — and all the other Hall of Fame sluggers at the top of the
home run list the cheats left in their wake — voting in Bonds or Sosa?
How do you justify to players like Alan Trammell, Dale Murphy, Fred McGriff, Don Mattingly and Tim Raines that they are left out of the Hall of Fame if integrity is such an important reason for induction into the Hall of Fame? Bill Madden can invoke the "integrity clause" all he wants, but until he invokes the clause to allow players with integrity, but lesser numbers, into the Hall of Fame then it just sounds like a convenient excuse to leave out PED users.
It's the ying and yang of the voting. There has to be consistency in Madden's stance. If a player cheated and that made him good enough to be in the Hall of Fame, then leave him out. If a player didn't cheat and had a lot of integrity and is barely not good enough to make the Hall of Fame, then vote him in. The Hall of Fame is about baseball statistics and a player's impact on the game of baseball. The "integrity clause" can't be invoked to keep Barry Bonds out of the Hall of Fame, but then have Dale Murphy denied admission because the Hall of Fame is suddenly only about baseball statistics only and his aren't good enough.
How do you justify to players like Alan Trammell, Dale Murphy, Fred McGriff, Don Mattingly and Tim Raines that they are left out of the Hall of Fame if integrity is such an important reason for induction into the Hall of Fame? Bill Madden can invoke the "integrity clause" all he wants, but until he invokes the clause to allow players with integrity, but lesser numbers, into the Hall of Fame then it just sounds like a convenient excuse to leave out PED users.
It's the ying and yang of the voting. There has to be consistency in Madden's stance. If a player cheated and that made him good enough to be in the Hall of Fame, then leave him out. If a player didn't cheat and had a lot of integrity and is barely not good enough to make the Hall of Fame, then vote him in. The Hall of Fame is about baseball statistics and a player's impact on the game of baseball. The "integrity clause" can't be invoked to keep Barry Bonds out of the Hall of Fame, but then have Dale Murphy denied admission because the Hall of Fame is suddenly only about baseball statistics only and his aren't good enough.
As for the recurring argument that, well, Bonds was a Hall-of-Famer before he started cheating, that’s a cop-out —
No, it's not. It's stating that Bonds was a Hall of Famer if we never even consider his statistics when he used PEDs. It's taking the cheating part of Bonds' career away and seeing if he is still a Hall of Fame-worthy player. It's the same thing voters do if they ignore the last few years of a player's career when considering that player for the Hall of Fame. No one looks at Willie Mays' last few seasons in the majors and points out he simply struggled too much as a 38-42 year old to deserve Hall of Fame induction.
No, it's not. It's stating that Bonds was a Hall of Famer if we never even consider his statistics when he used PEDs. It's taking the cheating part of Bonds' career away and seeing if he is still a Hall of Fame-worthy player. It's the same thing voters do if they ignore the last few years of a player's career when considering that player for the Hall of Fame. No one looks at Willie Mays' last few seasons in the majors and points out he simply struggled too much as a 38-42 year old to deserve Hall of Fame induction.
like saying Shoeless Joe Jackson was a Hall-of-Famer before he got
involved with his crooked Chicago White Sox teammates in the fixing of
the 1919 World Series. (By the way the case has been made that, unlike
Bonds, Jackson was innocent of any actual crimes against the game, but
that’s a debate for another time.)
This coming from a guy who wants to make sure Jeff Bagwell doesn't make the Hall of Fame simply because he suspects Bagwell used steroids. Of course, information from 90 years ago lets Bill Madden know Jackson was innocent, but that Bagwell, he's one guilty asshole because Bill Madden just knows he cheated without having any proof.
This coming from a guy who wants to make sure Jeff Bagwell doesn't make the Hall of Fame simply because he suspects Bagwell used steroids. Of course, information from 90 years ago lets Bill Madden know Jackson was innocent, but that Bagwell, he's one guilty asshole because Bill Madden just knows he cheated without having any proof.
What is particularly annoying to me is that these same critics of the
Baseball Writers Association (of which they would nevertheless dearly
love to be members)
Is Bill Madden stupid? These people aren't critics of the BBWAA as an actual voting body. The critics are critical of the voters on the BBWAA. So of course some people would want to be members of the BBWAA so they could vote how they see fit.
Is Bill Madden stupid? These people aren't critics of the BBWAA as an actual voting body. The critics are critical of the voters on the BBWAA. So of course some people would want to be members of the BBWAA so they could vote how they see fit.
cite a couple of dweeb writers, gleefully spouting how they can’t wait
to cast their no-vote against Bonds & Co., as further proof the
Baseball Writers think of themselves as vigilantes and therefore lack
objectivity in voting on the Hall.
Some BBWAA voters turn in blank ballots. Bill Madden is trying to take the extreme view of some bloggers and writers as if this is the view of the majority of people who think PED users should be allowed in the Hall of Fame, while wanting everyone to ignore the extreme view of some members of the BBWAA. It doesn't work that way. If he wants to use the extreme view of those who believe PED users should be in the Hall of Fame, then he needs to understand why the extreme view of those who don't believe PED users should be elected is being cited.
Some BBWAA voters turn in blank ballots. Bill Madden is trying to take the extreme view of some bloggers and writers as if this is the view of the majority of people who think PED users should be allowed in the Hall of Fame, while wanting everyone to ignore the extreme view of some members of the BBWAA. It doesn't work that way. If he wants to use the extreme view of those who believe PED users should be in the Hall of Fame, then he needs to understand why the extreme view of those who don't believe PED users should be elected is being cited.
I also love how these critics say the writers are biased against players
who didn’t cooperate with them — another reason to disenfranchise them
as objective voters. There was probably no player in the 1970s and ’80s
more hostile to the writers than Eddie Murray. And yet, in 2003,
Murray’s first year on the ballot, the Baseball Writers, most of whom
had no use for him, overwhelmingly voted him in to the Hall at 85.3%.
How fucking big of you guys to do that. You aren't biased, you let one player in the Hall of Fame you don't like. What Bill Madden leaves out of this discussion is the witch hunt by current Hall of Fame voters to leave players who are merely suspected of PED use out of the Hall of Fame. If that's not some sort of bias to leave out those merely suspected, with no proof, then I don't know what bias truly is.
How fucking big of you guys to do that. You aren't biased, you let one player in the Hall of Fame you don't like. What Bill Madden leaves out of this discussion is the witch hunt by current Hall of Fame voters to leave players who are merely suspected of PED use out of the Hall of Fame. If that's not some sort of bias to leave out those merely suspected, with no proof, then I don't know what bias truly is.
This whole "we let Eddie Murray into the Hall of Fame and we hate him" argument reminds me of when someone says, "I'm not racist, I have two black friends." If you know exactly how many players you don't personally like who have been elected into the Hall of Fame, then you probably have a bias against players you don't like.
The 75% is a tough standard. But it’s why the Baseball Hall of Fame has
more meaning than any of these other sports halls of fame in which no
one has any idea how people are elected. It’s why only the Baseball Hall
of Fame evokes the kind of passionate debates we are having now on the
steroid cheats.
Common ground found. I agree the debates make the Hall of Fame voting fun. Debates about suspected PED users or about PEDs and the Hall of Fame are not fun to me though.
Common ground found. I agree the debates make the Hall of Fame voting fun. Debates about suspected PED users or about PEDs and the Hall of Fame are not fun to me though.
If there is one concern, however, about the presence of all the
alleged-and-otherwise steroid cheats on the ballot, it’s that the raging
debate over them is going to so dominate the voting process that two
truly worthy Hall-of-Fame candidates, Jack Morris and Craig Biggio, could wind up losing out.
Jack Morris isn't worthy, but I'm not allowing Bill Madden to convince me to follow that argument down the rabbit hole. How is Craig Biggio worthy? Why isn't he suspected of PED use? Because he didn't hit enough home runs? Maybe Biggio was a 5-10 home run guy and PEDs helped him to slug all of those doubles. The circumstantial evidence around Biggio is the same as the circumstantial evidence around Jeff Bagwell. They played during the same era, on the same team as PED users, and any evidence that ties Bagwell into PEDs could also tie Biggio in as well. Plus, we know Biggio would do anything to get an advantage in knowing he clearly leaned into some pitches so he could get hit and get on-base. It wasn't wrong for Biggio to do this, but it shows he is willing to give up his body to get on-base, so what's a little pinprick to improve his performance?
Jack Morris isn't worthy, but I'm not allowing Bill Madden to convince me to follow that argument down the rabbit hole. How is Craig Biggio worthy? Why isn't he suspected of PED use? Because he didn't hit enough home runs? Maybe Biggio was a 5-10 home run guy and PEDs helped him to slug all of those doubles. The circumstantial evidence around Biggio is the same as the circumstantial evidence around Jeff Bagwell. They played during the same era, on the same team as PED users, and any evidence that ties Bagwell into PEDs could also tie Biggio in as well. Plus, we know Biggio would do anything to get an advantage in knowing he clearly leaned into some pitches so he could get hit and get on-base. It wasn't wrong for Biggio to do this, but it shows he is willing to give up his body to get on-base, so what's a little pinprick to improve his performance?
No doubt, some writers will submit blank ballots as a protest to the presence of Bonds & Co. being on the ballot,
But again, don't think there are biased or vigilantes on the BBWAA. That's just not true. Those bloggers who want to disband the BBWAA, let every single PED user into the Hall of Fame and tear down the current Hall of Fame building and build a new one shaped like Bill James' face are always taking extreme views like this.
But again, don't think there are biased or vigilantes on the BBWAA. That's just not true. Those bloggers who want to disband the BBWAA, let every single PED user into the Hall of Fame and tear down the current Hall of Fame building and build a new one shaped like Bill James' face are always taking extreme views like this.
And no doubt, some voters who might have been inclined to vote for
Morris and Biggio will instead ignore the integrity clause and vote only
for Bonds and Clemens because of their overwhelmingly superior
statistics.
So no one wants to consider the integrity clause and vote for guys like Dale Murphy, Fred McGriff, Don Mattingly, and Tim Raines? Great. Thanks. Much like how the founders ignored the "integrity clause" they put in the Hall of Fame voting, it's good to see there is still a consistent lack of consistency in the voting.
So no one wants to consider the integrity clause and vote for guys like Dale Murphy, Fred McGriff, Don Mattingly, and Tim Raines? Great. Thanks. Much like how the founders ignored the "integrity clause" they put in the Hall of Fame voting, it's good to see there is still a consistent lack of consistency in the voting.
A lot of those same critics of the Baseball Writers are the ones who
have launched a Sabrermetrics campaign against Morris, based largely on
his 3.90 career ERA, and have sought to somehow dispel the notion that
he was a true No. 1 ace throughout most of his career.
Fine, I'll go down the rabbit hole...but only for a minute. Saying a pitcher was a "true No. 1 ace" is pure hyperbole. Was Tom Glavine not a "true No. 1 ace" through his career because he had Greg Maddux in front of him in the rotation?
Considering that he started on Opening Day 14 years in a row,
Irrelevant. Tom Glavine started four opening day games in his career. Does this mean Jack Morris was a 350% better pitcher than Glavine? Great pitchers aren't always their team's No. 1 ace nor do they always start on Opening Day.
Fine, I'll go down the rabbit hole...but only for a minute. Saying a pitcher was a "true No. 1 ace" is pure hyperbole. Was Tom Glavine not a "true No. 1 ace" through his career because he had Greg Maddux in front of him in the rotation?
Considering that he started on Opening Day 14 years in a row,
Irrelevant. Tom Glavine started four opening day games in his career. Does this mean Jack Morris was a 350% better pitcher than Glavine? Great pitchers aren't always their team's No. 1 ace nor do they always start on Opening Day.
was handed the ball by his manager in Game 1 of six of the seven
postseason series he participated in with three different teams, and was
chosen to start three All-Star Games, I’d say that’s a hard case to
make — especially when you also consider over the last 40 years, he
ranks third in most starts (248) in which he pitched eight or more
innings.
If these statistics for Morris' candidacy seem sort of off-the-wall, sort of cherry-picked, well they are. Ubaldo Jimenez has started an All-Star Game and at this point he isn't destined for the Hall of Fame. Jack Morris was a workhorse pitcher and was very good, but he wasn't one of the best pitchers of all-time. His advocates have to talk in terms of postseason starts, All-Star Game starts and innings pitched because all of his other regular season statistics don't support his induction into the Hall of Fame.
If these statistics for Morris' candidacy seem sort of off-the-wall, sort of cherry-picked, well they are. Ubaldo Jimenez has started an All-Star Game and at this point he isn't destined for the Hall of Fame. Jack Morris was a workhorse pitcher and was very good, but he wasn't one of the best pitchers of all-time. His advocates have to talk in terms of postseason starts, All-Star Game starts and innings pitched because all of his other regular season statistics don't support his induction into the Hall of Fame.
I wonder how many of his detractors ever actually saw him pitch. If they had, they’d know a Hall-of-Famer when they saw him.
I saw him pitch. I saw him pitch Game 7 of the 1991 World Series. I also until five years ago remembered John Smoltz matching Morris for nine innings in this game, which didn't happen. Smoltz was pulled before the 9th inning. Memories can be wrong and make a player seem better or worse than he was in actuality.
I saw him pitch. I saw him pitch Game 7 of the 1991 World Series. I also until five years ago remembered John Smoltz matching Morris for nine innings in this game, which didn't happen. Smoltz was pulled before the 9th inning. Memories can be wrong and make a player seem better or worse than he was in actuality.
As for Biggio, as if his magic number 3,060 hits shouldn’t be enough, he was a seven-time All-Star
The All-Star Game is a popularity contest. Jeff Bagwell made four All-Star Games and has an MVP award. Why not vote him into the Hall of Fame?
The All-Star Game is a popularity contest. Jeff Bagwell made four All-Star Games and has an MVP award. Why not vote him into the Hall of Fame?
with eight seasons of 100 or more runs, with the fifth most doubles (668) of all time, and first among righthanded hitters.
And of course while Jeff Bagwell cheated for his home runs, there's no way PED use can result in a player hitting a lot of doubles...like more doubles than any other righthanded hitter in the history of baseball. PEDs don't make players hit more doubles. Bill Madden is a scientist and knows this as a fact.
And of course while Jeff Bagwell cheated for his home runs, there's no way PED use can result in a player hitting a lot of doubles...like more doubles than any other righthanded hitter in the history of baseball. PEDs don't make players hit more doubles. Bill Madden is a scientist and knows this as a fact.
But as long as we’re talking stats — in this case clean stats — this is
the one I love most about Biggio: He is the only player in history with
3,000 hits, 600 doubles, 400 stolen bases and 250 homers.
But he's not suspected of PED use. I don't know if he used, but if Bagwell should be suspected then so should Craig Biggio. What a farce.
But he's not suspected of PED use. I don't know if he used, but if Bagwell should be suspected then so should Craig Biggio. What a farce.
On Morris and Biggio there should be no debate.
There shouldn't be a debate on Craig Biggio, Jeff Bagwell, Tim Raines or Fred McGriff, but there is. Jack Morris, we can leave him out for as long as possible.
There shouldn't be a debate on Craig Biggio, Jeff Bagwell, Tim Raines or Fred McGriff, but there is. Jack Morris, we can leave him out for as long as possible.
11 comments:
Ben, though I am loathe to disagree with you, I think a certain amount of circumstantial evidence is enough to keep certain players out of the HOF. "Innocent Until Proven Guilty" is not relevant here, as I explained in my latest (real) post at BSBB.
That aside, this piece by Madden is fucking awful.
I'm glad Madden wants a gold star for letting in Eddie Murray. I didn't blow off work today, give me a medal.
JR,
The problem with using circumstantial evidence has three major problems:
1) It has never been used to keep a player out of the HOF. If circumstantial evidence of steroid use is enough to keep someone out of the HOF, then you have to start applying that decision to everything: betting, HGH, etc.
Pete Rose was not kicked out of baseball because of circumstantial evidence, nor were the Black Sox. To apply this argument now would enable sportswriters to continue to punish modern day players for the reasons of "circumstantial evidence."
So it just sets a really bad precedent for the future.
2) Circumstantial evidence by its very definition requires some kind of inference to connect the dots. Where one person sees a set of evidence and says "guilty" another could justifiably say that the connection is only made through the bias of the observer.
Again, if baseball allows the use of circumstantial evidence in HOF voting, then it has to spill over into other things.
Imagine if people voted someone, say Paul Konerko, MVP because they deemed there to be enough circumstantial evidence to not vote for Cabrera, Trout or any of the other 50 better players?
Ultimately, the use of circumstantial evidence is arbitrary at best and terrifying at best.
3) If you allow the use of circumstantial evidence in disbarring people from the HOF, what level of action justifies its use? For instance, if circumstantial use of steroids is enough to keep someone out of the HOF, then does circumstantial use of amphetamines carry a similar weight?
The only argument one can make given points one and two is that steroid/HGH use is a far greater offense than anything ever seen by the sport. Under that argument, you run into the subjective nature of classifying "cheating." Amphetamines, corked bats, racial segregation, intentionally attempting to injure the opposition, spit balls, nail files, pine tar, etc. where do they rank?
As Ben pointed out, people who we have absolute proof of their cheating are in the HOF, so to use circumstantial evidence to keep others out is an argument so full of bullshit it belongs on a farm.
Rich,
No precedent for circumstantial evidence exists because the PED era seemingly has no precedent in MLB history. Pete Rose was one player out of hundreds. The Black Sox were one team out of sixteen. Contrast that to the PED era, in which some estimated that over half, perhaps well over half, of all players were using. To me they are very different situations.
"Where one person sees a set of evidence and says "guilty" another could justifiably say that the connection is only made through the bias of the observer."
Right - this is why we have a lot of people voting for the HOF. (Not enough, mind you, but that's another topic) When we put all of the votes together, that's when we'll have our answer.
"Imagine if people voted someone, say Paul Konerko, MVP because they deemed there to be enough circumstantial evidence to not vote for Cabrera, Trout or any of the other 50 better players?"
It would be a terrible vote. But just because circumstantial evidence would support a flawed conclusion doesn't necessarily mean that it wouldn't support a valid one.
"Ultimately, the use of circumstantial evidence is arbitrary at best and terrifying at best."
"Terrifying"? No. Not when we're deciding something as relatively unimportant as this. In a court of law? Sure.
"If you allow the use of circumstantial evidence in disbarring people from the HOF, what level of action justifies its use?"
It's a case-by-case situation. For instance, the record suggests that Mark McGwire could not play at a HOF level without PEDs, but Barry Bonds could. At least it does to me; maybe you feel differently. Do you insist that every voter adhere to a single standard? We're all very different people.
"For instance, if circumstantial use of steroids is enough to keep someone out of the HOF, then does circumstantial use of amphetamines carry a similar weight?"
For me? Probably not, but I don't know nearly enough about the amphetamine issue. I know that they were fairly widespread in the 60's and into the 70's, but for all I know everyone in baseball is still popping greenies like Tic-Tacs.
"The only argument one can make given points one and two is that steroid/HGH use is a far greater offense than anything ever seen by the sport. Under that argument, you run into the subjective nature of classifying "cheating." Amphetamines, corked bats, racial segregation, intentionally attempting to injure the opposition, spit balls, nail files, pine tar, etc. where do they rank?"
To be honest, I can't say. If I had a HOF vote, I'd make more of an effort to sort these things out. My own view is NOT that "anyone who has ever cheated is ineligible for the HOF". There levels of cheating, many of which are subject to reprisals within the game.
"As Ben pointed out, people who we have absolute proof of their cheating are in the HOF, so to use circumstantial evidence to keep others out is an argument so full of bullshit it belongs on a farm"
So we are bound to adhere to the mistakes of the past going forward?
I think what you are arguing - and please correct me if I'm wrong - is that voting against suspected PED users leads inconsistent standards and processes. I don't deny that. So why even have a HOF vote? Let's just all agree to a statistical standard or two and let a computer figure out if the candidate in question met the standards. That way we don't have to exercise flawed human judgment, and everyone who hit 400 home runs gets in, hooray. Or 2700 hits. Or 225 wins, you pick.
JR, I love a good debate. Never loathe to disagree with me. I am wrong at least 0.001% of the time.
I'm not really trying to put a "Innocent until proven guilty" tone into it. It's more of my feeling that I don't know Piazza/Bagwell used PEDs. I think and believe they did, but I don't think I can keep them out of the Hall of Fame because of what I think or believe. It's just a personal opinion. It's getting murky when talking about Craig Biggio. I think he used PEDs too. You would be surprised at the players I think used PEDs, and I feel strongly they did, but I just can't stop myself from voting for these guys to get in the Hall of Fame. It seems wrong and I don't want to reward those who got away with it, but I think there has to be a differentiation between those who are accused and those who are caught using.
I have like 2 more posts that are somewhat related to this idea coming down the pipe, so feel free to disagree.
Snarf, I didn't run over a lady with car today and I could have. I'm proud of myself.
Rich, I haven't even thought about it spilling over into other things really. I hope it wouldn't go that direction.
I don't think we should adhere to mistakes from the past into the future, but I also wonder why guys like Fred McGriff can't get in if he was clean. I think his numbers justify it. The integrity clause should work both ways. Fine, don't let Bagwell in because he is suspected of cheating (why isn't Biggio in this discussion too is ridiculous to me and shows the flaw in the use of suspecting a player used PEDs. PEDs don't just make a player hit 40 HRs. They can cause a player to hit 20 HRs or a ton of doubles), but shouldn't this mean that Fred McGriff gets in because he played the game with such integrity?
At the end of the day, I have no issue with someone not voting for Bagwell if they have an argument other than "I think he used PEDs." I think he did too, but I also think John Smoltz did.
I don't think I could get behind statistical measures a player has to reach. That doesn't sound very good to me. It's going to be a long 20 years in regard to HoF voting.
No precedent for circumstantial evidence exists because the PED era seemingly has no precedent in MLB history... Contrast that to the PED era, in which some estimated that over half, perhaps well over half, of all players were using.
It shouldn't matter how many of the other players were using. Just as it doesn't matter how many players other than Pete Rose were betting on baseball. If you're considering someone like Jeff Bagwell, saying "well he played in an era where people did steroids" should be absolutely meaningless, just as Hank Aaron playing in an era where a lot of players where using greenies didn't affect his eligibility.
If you want to say "there's evidence Player X used steroids" that's fine, but to argue that over half the league was doing steroids and therefore everyone should be under suspicion will lead, again, lead to incredibly subjective outcomes. Who is to say that because half the league did steroids, Bagwell shouldn't be in the league because he's a juicer, but Biggio should be in because there's no stigma over him. The fact that over half the league did steroids is irrelevant. You need evidence Player X did steroids and "well other guys were doing them" is not evidence.
But just because circumstantial evidence would support a flawed conclusion doesn't necessarily mean that it wouldn't support a valid one.
Yes, but the overall question remains: how do you decide which are flawed and which are valid? You can't say circumstantial evidence works in the case of Bonds/Clemens, so therefore fuck Jeff Bagwell.
Do you insist that every voter adhere to a single standard?
Not at all, all I'm saying is that "well I think he did steroids and so I'm not voting for him" is dangerous. I think Bonds did steroids, but what if I decide Derek Jeter is too good and therefore did steroids? It's an absolutely arbitrary line of thinking and allows for sportswriters to disguise "I hate this guy" as "I think he did PEDs"
I know that they were fairly widespread in the 60's and into the 70's, but for all I know everyone in baseball is still popping greenies like Tic-Tacs.
So what's the difference? Greenies are PEDs, they're not as performance enhancing as steroids, but they're still PEDs. The fact that people today "for all [you] know" are still being used is irrelevant. It's disingenuous to say circumstantial evidence is good enough to keep steroid users out, but greenies are perfectly okay because people may still be using them.
As for my overall point, what I was pointing out was that yes, it led to inconsistent voting. More importantly however, the use of "circumstantial" evidence is a huge problem for me. If you can prove he did PEDs, keep him out, otherwise, you're letting a handful of guys decide that some guy used PEDs because his stats spiked in one year or because he got bigger or some other relatively insignificant thing.
As for stats, the thing is that 4000 hits is 4000 hits. Are there circumstances that could effect that? Absolutely and you can make some judgement calls about that (ball park size, talent quality, etc), but at its core, there is an undeniable fact. There is some circumstantial thought around it, but again, at its core there is an undeniable fact. With steroid use, there is no fact, it's entirely circumstantial.
(and no, using just stats would be stupid)
What I should say is that with the "circumstantial evidence" being used to keep steroid users out there is no fact.
Again, if you can prove someone used PEDs, then there's enough reason to keep him out.
Joe Niekro is NOT in the Hall of Fame.
Anon, thanks. I got him confused with his brother Phil. Under Murray Chass's idea of who a cheater is then we have evidence Phil Niekro cheated because his brother got caught cheating and Phil used a knuckleball, which relies on movement to strike out hitters. Obviously Phil was a cheater too if you use Murray Chass's "suspicion method" of eliminating players from the Hall of Fame.
"It shouldn't matter how many of the other players were using."
But it does. If you're a traffic cop patrolling a 55 MPH zone, it's easy to ticket the one guy doing 80. But if every car is doing 75, well, you can't ticket everyone. You can only ticket the guys who are really speeding.
"Yes, but the overall question remains: how do you decide which are flawed and which are valid?"
I judge things as best I can and vote accordingly (if I had a vote).
"Not at all, all I'm saying is that "well I think he did steroids and so I'm not voting for him" is dangerous."
"Dangerous"? Please explain what you mean, because I don't see any danger to anyone in a vote over sports awards.
"(and no, using just stats would be stupid)"
But in effect, you're arguing for only stats. Because your admissible criteria for voters seems to be:
1) Stats
2) Ironclad certainty that the player used PEDs
So without #2, we're left with #1.
JR,
I'm going to use an analogy:
Lets say there's a farmers market with 99 apple stands. I decide I want to sell my apples there as well and I set up shop.
After a few years of no complaints, I say "I am an elite apple salesmen here" and point to the fact that I sell a 100 crates of apples every day.
The stat only argument says that once I hit a threshold, that's true. That's stupid because the numbers are all relative to something else: how do my apples taste? Am I selling more because they're simply cheaper than the competition? How many apples do my competitors sell?
Stats are a start, but they also happen to be absolutely undeniable. Like I said before 4,000 hits is 4,000 hits, but much like inflation with money, are those 4,000 hits relatively the same value as say Pete Rose's hits.
Now what you're saying is that if 60 of my competitors sell rotten apples, then my apples must also be rotten and therefore I suck, even though I may have never sold a single rotten apple.
Your argument of "you can't catch them all" isn't valid because it's based entirely on circumstantial evidence. You can't use "well if everyone is going 75, you gotta catch the guy going 80" because that's not circumstantial evidence.
More aptly, your point is more like saying everyone is doing 75 in the 55, but someone calls the cops and says you're doing 80 and they show up to your house and give you a ticket when your car is parked in your driveway.
The danger is that if all you have to show is that there's enough circumstantial evidence and then hide behind the inferred argument of "well most were doing it, so he was probably as well," you're basically grouping every single player into a group and condemning the group, but punishing the individuals.
Post a Comment