1 comments Hey! It's Jon Heyman's 2015 Hall of Fame Ballot!

Completely tired of the 2015 Hall of Fame ballot discussion? Good! Me too! Now here is Jon Heyman's 2015 Hall of Fame ballot. I threatened to cover Heyman's ballot individually last year, and figured I wouldn't threaten this year. I would just do it. Jon Heyman is probably a decent guy, but every year he seems to know who was clean and wasn't clean, then sort of claims he will vote for PED users at some point, but just not this year. Mostly, Heyman uses the logic that these steroid guys will get his vote when the ballot gets lighter, which of course makes no sense. If Bonds/Clemens/etc are Hall of Fame-worthy on a light ballot then they should be eligible on a more loaded ballot. A Hall of Fame candidate should be judged on his qualifications, not based on who else is on the ballot in a given year. Last year Heyman said this:

Next year, I will reconsider them all. But I'm not close to being ready to squeeze a clean guy off the ballot so I can put a steroid guy onto the ballot, as it appears many others are. The result is a ballot I can be proud of (even if it's a ballot sure to draw internet ridicule). Admittedly, mine is not a ballot with the 10 most accomplished, or even, quite likely, the 10 best players.

Integrity.
 
Sportsmanship.
 
Character.
 
They still count. At least they do here.

Like last year, integrity counts until the ballot gets lighter. After that, fuck integrity, let's allow the PED guys into the Hall of Fame. 

Here is Heyman's ballot and I do give him some credit for at least breaking down his vote so that everyone who reads what he writes knows who he voted for/didn't vote for and why.

This year's Hall of Fame ballot is maybe the most interesting, debate-evoking and controversial in history, if it's not the most star-packed in decades, and it may be that as well.

It's a packed ballot, so that means PED users are not welcome to receive votes.

Many ballots -- and very likely a majority of ballots -- will be impacted by thoughts of steroid evidence, accusations and even supposition. Many -- and once again, likely most -- voters won't include the "best" (or at least most-accomplished) players on their ballots, with the result being that the lists of great players left off individual ballots may in fact be even better than those included on some ballots.

And that is a shame.

It's a shame that Heyman willingly participates in.

Whatever, this is a whine-free zone.

The writers who did a poor job of investigating steroid usage through the so-called "steroid era" of the late 1980s through 2001 (which is just about everyone, and includes yours truly) probably deserve to have this dilemma on our hands.

Hey! Some self-awareness. Now if only Jon Heyman wouldn't sound like such a lap dog for Scott Boras at times and agree with me on every baseball-related issue then I could like him a lot more.

More to the point, steroid users and abusers still don't deserve admission to Cooperstown. Or at least that is the way I still look at it.

Until the ballot gets lighter of course. Then these steroid users may get a shot from Heyman (no pun intended...ah fuck it, pun intended).

And I reserve the option to change my mind in subsequent years.

I'm not kidding about this. I didn't just make this up. Heyman is going to change his mind when the ballot gets lighter. This makes just no sense to me. I don't understand why Bonds is not good enough on a loaded ballot, but all of a sudden on a lighter ballot his accomplishments look better. Each candidate should be judged on his individual merit, not based on who else is on the ballot.

For today anyway, I'm not comfortable bestowing baseball's highest honor on guys who helped themselves to more accolades, trophies, All-Star appearances, MVPs, and as colleague Cliff Floyd -- a pragmatist and himself a first-time candidate harboring no illusion of making it -- points out, more moolah.

Yes, they did make more money by using PED's. I don't know if that should be a part of the consideration on whether these PED users should be in the Hall of Fame or not.

While a majority of voters see it the same way -- Rafael Palmeiro already is off the ballot for failing to gain five percent of the vote, Mark McGwire is no threat anytime soon, and Bonds and Roger Clemens, shoo-ins based on all-time accomplishments, received only about a third of the vote last year -- there is a very vocal group of fans, followers, bloggers, stat guys and others who prefer to disregard the steroid link.

I'm not sure what "followers" are and how they are different from "fans." Maybe followers are people who follow baseball players around the country and are often called "groupies." So groupies are very vocal about their favorite baseball player getting in the Hall of Fame. And as always, bloggers and stat guys ruin absolutely everything.

Such a stance might make life easier, except for a couple obvious problems.

One issue: Who is culpable, and how culpable?

Great point and rather than answer these questions head-on, Jon Heyman would prefer to just assume some players did or did not use steroids. Since no one knows who is culpable and how culpable they are, it's easier to just base his vote on assumptions and rumors.

That smoke usually came from unusually bad testimony or soft-on-steroid quotes to oddly inflated bodies and statistics

I don't completely understand how a player can have "oddly inflated statistics." Like what, that baseball player shouldn't be as good as he is at baseball? Is this mutually exclusive from having an "oddly inflated body"? Maybe Jeff Bagwell's body isn't oddly inflated, but his statistics are oddly inflated, so he obviously used steroids. What about Dustin Pedroia? His body isn't oddly inflated, but would Jon consider his statistics to be oddly inflated because he doesn't look like he should be as good at baseball as he is? It lacks sense to me how a player can have oddly inflated statistics independent of an oddly inflated body.

(and for one or two over-eager voters, the presence of back acne; this is also an acne-free zone, by the way, as that is no sort of evidence of PED use, as there are many causes of acne).

See, this shows that Jon Heyman does know how to use logic and isn't always over-eager to suspect a player of using PED's. Except, guess what? He still thinks Mike Piazza is "under review" for PED use. Obviously understanding logic and actually using logic are two separate things.

Some played it straight and performed admirably through the steroid era with normal-sized muscles and normal-sized heads, and they deserve extra consideration for competing successfully on an artificially imbalanced playing field. It's consideration they're not necessarily getting. Mussina, Raines and McGriff have yet to crack 50 percent, with only Raines coming close.

Nothing like Hall of Fame voters dismissing the statistics of those who are suspected of using or used steroids and then holding clean players to the standard set by suspected and proven steroids users.

So here are the major queries that come up (my analysis iof the 17 new players on old ballot, and 17 returning players, comes further down) ...

2. How do you know how much steroids and other PEDs helped since there's no way to quantify it?

That's true, and why I assume some stat guys don't want to deal with the issue at all,

"Stat guys" don't want to deal with this because it's almost impossible to accurately assess the impact of steroids on an individual's performance. Players age differently and steroids would have a different impact on every player who used them. So there's no way to quantify it, so "stats guys" don't deal with the issue at all because there is no accurate way to deal with the issue.

3. How can you be against steroid guys when steroids weren't explicitly disallowed until 2002?

While steroids weren't talked about or written about (a great regret) throughout the 1990s, it was understood using them was cheating. Otherwise, guys wouldn't have lied about it, stonewalled the subject the few times it came up or taken a defensive stance about its usage, and even Andro.

So Jon Heyman is against steroid guys because everyone knew it was cheating and guys lied about using them. So because enough players didn't take steroids for it to be understood that steroids were acceptable, Jon Heyman is against steroid users in the Hall of Fame. Which brings up the next question...

4. How can you be so against steroids yet give the greenie-takers of the 1950s and '60s a pass?

That's an easy one. 

Is it though? Why is it that "stats guys" are expected to quantify how steroids helped players perform during the Steroid Era, but those who want to ignore "greenie" use in the 50's and 60's aren't expected to quantify how using these drugs didn't help these players perform at a higher level?

Greenies were pervasive throughout the sport, are not muscle builders (sluggers of the era resembled normal folks) and they were so out in the open that it was understood the use was widespread.

Yeah, that just got written. So "greenies" were okay because they didn't build muscle, which doesn't mean they didn't enhance performance, and because EVERYONE used them it was understood that everyone was cheating. So Jon Heyman would have had zero problem with the Steroid Era if every MLB player had been using steroids. Because the widespread use of steroids is just fine and doesn't diminish the game of baseball, but when only a few select players are using steroids it leaves a black mark on the game. This sounds to me like a crappy excuse to not indict current Hall of Famers for cheating due to "greenie" use. The whole "everyone was doing it!" excuse has to be among the worst reasons for any behavior to be acceptable. Though I do find it interesting that Jon Heyman thinks the use of steroids during the Steroid Era wasn't prevalent enough.

7. How can you punish guys even if you aren't 100 percent sure they did steroids?

Toughest question of all.

It wouldn't be a tough question at all if steroid use was just more widespread during the Steroid Era. If everyone was using them and the use of steroids was seen as an unspoken acceptable thing to do, then Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens would have the red carpet rolled out to them so they could enter the Hall of Fame. But, the issue is that the Steroid Era didn't have enough steroid use, otherwise it would have been fine to cheat.

It's true if someone has failed a test, been convicted of a crime related to steroids, appeared in the Mitchell Report without suing MLB (no one has sued yet) or confessed, it's easier to exclude them. And I don't consider back acne, a corked bat, poor or evasive responses to Congressional questions or even a sudden inability to speak English as proof positive.

Jon Heyman is vaguely referring to Rafael Palmeiro, Mike Piazza, and Sammy Sosa here. What do they all have in common? Jon Heyman has not voted for any of these three players to enter the Hall of Fame due to suspicion of steroid use. I mean, what?

So Heyman is all like, "I don't consider bacne, a corked bat or poor responses to Congressional questions as proof positive" of PED use, then doesn't vote for these players due to suspicion of PED use. It's hard for me to wrap my head around this. Then where does his suspicion of Piazza and Sosa come from if not from bacne, poor or evasive responses to Congressional questions or a sudden inability to speak English? Or this part of the "oddly inflated bodies and statistics" that Heyman was talking about? If so, "oddly inflated bodies and statistics" is just another way of creating the same suspicion that Heyman rejects in the paragraph above. He's just taking six of one from the half dozen of the other that bacne or a sudden inability to speak English represent. He's coming off as open-minded, but holding these players to the same standard he rejects, just using different words to get there.

There are fair reasons to be suspicious in some cases, from quotes supportive of steroid guys to physiological changes so extreme they're tough to ignore to other issues that paint a fuller picture.

Heyman relies on more concrete evidence like quotes that can be taken several ways or if a player seems to be getting bigger than he should be getting. He ignores evidence like evasive responses to Congress. Because there's a huge difference in evasive answers to Congress and quotes supportive of steroid guys. One is lying to a Congressional investigation and the other is misleading a sportswriter. Obviously misleading a sportswriter is the more important transgression to focus on.

Why is it OK to presume Sammy Sosa's involvement but not Mike Piazza's or Jeff Bagwell's? None of the three has been proven to have taken steroids by any evidentiary measure.

I don't know that it is right to assume involvement by all three, but Sosa was at least on the leaked report in 2009. There's a little more smoke to go with his fire.

8. How can the steroid guys be excluded considering the Hall is a museum, where the intent is documentation of all baseball history, good and bad?

Sorry, that makes no sense to me. The steroid guys can still be documented throughout the Hall without being inducted. Induction into the Hall is an honor. To say it's just a museum seems like nothing more than a way to avoid the elephant in the room. In other words, a copout.

No, what's a copout is calling the Hall of Fame not a museum and saying these guys can be documented throughout the Hall without being inducted.

(Museum Employee) "Here you see a video showing the race between McGwire and Sammy Sosa to break Roger Maris' record. Both players ended up breaking the record. They are both two of the best home run hitters in MLB history."

(Visitor) "Oh, are they in the Hall of Fame? Can I see their plaques?"

(Museum Employee) "No, they aren't inducted. We have documented all of their great achievements here in the Hall of Fame though."

(Visitor) "If they had so many great achievements then why aren't they in the Hall of Fame."

(Museum Employee) "Well, they have not been elected into the Hall of Fame as of yet because they linked to have used steroids. They disgraced the game by cheating, so they have not been inducted yet. The Hall of Fame voters don't want to reward these players for cheating. We can not celebrate them because of this."

(Visitor) "But you have an entire exhibit about their home run chase. Isn't that rewarding them for cheating too? Isn't this celebrating them?"

(Museum Employee) "I don't know. Ask Jon Heyman. He seems to think it's fine to celebrate the achievements of great players but not induct them into the Hall of Fame. Here he comes. I think he's at the Scott Boras exhibit again. In fact, don't call it a museum to his face. He gets angry."

OK, so without further delay, here's my ballot ...

The Ballot

1. Pedro Martinez: At his best, nobody was better. Used extreme athleticism, a gifted arm and amazing smarts to overcome tiny stature and make an extreme mark.

Considering Martinez's tiny stature, I would say he probably had over inflated statistics, didn't he? How could such a small guy pitch with such power? Obviously a PED user under the "over inflated statistics" reasoning.

2. Randy Johnson: While there aren't many statistical things I would call automatic Hall qualifiers, four straight Cy Youngs (and five overall) might be an exception. A dominating force once he harnessed his incredible talent.

From ages 35-38 his ERA never went above 2.64. That encompasses 1999-2002, which is right in the middle of the Steroid Era. Had an ERA+ of 125 at the age of 43. I would say that's pretty tough to ignore. Clearly a steroid user.

3. John Smoltz: In different seasons he was the best starter and the best reliever.

Recovered from two major arm surgeries to come back and throw just as hard as he did before. I would say that's a red flag for PED use.

4. Tim Raines: Sabermetrics guys were first to point out he belonged, and did so convincingly. I am a convert. The .385 on-base percentage, 808 steals 

He used all that cocaine, which obviously helped him steal all those bases. 

5. Curt Schilling: Impact counts here, and bloody sock or not, he was the key man in two championships and important in a third.

Curt Schilling as a rookie.  

Curt Schilling later in his career.  

Wow, quite the physiological change there. Throw in an ERA that never went past 3.26 from 2001-2004 when Schilling was 34-37 years old and that's pretty suspicious. Probably used steroids.

6. Fred McGriff: His OPS was 50 points higher than obvious Hall of Famer Eddie Murray, would have 500 home runs if not for the 1994 strike (he has 493) and was quietly brilliant in the postseason (.917 OPS, even better than his .886 regular-season mark). His consistent ledger and quiet persona probably work against him, as do inflated numbers of steroid guys around him.

While it's annoying that McGriff is measured against PED users but considered clean, look at how McGriff's hat fit him early in his career. It looks a little big on him at the top and around the edges. Compare to how his hat fit later in his career. It's almost like the hat barely fits around the side of his head. His head grew! An obvious sign of PED use.

7. Craig Biggio: This is a tough one because he's more of a complier, 

What Heyman said about Raines before voting for him:

even if he was only great his first seven or so seasons, and very good thereafter.

So if a player is great for seven seasons, and then only very good after that, then that's a sign he may not deserve Hall of Fame induction. If a player is very good for a long time, then he's a compiler.

Biggio was on the same team as Roger Clemens, Ken Caminiti, Andy Pettitte and Jeff Bagwell. Yeah, he definitely used PED's because he has quotes where he doesn't call these guys all cheaters.

8. Don Mattingly: He makes it here in his last chance on the ballot for his great peak. He overcame his status as a 19th-round draft choice to become one of the best two or three position players for a half decade, before his bad back sapped his strength.

Let's see, a guy plays well for a short time until injuries derail his career. What's a sign of PED use? When a player suffers an injury and suddenly stops performing at a high level, because PED's can cause the body to eventually break down. Plus, PED's can cause a player to grow hair in odd places, which explains Mattingly's awesome mustache. Is it a coincidence that Mattingly is now retired and he no longer has the mustache? Not at all. Once he retired, he quit taking PED's. So the mustache left too.

9. Alan Trammell: If Barry Larkin was an obvious Hall of Famer for me, why not Trammell? Dave Cameron of Fangraphs correctly points out the difference between Larkin and Trammell (who both had lifetime WARs of 70) is Larkin was a better base-runner and base-stealer (though Trammell wasn't bad on the bases, Larkin was great). That should make everyone take a closer look at Trammell.

Check out this site. It is a coincidence on a site where cheap steroids are offered one of the tags is "Alan Trammell"? I really doubt it. This is clear evidence of his connection to steroids.

Near Misses

10. Mike Mussina: His 3.68 ERA is excusable in the middle of the steroid era (and AL East), though he seemed to only come close to greatness throughout a fine career -- he never won a Cy Young, never led the league in ERA or strikeouts, didn't win a World Series ring and didn't quite finish that no-hitter vs. Boston.

So basically he is Jack Morris without the two World Series rings that denote team and not personal achievement? Heyman voted for Morris by the way.

11. Edgar Martinez: The slash line that topped .300/.400/.500 showed he's a great hitter, one of the best of his era, and there should be no discrimination against DHs. However, he only finished in the top 10 in MVP voting twice (though perhaps he should have a time or two more) and didn't have overwhelming career totals (though maybe the Mariners should have called him up earlier).

So Martinez doesn't make it in the Hall of Fame because he doesn't have the MVP votes or career totals (though the lack of both isn't really his fault, but let's blame him anyway).

12. Lee Smith: One of the most dominant and consistent closers ever was the all-time saves leader when he retired (478 career saves). Maybe it's not fair everyone is compared to Mariano Rivera.

I wouldn't put Lee Smith in the Hall of Fame, but why wouldn't Heyman vote for him again? He's not Mariano Rivera? Almost no closer is.

14. Carlos Delgado: His numbers are exemplary, and frankly closer than you would think. 

Don't say it's closer than I would think. You have no idea how close I think Delgado should be to entering the Hall of Fame.

16. Nomar Garciaparra: His lifetime .882 OPS is higher than any Hall of Fame shortstop, including Ernie Banks (and Derek Jeter, for that matter), and his .313 batting average is higher than any post-war Hall of Fame shortstop. But he probably didn't play quite long enough.

Of course, if he played longer than he would be a "compiler" in Jon Heyman's eyes. 

Extremely good, not quite great

17. Brian Giles: Impressive lifetime WAR of 50, on-base percentage of .400 and OPS of .902 (five points short of Gary Sheffield), and even in an era of over-inflated stats, that may sway one or two stat-minded voters.

I think Brian Giles used steroids. I wouldn't dismiss him from Hall of Fame consideration based on this, but if Jeff Bagwell should be under indictment then so should Brian Giles. If whispers of Bagwell's use are justification for leaving him out, how about Giles' ex-fiance accusing him of using anabolic steroids? That's right, Jon Heyman doesn't believe such evidence that's whispered unless he decides to listen to the evidence like this that is whispered, but hiding under the guise of seeing Giles' changed physiology.

Circumstantial evidence doesn't matter unless Jon Heyman decides it matters.

18. Tom Gordon: Very good as both starter and reliever, and also an excellent producer of next-generation ballplayers.

Father to Ben, Alex, Jeff and Flash Gordon. An impressive roster of athletes in that family.

24. Aaron Boone: Terrific gentleman who told the truth and produced one very magic moment.

Aaron Boone was always honest and had a magic moment. Basically, he was the perfect balance between George Washington and a wizard.

26. Eddie Guardado: There's something to be said for the ability to throw every day.

I have thrown everyday since I learned how to throw a ball. Can I be inducted into the Hall of Fame? Or is Jon Heyman's appreciation of my skill to throw everyday probably sufficient recognition?

Worthy on deeds but under review

But NOT under review because of bacne or some other silly thing like a Congressional hearing where he may or may not have lied. These players are under review for much more concrete reasons, namely Jon Heyman's opinion they should be under review based on circumstantial evidence not related to bacne or a corked bat. It's a totally different type of suspicion of PED use, because Jon says that it is.

28. Mike Piazza: All-time greatest hitting catcher is gathering steam despite the steroid specter, and barring a smoking gun will get there at some point.

So what causes this steroid specter if it's not bacne? Just rumors of Piazza's PED use? If so, you may as well just use bacne as your reason, because at least you are giving a reason for not voting for Piazza. I've constantly laughed at bacne being the proof that Mike Piazza used PED's, but dismissing bacne as a reason and then just have general concerns based on a generic "specter" that doesn't ever get described, as if it's porn and Heyman knows it when he sees it, is the same thing as using a bullshit reason like bacne. It's just the bullshit reason isn't given.

30. Jeff Bagwell: A big WAR probably overrates him (is he really the sixth-best first baseman all-time, or second best postwar?)

No, but he is one of the best first basemen of all-time and should be in the Hall of Fame.

but his accomplishments are very impressive indeed and still would be good enough without the specter.

What fucking "specter" is this? Just rumors that Heyman heard in the hallway while making out with Scott Boras beside the lockers? Jon Heyman goes to lengths to prove he's not believing a corked bat or evasive answers are sufficient evidence to prove a player used PED's, but damn if he isn't going to use "the specter" of steroids to keep guys like Bagwell and Piazza out of the Hall of Fame. Not naming this "specter" is engaging in the same bullshit innuendo that Heyman declares he won't be a part of. Does he not get this?

The 'steroid guys'

31. Barry Bonds: The story of taking up steroids only after McGwire and Sosa temporarily surpassed him is quite believable. Wouldn't rule out a vote in the future.

So absent everyone else taking steroids and this making it all right to cheat, Jon Heyman also will give his vote maybe someday to Barry Bonds if the ballot isn't as loaded and Bonds can prove that he only took steroids because others did too. Apparently Jon Heyman is cool with someone doing drugs as long as everyone else is doing drugs too. He must be either have been (a) a lot of fun or (b) no fun at all at parties in college.

32. Roger Clemens: Amazing how he got better after he entered the twilight of his career, isn't it?

I'm sorry, are we talking about Randy Johnson again?

34. Gary Sheffield: His résumé looks like that of a potential Hall of Famer, but his BALCO past combined with a ballot overstuffed with other steroid-linked guys puts him in some jeopardy of failing to get the five percent necessary to make next year's ballot. He is the only 500-homer hitter never to strike out 90 times in a season, as Verducci points out.

Yeah, but the steroids helped him not miss the baseball when he swung at it. This is the type of science you should just believe and not bothering looking up to determine whether it is accurate or not.

The BALCO customer claims he took the clear accidentally, and even if someone believes him, the numbers almost surely were aided by the transgression. 

OH, so Sheffield didn't mean to take the clear. Why didn't he say so? Barry Bonds didn't take steroids, his doctor lied to him and told him that he was diabetic. So Bonds thought he needed a shot of insulin everyday to keep him alive, not enhance his performance. How embarrassing!

Also admitted to throwing balls away on purpose (no accident there) so the Brewers would have to trade him, and prevented the Yankees from trading him by proclaiming places he wouldn't want to go when his agent (him) forgot to ask for a no-trade clause, an effective threat in light of his Milwaukee years.

Sheffield was an asshole. There are plenty of assholes in the Hall of Fame. This is irrelevant.

I can't wait until the Hall of Fame ballot gets a little bit lighter. I wonder if Jon Heyman will vote for the PED users and suspected users at that point? They should just tell Jon that everyone else was using steroids and I'm sure he'll let them off the hook like he did those baseball players who used "greenies" in the 50's and 60's.

0 comments Bill Madden Has Some Thoughts on an Expanded Hall of Fame Ballot and Will Vote for Mike Piazza Just as Soon as He Can Predict the Future

Bill Madden does not always enjoy new ideas. He is not cool with the Hall of Fame proposal to allow voters to choose 12 candidates on their ballot. Madden, who just a short year and a half ago missed steroids' and their impact on baseball, also won't vote for Mike Piazza to enter the Hall of Fame until he knows for sure that Piazza didn't use steroids. So basically he isn't going to ever vote for Mike Piazza to enter the Hall of Fame, because I can't imagine there will be more information revealed about whether a baseball player who retired five years ago used PED's or not when he played.

I'll start first with Bill Madden's sadness at the baseball Hall of Fame changing the selection process even just a little bit. After all, the process has worked perfectly for 71 years, why should it change now? Other than the Steroid Era presents a problem that Hall of Fame voters admit they aren't sure how to solve and haven't ever had to deal with in the past which some believe is affecting the process, of course. And other than an era of baseball that has changed the way voters consider candidates, nothing has changed from 71 years ago. Change isn't always good, sometimes it's scary when you don't have the energy to adjust to these changes.

No matter how many people the Baseball Writers’ Association votes into the Hall of Fame — Tuesday’s class of Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez, John Smoltz and Craig Biggio was the biggest since 1955 — there are always those who want to change the process,

Why change something that is working and causes very little controversy?

even though that process and the way it’s played out over 71 years are why baseball’s shrine at Cooperstown is the only Hall of Fame anybody cares about so passionately.

Yes, people care about the baseball Hall of Fame so passionately because of the process and how voting works. If the Hall of Fame allowed voters to include 12 potential inductees on the ballot it would ruin the process forever. FOREVER, I tell you! If two more players can be placed on a single voter's ballot it would disrupt the delicate balance that currently exists which makes the Hall of Fame voting so flawless.

Johnson, with his 303 wins, 4,875 strikeouts (the second-most ever) and five Cy Young Awards; Pedro, with his three Cy Youngs, five ERA titles and three strikeout titles; “Double Duty” Smoltz, with his 213 wins and 154 saves and 15-4, 2.67 postseason record; and the versatile Biggio, with his 3,060 hits and 668 doubles, the most by a righthanded hitter, were clearly the cream of one of the strongest Hall of Fame ballots ever, and as a result, a lot of eminently Hall-worthy candidates not linked to steroids — such as Curt Schilling, Mike Mussina and Jeff Kent — suffered the consequences, with vote totals not even approaching 50% when 75% is required for election.

This is pretty annoying. Why should Hall-worthy candidates not receive votes because Johnson, Smoltz, Biggio and Pedro were on the ballot? If Schilling, Kent, and Mussina are all worthy of getting a Hall of Fame vote when the ballot is not as loaded then they wouldn't they be worthy when there is a more loaded ballot? The purpose of voting for the Hall of Fame isn't to elect new members every year, but to elect worthy members when they are worthy. If Curt Schilling is not a Hall of Famer on a loaded ballot, then he isn't a Hall of Famer on a weaker ballot either. His status doesn't and should not change simply because there are considered to be fewer Hall-worthy candidates on the ballot. I know this isn't how many of these moronic voters work, but it's how they should work. The point isn't to save votes for Schilling on a less loaded ballot, but to vote for him if he deserves induction no matter how many other worthy candidates are on the ballot.

On one hand, you still have the diehard fans and other media critics who feel the baseball writers should not have the power to keep the accused or suspected steroid cheats — Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens and Co. — out of Cooperstown

I don't know of any person who has written that Hall of Fame voters should not have the power to keep these suspected and accused steroid cheats out of the Hall of Fame. I've read people opine the voters SHOULD NOT keep these accused and suspected cheats out of the Hall of Fame, but not read these voters lack the power to do. I feel like Bill Madden doesn't even understand the argument the opposition to his point of view is making and he prefers to simply create the argument he believes they are making, in place of being informed.

What’s a mockery is what Bonds did to the home run records and the argument that, well, he was already a Hall of Famer before he started doing steroids.

I think he was.

As if we know exactly when that was, just like we didn’t know Alex Rodriguez was doing steroids all those years with the Yankees — and not just from 2001-2003 with Texas — until he confessed as much to the feds last summer.

Bill Madden pulls out the "We don't know when Barry Bonds started cheating" card. So Bill Madden knows Barry Bonds was cheating, because just look at his statistics, but he isn't able to tell when exactly Bonds started using steroids. Madden has no way of looking at Bonds' statistics and determining what seasons Bonds was clean, but he is an expert at looking at Bonds' statistics and knowing for sure that Bonds was cheating and when. It's funny how that works isn't it? Madden knows Bonds cheated, he just can't tell if Bonds' statistics were affected by it or not.

One would think that Bill Madden could use the same information that accuses of Bonds of using PED's to figure out when Bonds started using PED's and work his career backwards from there. But why would Madden use the same information he uses to indict Bonds in order to figure out whether Bonds was a Hall of Famer prior to his steroid use? It's Madden's job to do the smallest amount of research possible in order to come to the conclusion he wants to reach.

It has been shared in books that Bonds started using steroids after he saw how McGwire and Sosa were able to put up fantastic numbers by using them. So that would be around 1998-1999. A look at Bonds' career shows this to be true. Bonds had normal human numbers until the 2000 season when he all of a sudden exploded and started hitting career highs in home run numbers. So just looking at Bonds' career statistics it can be seen he probably started using PED's in 1999 or 2000. So he was a Hall of Fame prior to using PED's because he would have had 3 MVP awards, 445 home runs, 1299 RBI's, 2010 hits, and 8 Gold Gloves. Assuming that Bonds never used steroids he would have been a Hall of Famer with the statistics he accumulated from age 35 to when he retired. Even if Bonds retired in 1999 and never played again he would have been 40th in home runs all time, which would be even higher if I took the time to remove the other players above him who were suspected or accused of using PED's. Basically, I think Bonds was a Hall of Famer if he never used PED's and posted numbers that regressed like a normal 35 year old would regress.

The point is, it doesn’t matter when or for how long a player cheated. A cheater is a cheater and shouldn’t be bestowed with baseball’s highest honor.

Fine, that's your point of view, but I think if Bonds had never used steroids then he would have been a Hall of Famer. In determining a player's Hall of Fame credentials some voters would consider Bonds' numbers only when he was clean and vote for him anyway. A cheater is a cheater, but if the time when Bonds wasn't cheating is considered then he possibly should be bestowed with baseball's highest honor. He didn't cheat his whole career. It's pretty obvious when looking at his career statistics.

But there is now another faction of critics of the process — among the baseball writers themselves — complaining about the Hall limiting voters to “up to 10” candidates. Writers are venting over not having enough room on their ballot for players such as Mussina, Schilling or Kent, whom they really wanted to vote for but could not because they prioritized 10 other people.

I really fail to see the issue with having 12 candidates on the ballot. As will be pointed by Bill Madden, and pointed out by others, most voters don't even vote for 10 candidates. So what's the harm in responding to the Steroid Era's impact on the ballot by simply allowing voters to choose 12 candidates permanently or even temporarily? Voters will vote for who they choose to vote for. Maybe 4 candidates, maybe 12. No one gets hurt and the ballot gets changed in response to voters who are vexed by the Steroid Era players on the ballot.

Recently, a special committee formed by the Baseball Writers’ Association submitted a request to the Hall’s Board of Directors to expand the ballot to at least 12.

I suspect the request is going to be denied — as it should be.

Yes, because change is bad. The Steroid Era provides a predicament that the baseball Hall of Fame hasn't encountered before, but the Hall of Fame should not adjust the voting process in order to adjust to the predicament. Obviously.

Yes, the ballots in the last two years have been overcrowded with top quality candidates — in successive years, you had three no-brainer first ballot guys, Maddux, Tom Glavine, Frank Thomas, Johnson, Martinez and Smoltz, all of whom were elected — and it has been exacerbated by the continued presence on the ballot of Bonds and Clemens, who would’ve been elected by now had they not been the poster boys for steroid cheating

But no special consideration should be given to deal with this overcrowding and the presence of Bonds and Clemens on the ballot. Again, this would be a change and the Hall of Fame balloting has done fine for 71 year now without change. Why should an unprecedented situation call for a change now?

Despite the laments of all those writers who wanted to vote for so many of the players who finished way down in the voting, if only they had room, what this election clearly showed is that the overwhelming sentiment of the writers was that those players were not in the same class as Johnson, Martinez, Smoltz and Biggio.

So there is nothing to worry about by increasing the number of candidates who voters can vote for. No unworthy Hall candidates will be elected into the Hall of Fame and those writers who want more room to vote for candidates they perceive as worthy will receive two extra spaces on the ballot. Everyone is happy.

It’s not to say they’re not worthy or will never get in, they just have to wait for a much leaner ballot, quality-wise.

WHICH MAKES NO FUCKING SENSE TO ME AND SHOULDN'T MAKE SENSE TO BILL MADDEN EITHER!

If a player is worthy, then why should a lean or heavy ballot matter? A player's Hall of Fame candidacy should be irrelevant to what the rest of the ballot looks like. This infuriates me about the Hall of Fame voting. A player is suddenly deemed worthy of the Hall of Fame if no other quality candidates are on the ballot, but if the ballot is heavy then all of a sudden that player's Hall of Fame resume doesn't look as good, despite the fact nothing at all has changed about his candidacy. All of a sudden, Curt Schilling becomes the skinniest kid at fat camp because OF COURSE they have to elect someone to the Hall of Fame every year. Sure, Schilling wasn't worthy last year, but that's because the players around him were worthy. Now that the ballot is lighter, Schilling's candidacy which hasn't changed at all suddenly looks better to Hall of Fame voters.

And for the record, only 280 of the 540 voting writers, barely more than 50%, used all 10 spots on their ballots. The average was 8.4 spots per ballot.

Then increasing the amount of spots available to use for worthy candidates to 12 wouldn't make a difference at all. It would simply help out the 50% of voters who may want to vote for more than 10 candidates. Bill Madden can't argue increasing the number of spots would hurt or dramatically alter the Hall of Fame and then be all like, "Well, no one even uses those spots anyway." If no one uses the spots, then the Hall of Fame isn't in danger of being hurt or altered dramatically.

For what it’s worth to the “increase the ballot” bunch, 17 players, including the four just elected, will be coming off the ballot next year and, of the 2016 newcomers, only Ken Griffey Jr. could be considered a no-brainer

Which means these brain dead voters will all of a sudden think inducting Curt Schilling is a good idea, since we wouldn't want Ken Griffey Jr. to be standing alone on the podium would we? All of a sudden, Curt Schilling should be in the Hall of Fame. Not based on his career achievements, but based on the lighter ballot.

(The year after, the biggest names are Vladimir Guerrero, Jorge Posada and steroids-tainted Manny Ramirez and Pudge Rodriguez — none of them automatics.)

Vlad should be in. I didn't know Pudge Rodriguez was officially steroid-tainted. He's the Hispanic version of Mike Piazza I guess. I can't wait to see articles about Pudge's regression later in his career as proof of his PED  use, while the fact other Hall of Fame catchers have regressed later in their career due to the wear and tear of the position will be ignored.

So for those voters who couldn’t find room for Schilling, Mussina or Kent this year, that’s at least four spaces that have opened up for you next year.

(Bangs head on the wall)

Vote for these guys, that's fine. Just don't vote for them next year, but not vote for them this year, simply because the ballot is lighter is next year.

And for those who voted for Bonds and Clemens, don’t bother wasting any of your 10 spaces on them anymore. They’re never getting in.

But some voters do want to waste their space voting for these guys. That's the purpose of increasing the spots on the ballot by two. The only reason Bill Madden doesn't want to increase the spots available to 12 is because he knows it is intended to allow voters to vote for Hall of Fame-worthy candidates who are PED users. He's already stated the increase to 12 wouldn't change much because barely 50% of voters put 10 players on their ballot this year anyway.

Now Bill Madden tells his readers why he didn't vote for Mike Piazza. It's because he can't predict the future and what if in the future it turns out Mike Piazza is found to have used steroids? Not that Madden would pay attention to rumors around Piazza of course, but he just wants to be sure no information that probably won't come out ends up not coming out. I'm sure Piazza will get Madden's vote during his last year of eligibility, right? Because that's the final chance for additional information to come out about Piazza's suspected PED use. I'm sure Madden isn't just saying he is waiting for additional information to come out as an excuse to not vote for Piazza based on rumors, innuendo, and bacne.

First of all, I’ve always had my suspicions about Piazza, even though he never tested positive nor was he mentioned in the Mitchell Report.

This doesn't sound like the opening statement of a sportswriter who is definitely open-minded about waiting to find information about Piazza in the future. It sounds like the opening statement of a sportswriter who thinks Mike Piazza used steroids and can't figure out a way to prove it yet. So basically Madden has his mind made up, he just wants to wait to find proof that verifies his conclusion, and then he won't vote for Piazza either way.

Those suspicions were heightened when players who played against Piazza, a number of players, told me he used steroids.

Bitter, angry, competitive opponents stated that Mike Piazza used steroids? If there is a better source for accurate information on a player's PED use then guys who used to play against that player then I don't know what it could be. I'm sure these players wouldn't smear Piazza's name to further their own agenda or discredit Piazza's accomplishments. Competitive athletes would never do that.

Again, there may have been no proof of that, but I do know that those same players didn’t tell me other players were on steroids who weren’t.

How does Bill Madden know which players were on steroids and which weren't? Contrary to what he wants to believe, it's not that easy to tell. I'm sure Madden is one of those who had Jason Grimsley, Jay Gibbons and Francisco Cervelli pegged from the very start. He's the Steroid Whisperer and knows who has and has not used steroids.

Sure, there may be no proof that Piazza used steroids but these players didn't tell Bill Madden other players were on steroids and they weren't. So obviously because these players had never lied before, they would not lie about Piazza. The first lie is always the hardest to figure out by the way.

Nobody ever told me Fred McGriff was on steroids, or Jeff Kent.

Okay, so that means they were definitely clean? Jeff Kent had a few 'roid rage fights with Barry Bonds through the years. I'd have some suspicions about him, but I guess he had no bacne.

So with all of that, I decided to withhold my vote on Piazza, the reason being I did not want to vote somebody into the Hall of Fame who I would then find out two or three years later had, in fact, been a steroids cheat.

See, this is just an excuse. Bill Madden just doesn't want to vote for Piazza because he believes he is a steroids cheat. Madden is waiting for revelations to come out which prove his theory that Piazza used PED's, and if these revelations never occur, he's still not voting for Piazza. You can bank on that.

As far as anyone knew for certain, Alex Rodriguez did steroids only those three years he was in Texas, because that’s what he told us, over and over again. And then five years later, we find out different: It turns out Rodriguez was a huge figure in the Biogenesis doping scandal in Miami, was suspended for a season by Major League Baseball even as he continued to deny publicly that he used steroids, then finally confessed to federal investigators that he was indeed a user during the years he was with the Yankees.

And if Bill Madden can't tell the difference in a two-admitted steroid user and a suspected steroid user then there is absolutely no hope for him. In fact, this comparison to A-Rod simply goes to my conclusion that Madden is hiding behind the whole "I need more information about Piazza's PED use" as an excuse for simply not wanting to vote for Piazza. There's not going to be information that proves Piazza didn't use steroids, so the only information Madden is waiting on is information that proves the conclusion he has already reached. So no matter what happens, Bill Madden is not voting for Mike Piazza. Just say it and don't hide behind the desperate search for new information like you are O.J. trying to find his wife's killers.

That’s why I withheld my vote on Mike Piazza.

So because an admitted steroid user again got caught using steroids then a suspected steroid user shouldn't get a vote? I guess that makes sense to someone who feels strongly that Mike Piazza used steroids. The same lack of benefit of the doubt that Madden is giving Piazza is the reason Madden will never vote for Piazza until he disproves a negative. Just don't hide behind the "I need more information on Piazza's suspected PED use" excuse. If you buy the rumors then your mind is already made up.

Conceivably, I may eventually vote for him.

You probably will not. Conceivably.

Of course my vote may not be necessary anyway, because barring revelations between now and then that he was a steroid user, I think he is going to get elected next year.

Maybe. I'm sure Bill Madden thinks Piazza will definitely get elected into the Hall of Fame if the ballot allows 12 candidates to receive a vote.

With or without my vote.

Probably without your vote. If you aren't going to vote for Mike Piazza just say it's because you think he used PED's. Don't say it's because you suspect he used PED's and are waiting for more information. Your readers aren't as dumb as you think they are. 

I don't like Mike Piazza and I'm tired of seeming like I like him and want to defend him.

4 comments Murray Chass Bases His Hall of Fame Vote on Bacne And Rumors

It's well-known around these parts that Murray Chass is obsessed with Mike Piazza and his bacne. When he isn't solidifying his case against Mike Piazza entering the Hall of Fame with scientific bacne reports, suspicious that Piazza will admit to PED use in his book conveniently released AFTER he has been elected to the Hall of Fame, admitting that, okay maybe Piazza didn't admit to PED use in his book, but he still totally used PED's and the bacne proves it, Murray is threatening to stop voting for the Hall of Fame if Jack Morris isn't inducted into the Hall of Fame. It turns out Murray is still voting for the Baseball Hall of Fame and Jack Morris wasn't inducted in his final year of eligibility. You know, no one will believe what Murray has to say if he continues bluffing or lying like this.

I didn't expect that Murray would actually give away his Hall of Fame vote. He probably enjoys the power and the ability to be one of baseball's moral arbiters too much to give up his vote. That's exactly what Murray is doing today on his non-blog. He talks about Barry Bonds' ego-trip that leads him to believe he should be inducted into the Hall of Fame, and of course, discusses Mike Piazza's bacne. It seems that Murray is some sort of bacne expert. But remember, this isn't a blog, it's a diary of Murray's thoughts electronically written and placed on the Internet. That's completely different from having a blog.

Hear ye! hear ye! hear ye! Barry Bonds deserves to be in the Hall of Fame, and he shall be elected to the Hall of Fame.

Who makes such a proclamation? Why none other than Bonds himself.

I think this deserves a "BREAKING NEWS" label. A professional athlete believes that he deserves to be elected into that sport's Hall of Fame? Say it isn't so, Murray! How unforeseen is this turn of events? Do athletes usually have a great amount of confidence in their skill level as Bonds is displaying here or is his insistence he should be in the Hall of Fame just a result of his huge ego overshooting his career accomplishments? I know the answer, but of course, Murray comes to a different answer.

In a typically arrogant and self-serving interview with an MLB.com reporter who has long been a Bonds sycophant, Bonds said:

What's more arrogant? To call another baseball reporter "arrogant" while referring to and quoting an article that reporter wrote WITHOUT ACTUALLY LINKING THE ARTICLE in your non-blog column, or actually being an arrogant baseball reporter? I would argue criticizing a fellow baseball writer and using his words without even kindly providing a link to the article you are criticizing is more arrogant. Of course, Murray is a non-blogger, so he doesn't understand the courtesy required on the Interwebs. Criticize if you will, but provide a link so the reader can make a decision for him/herself.

“I love Major League Baseball. I always have and I loved playing the game. I don’t have any doubts that I’ll get there in time. I’m bothered about it, but I don’t sit here going, ‘I’m not going to make it.’ I don’t see how it stays the way it’s going. In my mind, in my head, I’m a lot more positive about it than I am negative. I think eventually they’ll do the right thing.”

I do disagree with Bonds' language of "do the right thing," otherwise there is nothing to report here. Bonds thinks he should be in the Hall of Fame and he's trying to stay positive. I don't think Bonds is out of line or really saying anything that a reasonable person (in other words, not a person who builds an anti-Hall of Fame case around bacne) wouldn't expect Bonds to say.

“I deserve to be there. Clemens deserves to be there. The guys that are supposed to be there are supposed to be there. Period. I don’t even know how to say it. We are Hall of Famers. Why are we having these conversations about it? Why are we talking about a baseball era that has come and gone?

“Era, era, era. Do the best players in the game deserve to be in the Hall of Fame? Yes. Everything that everyone has accomplished in baseball is in that book. Correct? So if that’s correct, then we need to be in there. End of story.”

I figure the "deserve to be there" part really has Murray's attention and is a source of anger for him. As a Hall of Fame moral arbiter, no one DESERVES to be in the Hall of Fame. Except for Jack Morris of course. Otherwise, Bonds is still pleading his case for the Hall of Fame and doing so in terms where he thinks his records that are recognized by MLB should also be recognized by the Hall of Fame. Again, it's a simple argument that really shouldn't be offensive.

Bonds referred to the baseball record book, not the excellent 2006 book “Game of Shadows” that tells you all you need to know about Bonds and performance-enhancing drugs.

Except the book left out that chapter about bacne. Murray will forgive the authors for this oversight just this once.

But Bonds indeed is in the record book – for having hit the most home runs in a single season (73) and for having hit the most home runs in a career (762). He is there, on page 19 of The Elias Book of Baseball Records, because Major League Baseball has not amended his achievements.

Seymour Siwoff, decades-long head of Elias Sports Bureau, explained why Bonds is there.

“He wasn’t accused of anything,” Siwoff said in a telephone interview Saturday, then referring specifically to the 73 home runs Bonds hit in 2001 added, “When he did it, he wasn’t guilty of anything we knew of so he was put in. It was the record. I couldn’t dispute it.”

Don't be a Bonds sycophant! Just change the record books on your own.

In retrospect, Siwoff said, “We know it’s a fraud. He never hit more than 49 home runs and he suddenly hits 73.”

What was his bacne status? THAT is the real test of steroid use. What do the record books say about Bonds' bacne status and give Murray a straight answer or he will accuse you of being in league with Bonds.

As for Bonds’ linking the record book and the Hall of Fame, Siwoff said, “The book has no bearing on the Hall of Fame.”

I am making a grimace face. Not a Grimace face like this, but a grimace/wince face more like this.

I mean, yeah, the record book has no bearing on the Hall of Fame in a world where Hall of Fame voters don't use the record book or statistics a player compiled that appear in the record book as part of a player's Hall of Fame candidacy. In the real world, the record book does have a bearing on the Hall of Fame. Like or not.

Bonds is not in the Hall of Fame because in the two years he has been on the ballot, the voters – members of the Baseball Writers Association – have rejected his achievements, believing they were chemically aided.

Voting individually but collectively coming to the same conclusion, they have done that because they believe Bonds achieved his record numbers with the aid of performance-enhancing drugs.

This is an instance where I'm not entirely sure what the hell Murray is trying to prove. Yes, the voters seem to think Bonds' achievements were chemically aided. That seems clear. I am not sure who would argue otherwise. This doesn't mean Barry Bonds shouldn't believe that he should be a member of the Hall of Fame. It's a personal opinion he holds.

Circumstantial evidence, however, weighs heavily against Bonds. In the five seasons 2000 through 2004 Bonds hit 258 home runs. In the previous five years he hit 186. Siwoff pointed out the unnatural leap in Bonds’ single-season home runs.

I think it's past the "Did Bonds use PED's?" part of the discussion. For the sake of argument, let's assume he did use PED's. That's the point we are at, so Murray shouldn't waste time explaining why he thinks Bonds used PED's and focus more on bacne and how rumors about Jeff Bagwell are considered sufficient evidence to prevent him from being inducted into the Hall of Fame.

Sosa, meanwhile, was raising an equal amount of eyebrows. He slugged 292 home runs in a five-year period, including more than 60 in three of four seasons within those five years.

And we have reached the "rambling along without a point" portion of the column on Murray's non-blog. 

Before Sosa and McGwire waged their PED duel in 1998, Roger Maris and Babe Ruth had been the only players to reach 60, and they did it once each. From 1927 until 1998, two players reached 60. In the four-year span 1998-2001, three players did it a total of six times.

Like Bonds, Sosa eluded detection, but is any more circumstantial evidence needed? Convicts have been executed on less.

Well then the only solution is that Bonds definitely should be executed. If his hat no longer fits then you must not acquit. I would say give Bonds the electric chair, but it could only serve as a way to make him stronger if something goes wrong and Bonds' steroid strength turns into the ability to shoot electric charges from his hands at unsuspecting people on the street requiring a superhero like Derek Jeter to come along and save baseball and America by taking down Bonds "the right way." So the electric chair is out.

I think lethal injection is the way to go to execute Bonds. But hold on, wouldn't he enjoy the feeling of needles going in his arm? Isn't that what got him into the situation in the first place? So no lethal injection.

Then perhaps Bonds should be hanged (hung?), but how on Earth would anyone find rope big enough to get around his huge steroid-aided neck?

I guess the only option to execute Bonds based on the circumstantial evidence is to execute him by firing squad. Let's get it done.

In an interview a couple of years before the recent one, the same reporter, Barry Bloom, quoted Bonds as saying about the Hall of Fame:

Yet again, Murray doesn't provide a link. I say some critical things on this blog, but I always provide a link. I think it's only the right way to go about criticizing someone on the Internet. Obviously, as a non-blogger Murray disagrees.

“You have to vote on baseball the way baseball needs to be voted on. If you vote on your assumptions or what you believe or what you think might have been going on there, that’s your problem. You’re at fault. It has nothing to do with what your opinion is. Period. 

This really isn't a terrible point overall. In regard to Bonds, the assumption he cheated by using PED's is there and I think it's a pretty safe assumption. Now in the case of other Hall of Fame candidates like Jeff Bagwell then I think this may be good advice. 

“If that’s the case, you better go way, way back and start thinking about your opinions. If that’s how you feel life should be run, I would say then you run your Hall of Fame the way you want to run your Hall of Fame. That’s what I think. That’s my personal opinion. If you want to do the Hall of Fame the way the Hall of Fame is supposed to be done, then you make the right decision on that. If you don’t, that’s on you. To stamp something on your assumptions, it doesn’t work for me.”

Unfortunately for Bonds, the Hall of Fame voters did run the Hall of Fame the way they wanted to run it and that's why he isn't in the Hall of Fame. I do agree with not "stamping something based on assumptions." I think that can be a dangerous game.

His words did not sway them. With 75 percent of the vote needed for election, Bonds received 36.2 percent, less than half. In his second appearance on the ballot last year, he fared even worse, dropping to 34.7 percent.

Look at who is grasping the use of basic statistics! And here I thought Murray Chass would tally Hall of Fame voting totals for a player based on "feel."

The history of Hall of Fame voting shows that when players of star status appear for the first time, others on the ballot suffer.

Now Bonds is selfishly hurting others with his insistence that he thinks he deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. Stop advocating for yourself and taking away votes for others! Only Jack Morris is allowed to do that.

It is always possible that something could happen that would catapult Bonds into the Hall of Fame, but he shouldn’t hold his breath.

Well, he won't have any breath after he gets executed through the use of circumstantial evidence for Premeditated PED Use. This crime carries a death sentence, while Involuntary PED Use, the kind that Andy Pettitte has been convicted of carries a sentence of everyone forgetting about it because he acted contrite.

There is also the crime of Assumption of PED Use Due To Affiliation with Other PED Users. This is the crime Jeff Bagwell is guilty of. Bonds can be convicted of that crime as well. The only way to avoid being convicted for this PED-related crime is to be Derek Jeter.

The Hall’s board also knows that players already in the Hall object to being joined by players whose credentials includes PEDs. Some members have gone so far as to say they would boycott induction ceremonies if steroids users are elected.

If these members have intestinal fortitude of backing up their threats with actions like Murray Chass did when he claimed he was giving away his Hall of Fame vote if Jack Morris wasn't inducted in his final year of eligibility, then I would expect the entire Hall board to be present even if Bonds, Clemens, Sosa, and McGwire all got elected in the same Hall of Fame class.

Three other players on the ballot have resumes that are foggier than these five. Jeff Bagwell, Mike Piazza and Craig Biggio have never been linked to steroids by anything other than news media mention, 

And by "news media mention" what Murray means is "there is no direct evidence that they used steroids, but writers like me won't stop talking about their assumed link to steroids so it's just accepted as fact they used steroids at this point."

It must be nice to be the one stirring the dust about a story and then blame the media attention on other "news media." I can't think of a sportswriter more fervent in his insistence that Mike Piazza used steroids than Murray Chass. So one of the biggest ways Piazza is linked to steroids is through Murray's refusal to drop the issue of Piazza's bacne as anything more than speculation as to Piazza's PED use.

but in my view more time is needed to learn more about their past practices.

What the fuck does this even mean? "...more time is needed to learn more about their past practices."

Does Murray want the Hall of Fame to hire an outside investigative firm and do interviews as to whether Bagwell, Piazza and Biggio used steroids? If it requires this much work to get some semblance of an answer on whether any/all of these three players used PED's, then I think perhaps it should just be assumed they didn't use those PED's. I mean, "more time" is needed? Why not just assume these players didn't use PED's since there isn't evidence they did rather than spend time and money drumming up evidence one way or another. Murray just wants the tiniest bit of circumstantial evidence that he could use to point and say, "See! I told you Mike Piazza used steroids!"

I voted for Bagwell on his first appearance on the ballot, when he received 41.7 percent of the votes. After several people told me that he had been heavily involved in steroids, I left him off my ballot the second year.

Wait, what? Murray Chass, a professional journalist and amateur non-blogger, voted for Bagwell, and then some people whispered in his ear that Bagwell used steroids and Chass thought, "Well fuck my original thoughts, CLEARLY there is something to this rumor that Bagwell used steroids. After all, when have rumors ever been wrong? I'm going to now change my vote based on the speculation others have told me without personally doing one little bit of investigation into the truth of this speculation."

So yes, Murray Chass thinks more information needs to be learned about Bagwell's past practices in order to prove that Bagwell didn't use steroids, but ZERO investigation needs to be done in order to find out if the rumors he's being told by "several people" of Bagwell's PED use are true or not. Wow, that's a pretty embarrassing set of positions for a respected sportswriter. In fact, I think I would call this position of refusing to do research on second-hand information to be arrogant and even a little self-serving.

He received 56 percent of the votes that year and climbed to 59.6 percent the next year. But last year he slipped to 54.3 percent, perhaps a victim of the newcomers on the ballot.

Barry Bonds is such an asshole. Now he is lowering the vote total of Hall of Fame candidates that Murray Chass doesn't even believe should be in the Hall of Fame. YOU ARE JUST HURTING YOUR OWN SCUMMY KIND NOW!

Biggio will almost certainly be elected this time. He was only two votes short of election in the last election and should clear the threshold, even though a reporter friend told me that a dozen or more players told him that Biggio used steroids.

I bet there are a dozen or so players who will say that Biggio didn't use steroids. Why blindly accept one group's word over another group's word? Other than the fact Murray has a conclusion he wants to reach so he has no use for anyone who would tell him differently from what he wants to believe is true.

When I wrote that, Biggio’s fans were outraged.

I'm not a Biggio fan in any way. I didn't really like him as a player. I am a fan of using reason to make decisions and not ignoring information that disputes my conclusion, while only paying attention to information that proves the conclusion I want to reach. 

If it’s not clear by now, I don’t vote for steroids-tainted players. 

If it's also not clear by now, Murray Chass struggles with what is a rumor and what needs to be investigated as to whether it is rumor or not. 

If steroids were legal, I’d have no problem with players using them. But they are illegal, and players who use them cheat. I can’t vote for players who cheat at the expense of their fellow players who don’t cheat.

That brings me to Piazza...

It shouldn't bring you to Piazza because he hasn't been proven to have cheated. Perhaps he did, but this goes double for Jeff Bagwell, speculation of PED use isn't proof of PED use. 

But I have written about my belief that he was one of the steroids gang.

I have a lot of beliefs, but simply because they are my beliefs doesn't make them factually true. I have a list of players in my head of baseball players that I believe used PED's, but it doesn't mean I am correct. I think potentially up to 35-40% of NFL and NBA players use some some form of PED, because those are some really big guys. Does it mean my belief is true and if I were a sportswriter I could just start eliminating these players from Hall of Fame contention? Absolutely not. There should be proof, not conjecture or a couple dudes whispering sweet nothing rumors in my ear. Hall of Fame voters have to be better than that.

His many fans have excoriated me for my view, but they are blind to what I believe is strong evidence of his use.

Bacne. Maybe Piazza did use PED's. I'm not waffling on the issue. Gun to my head, I die if the answer is wrong, I think Piazza used PED's. But there's no proof of this like there is proof of other baseball players. I'm the person who thinks Marcus Giles used PED's. Little Marcus Giles. This is why personal beliefs can't be taken into account on issues like this. Leave out Bonds if you think he used PED's. Whatever, fine. It's Murray's right as a Hall of Fame voter. Don't invent reasons to leave out players from the Hall of Fame because of your personal beliefs that haven't been proven publicly.

I am not a Mike Piazza fan. I actually hated him as a player and wish Roger Clemens had hit him with the bat he threw. So I'm not a fan, but I will excoriate Murray for his view because there are other causes of bacne that pertain to Piazza. His bacne isn't "strong evidence" of his PED use, it is circumstantial evidence used to reach a conclusion Murray wants to reach. If Piazza were David Eckstein's size then Murray would chalk his bacne up to another cause, but because Piazza is a bigger guy then it's an easy and lazy conclusion to reach that Piazza's PED use can be seen in his bacne.

When he played for the New York Mets, he didn’t hide his acne-covered back. Steroids experts say that Piazza’s condition is one of the signs of steroids use.

Yes, it is a sign of steroid use. What steroid experts haven't told Murray, or he has chosen to ignore, is that there are other causes of bacne that apply directly to Piazza as a baseball player.  

Heredity may also be a factor in how acne affects you. If one or both of your parents had acne, you're at a greater risk for inheriting the triggers that cause overproduction of sebum and lead to clogged follicles 

Has Murray checked any of Piazza's relatives for bacne? Hey, Tommy Lasorda is related to Mike Piazza! Murray should make Lasorda take his shirt off to check for bacne.

Okay, now for the real cause of Piazza's bacne if one doesn't just care to claim it is PED-related:

If you participate in sports, you can get acne mechanica along your hairline from wearing a helmet.

HEY! Piazza wore a helmet while playing baseball!

Tight uniforms that put a lot of pressure on the skin can also be a cause of acne mechanica.

So playing in a tight uniform in the hot summer sun could cause acne as well? Weirdly, that's exactly what Piazza was doing for most of his career while playing catcher. It's almost like this could be an explanation for Piazza's bacne, just like his PED use could be an explanation for his bacne. It's funny how Murray just conveniently ignores any other logical causes of Piazza's bacne so he can reach the conclusion he wants to reach.

When I first wrote about Piazza’s possible use several years ago, his fans ridiculed me. They completely ignored a critical aspect of what I wrote. 

Sort of like how you ignored tight uniforms can put pressure on the skin creating bacne? Or exactly like that? I think it is hilarious that Murray is playing the victim here, acting like everyone else is ignoring reasonable information he is presenting to them, while he ignores reasonable evidence that contradicts his "strong" (circumstantial) evidence of Piazza's PED use. 

Piazza’s back cleared up completely when baseball began testing for steroids and remained clear to his retirement. 

It's very possible he got treatment for his bacne or it cleared up as he played the catcher position less and first base/DH more, thereby not having his tight uniform directly pushing on his back as it did while in a crouched position behind home plate. Around the time MLB started testing for steroids, Piazza started playing catcher less. 

Murray's whole "Piazza had bacne and then it cleared up!" argument fails for me because it's very circumstantial and because Piazza's bacne can easily be explained by kneeling in a catcher's crouch for most of his career. Get in a catcher's crouch sometime with a shirt on and see how your back naturally arches slightly more than when standing at first base or sitting. Piazza had a tight uniform on and it was more directly pressured against his back when crouched in a catcher's position. He also played the catcher position during the hottest months of the year. Piazza may have used PED's, but there are other logical explanations for his bacne that Murray ignores. 

It was not a stretch to conclude that Piazza had stopped using steroids to avoid being caught by a urine test.

It's also not a stretch that Piazza got treatment for his bacne or his bacne started to clear up as he played the catcher position less and less. What is a stretch is using bacne as "strong evidence" and (damn you Murray for making me take my eye off the ball here) using some rumor you heard about Jeff Bagwell's PED use, then basing your Hall of Fame vote on this rumor without doing ANY research into whether the rumors were true or not. It's terrible journalism and is an embarrassment to those baseball writers who vote for the Hall of Fame. I wish Murray had not been lying when he stated he was giving up his Hall of Fame vote if Jack Morris didn't get in. It would have allowed a voter who actually cares to do research and base his vote on the research he/she has done to have a vote, rather than a bitter old man to base his Hall of Fame vote on rumors that support what he wants to believe.

4 comments So Maybe Mike Piazza Didn't Admit to Steroid Use In His Book, But the Bacne Doesn't Lie

As I have said repeatedly, I think Mike Piazza used steroids but I have no proof of it and so I would still vote for him to make the baseball Hall of Fame. Murray Chass has a vote for the Hall of Fame and as he repeatedly has said he will not vote for Piazza to make the baseball Hall of Fame. Murray told us that Piazza was probably going to reveal his steroid use in his forthcoming book, which was released after the deadline to vote for potential Hall of Fame inductees, so he could admit he used steroids and still make the Hall of Fame. It turns out that Piazza doesn't admit to steroid use in his book, but have no fears, Murray still knows he is guilty. If you disagree with Murray on any issue related to Mike Piazza then you are a zealot who just can't see the truth. This is as opposed to Murray, who isn't a zealot concerning his dislike for Mike Piazza nor blind to the truth bacne isn't incredibly compelling evidence of steroid use, he just feels very strongly about Piazza not entering the Hall of Fame and refuses to listen to reason. Murray isn't a zealot because he think he's right. He tells us all about it on his non-blog.

Mike Piazza's bipgraphy is quite odd and I probably won't ever read it. If anything, Murray should just go after Piazza for his biography and it's content. Piazza accuses Vin Scully of crushing him and also plays loose with facts and claims.

With his many zealous fans lined up to buy their hero’s book, Mike Piazza figures to soon have a place on the best-seller list.

Because only the people who buy Piazza's book are his zealous fans who consider Piazza to be a hero. I'm reading a book about Joseph Stalin right now and that's only because I think Joseph Stalin is the greatest individual in the history of the world and he is my personal hero. Obviously, because I read this book I am a big of Communism. Murray is all about circumstantial evidence to prove something, so I guess he also believes someone would only purchase a book about an individual if that individual was their hero. In related news, Murray Chass is a horse's ass.

The book, however, will most likely be on the wrong list. It would be more properly placed under fiction.

Just like any book by James Frey or any book that doesn't say Fay Vincent is the greatest commissioner in the history of sports!

Up front, let me acknowledge that in his playing career, Piazza never tested positive for use of banned performance-enhancing substances. I will also acknowledge that I believe in the jurisprudence of innocent until proven guilty.

Well, Murray doesn't really believe either of these things are really true, but it sounds good to say in order to make him seem less like an angry old man and more like an open-minded person.

However, the steroids era of baseball has prompted me to adopt a variation of that theme.

Translation: I don't like Mike Piazza and any other baseball player accused or suspected (if only by Murray) of using steroids. Suspicion of steroid use is evidence of steroid use.

It’s now innocent until proven circumstantially guilty. Substitute common-sense for circumstantially if you’d like; it comes out the same way. If you’d prefer, you can use insultingly.

Here's my issue. I'm not one of those people who thinks this is a court of law. I recognize it isn't "innocent until proven guilty" and if a Hall of Fame voter wants to leave out Jeff Bagwell or Mike Piazza from the Hall of Fame then that is fine. I think it is sort of stupid to use the circumstantial evidence without some sort of proof outside of bacne though. The way Murray Chass harps and harps on Mike Piazza having used PED's drives me crazy. I think Piazza probably did use steroids (though my beliefs aren't proof enough to deny him a vote for the Hall of Fame), but Murray keeps believing there is some vast Piazza-led conspiracy where he wants to admit to using steroids but still get in the Hall of Fame. It turns out Piazza doesn't want to admit to using steroids at all in his book, which only further exasperates Murray and helps to convince him Piazza did in fact use PED's.

His denial belongs up there with President Clinton’s claim that “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”

True, except for the fact it was later learned President Clinton was lying about not having sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky and we haven't yet learned Piazza is lying when he says he never used PED's.

The problem with Piazza’s denial is that his fans are the only ones who unequivocally believe him. Baseball people believe otherwise.

It's not about believing or not believing. It's about who has gotten caught and who hasn't gotten caught. I do not like Mike Piazza at all. I dislike him as a baseball player because he played for the Mets, but he, like Jeff Bagwell, has simply not been busted for using PED's. I have a hard time leaving them out of the Hall of Fame because of what I suspect about both players.

Also notice how Murray differentiates between the knowledgeable "baseball people" who don't believe Piazza and Piazza's delusional "fans" who obviously are too biased to know the truth that the "baseball people" know. He differentiates because it is important to do so and show that he, Murray Chass, is a knowledgeable "baseball person" and his opinion should be taken more seriously than the opinion of Mike Piazza fans.

“I think it’s fair to say the prevailing view is one of suspicion, without a doubt,” said a high-ranking executive.

This high-ranking executive? Probably Fay Vincent. Of course there is suspicion about Mike Piazza. There should be suspicion about every baseball player who put up great numbers during the Steroid Era. It's natural there is suspicion. My issue comes when this suspicion suddenly turns into circumstantial evidence that is used as empirical proof of a player's guilt in using PED's. Also, it is clear that Murray Chass is taking Piazza's potential Hall of Fame induction very personally and he needs to just let it drop. 

Amphetamines, he says, made him too jittery, and he opted for Dymetadrine, described as a light asthma medication that sends more oxygen to the brain. Also on his list of legal substances were Ephedra, which burns fat, and Vioxx, which Piazza says he used “because it was an intense anti-inflammatory and it made me feel good.”
But he didn’t use steroids.

There is a chance Piazza is doing the whole "admit to a lesser crime in an attempt to pretend you are being honest" thing, but maybe he isn't. The bottom line is the only proof Murray has is his own suspicions, bacne, and an autobiography where Piazza claimed he didn't use steroids but used amphetamines. That's enough for him and that's fine. Just let it drop at this point. Murray has made up his mind that Piazza used PED's. It doesn't matter if Piazza admitted he did or did not use PED's at this point.

I must admit my reaction to Piazza’s “medical list” was similar to that expressed on WFAN in New York by co-host Craig Carton, who said on the air, “If you don’t think that Mike Piazza did some type of steroid, you are crazy.

His co-host, Boomer Esiason said Piazza’s account “seems to me to be very honest.”

Esiason, it should be remembered, is a former football player, who just might have a different mindset about these things.

Notice how Murray always has an excuse for why anyone who has an open mind about Piazza isn't qualified to give this opinion. Esiason is a football player so his opinion doesn't count.

(Speaking of football and PED's, I can't wait until the NFL has a strict drug policy and cracks down on some of the drugs these players take. It's going to make the Steroid Era in baseball look like a passing fad. This goes for the NBA too.)

Bender did not return numerous calls over several days seeking comment on the contract and the book. Neither did his assistant. David Black, the literary agent, who put the deal together, refused to discuss the book after previously failing to return calls.
“I’m not going to talk to you,” Black said. “No comment.” Asked why he wouldn’t talk, he said, “No reason. I’m not going to talk to you. The person to talk to is Mike Piazza.”

More proof of Piazza's guilt! Piazza won't talk to a sportswriter with a non-blog who simply wants to corner him and eviscerate him for using PED's.

Even if someone had called, though, it’s unlikely that an interview would have been arranged. Piazza wasn’t taking to the news media.

Show us your back Mike! It's probably free of acne because you aren't using PED's anymore. You will never be as clean as that Hall of Fame dirt grinder Craig Biggio. Now that is a player who played the game the right way and we know Biggio never used PED's because Murray doesn't have suspicions about Biggio.

Then Murray goes on to detail how Piazza wouldn't grant interviews and this is weird because he is selling a book. It's a little bit odd, but it's clear that Piazza thinks he can sell his book without granting interviews.

Wheeler, Piazza’s co-author, wasn’t talking either. Although Lonnie and I aren’t close friends, I have known him for years. In fact, his telephone number in a very old phone book (lots of dead people in it) of mine still works. But when he answered his phone, he said apologetically, “I’ve been embargoed. They’re leaving the media to Mike, who’s on tour.”
And not talking to the media.

And not talking to the media is a capital crime which is punishable by death in the mind of Murray Chass.

Tommy Lasorda, Piazza’s benefactor and manager in Los Angeles, believes the former catcher.
There’s no proof Piazza used steroids, Lasorda told the Daily News last month. “I’ve got to say he didn’t take it,” Lasorda said. “That’s how I feel. I just don’t think he took them.”

So I guess Tommy Lasorda isn't a "baseball person" then. Because "baseball people" think Piazza used steroids. Congratulations Tommy, you are just among the delusional fans who believe in Piazza's guilt. You are out of the knowledgeable "baseball people" club. Burn in Hell.

Lasorda might want to rethink his position by becoming familiar with Tony La Russa’s experience with Mark McGwire eight years ago. When McGwire was summoned to appear before a Congressional committee looking into steroids in baseball and repeatedly said, “I’m not here to talk about the past,” La Russa supported his former first baseman, saying he didn’t believe he used steroids.

Sorry, Tony LaRussa you were not a good "baseball person" when defending Mark McGwire from PED allegations.

Jefferson’s comment didn’t come as news to reporters who covered the New York Mets when Piazza was their catcher. They talked about the difference in Piazza’s body, how he looked massive when he got to spring training, then shrunk as the season progressed. They talked about his severe mood swings.

So a player's body was big in Spring Training and then it shrunk as the season progressed and he had less time to lift weights and he lost muscle mass as a result? Crazy!

Maybe Piazza did use PED's, but a player's weight loss or gain can be explained as the season goes along. Baseball players spend hours in the hot sun playing baseball and don't have as much time to lift weights during the season to keep up their muscle mass. Some players may gain weight and other players may start to lose some of the muscle mass.

Even more noticeable than the size of his body was the acne that covered Piazza’s back. His fans have made a practice of ridiculing me when I have mentioned the acne, but acne is a telltale sign of steroids use.

Bacne is also a telltale sign of a player wearing a tight jersey in the hot sun which causes oil to accumulate on his body, which can result in a breakout of acne. Bacne is also a sign that a person is simply prone to bacne. It is also a sign of steroid use, but there are other explanations for bacne as well, and this simply isn't quite the smoking gun for Piazza's PED use that Murray believes it to be.

There was another telltale sign. When baseball began testing for steroids – not before but when – Piazza’s acne disappeared and his back was completely clear and as smooth as a baby’s butt.

Piazza was also in his mid-30's when baseball started testing for steroids, so it is entirely possible that as he got older his body started producing less oil and his bacne disappeared for this reason. If Murray took the time to look he would see that Piazza's statistics still looked pretty good for a player his age after baseball started testing for steroids. I think a telltale sign of steroid use would be if Piazza's statistics took a dramatic dip since he was no longer using steroids and had gotten older. Logic would dictate his numbers would take a significant dip for both of these reasons and Piazza's numbers didn't take quite the dip one would expect.

Had Piazza agreed to an interview this week, I would love to have had the opportunity to ask him about his back and the timing and disappearance of his acne.

Gee, and I wonder why he didn't put himself in a position to prove a negative in an interview with Murray? Piazza would never sufficiently explain his bacne to Murray and so it would be pointless for Murray to even ask him questions on the issue. Murray has made up his mind that Piazza is guilty and trying to prove a negative in an interview is a pointless exercise for Piazza.

The publisher, on the other hand, should care for the same reason, but neither Mr. Simon nor Mr. Schuster wants to ruffle Piazza’s feathers, you know, the ones left from the steroids.

It seems everyone is afraid of Mike Piazza except for Murray Chass. There's nothing to fear when you have the strength of the Bacne Defense.

I know from experience that when I write about Piazza and steroids, especially the acne part, I can expect to be inundated with a torrent of e-mail responses from Piazza’s zealous fans.

I will not be writing in to Murray, but I disagree with him and certainly am not a zealous Piazza fan. I like how Murray frames anyone who disagrees with him on Piazza's PED use as biased because they are a Piazza fan. I am not a Mike Piazza fan and I disagree with Murray. If anyone is being a zealot concerning Piazza and his use of steroids then it is Murray Chass. He is the one who is constantly writing about Piazza's steroid use being definitive because of the circumstantial evidence due to Piazza's bacne. Murray seems to the zealot in this case, out to prove Mike Piazza is a PED user.

There’s never enough time to answer all of the e-mail

Murray is just so busy and his non-blog is just so popular.

so I decided I would try something different. I am going to reply to reader mail before I receive it. A writer friend suggested I could call it not my response but my presponse. So here is my presponse:

I'm confused as to how a "presponse" differs from Murray writing a column on his non-blog about the subject, but maybe that is just me.

I know that you don’t agree with my view; in fact, I know that it offends you.

It doesn't offend anyone, they just disagree. It's possible to dislike a point of view and not be offended by that point of view.

You certainly are entitled to your opinion, and I don’t begrudge you your opinion. But you are not objective, and you are willingly blind to whatever your hero might have done.

Mike Piazza isn't my hero and Murray Chass is doing an excellent job of trolling right now. If anyone isn't objective then it is Murray Chass. He covered Mike Piazza when he worked in the New York media and he bases his suspicions of Piazza's PED use mostly on his own assumptions and Piazza's bacne. That doesn't sound objective to me. It sounds like Murray is providing his own proof to reach a conclusion he wants to reach. I think it is hilarious that Murray believes anyone who defends Piazza sees Piazza as a hero.
  
If he cheated, he cheated, and he deserves whatever negative consequence that befalls him.

Yes, but what if Piazza didn't cheat? Isn't that a slight possibility as well since nothing has been proven? What consequences befall Murray Chass for consistently linking Piazza to and accusing Piazza of PED use?

If you want to ignore the acne and make excuses for it and invent reasons for its sudden disappearance, please feel free to engage in any fantasy you desire.

There's no need to ignore the acne or invent reasons for its sudden disappearance when these both can be explained by non-PED use. It doesn't mean Mike Piazza didn't use steroids, but this simply means bacne isn't the smoking gun that Murray Chass relies so heavily upon it being.

Comments? Please send email to comments@murraychass.com. 

Actually, don't email Murray. His preresponse says that all you ignorant morons think of Mike Piazza as a hero and that's the only reason you wouldn't make the same assumptions he makes based on circumstantial evidence. 

8 comments That's It, Murray Chass Quits

Murray Chass is done. He's tired of the steroid talk, the nerds who insist on using numbers instead of recollections from two decades ago in Hall of Fame voting, and quit frankly he is just really tired. He needs a nap. These things happen as you get older. Murray is turning in his Hall of Fame ballot and he's at peace with it, just as long as some new-fangled, numbers-loving, basement-dwelling blogger doesn't get his spot. It's a risk Murray is willing to take because Hall of Fame voting is just too damn hard. If Murray knew voting for the best players in baseball history was so hard he never would have started voting for the Hall of Fame in the first place. It's supposed to be easy, dammit! Murray writes more about his being a quitter on his non-blog.

One and done.

I've defended the one-and-done rule so many times. It is not a college basketball rule, so the onus should not be on---wait, Murray is talking about baseball, not college basketball.

I placed an X next to Jack Morris on my Hall of Fame ballot, and I was finished voting.

So Murray didn't vote for any other Hall of Fame candidate? Not Tim Raines, Craig Biggio, or Jeff Bagwell? Jack Morris was his only Hall of Fame vote. It's a good thing he is quitting, because if this is all the thinking he does when it comes time to put in his Hall of Fame ballot then he doesn't need to be voting.

If Morris is elected, I will most likely be finished voting period. If Morris is not elected this time, I will vote for him next year in his final year of eligibility and then be done.

Dammit! Murray is voting for one more year. At least Murray isn't making Jack Morris' Hall of Fame induction personal or anything. Oh no, Murray is able to stay emotionally neutral when it comes to electing his favorite players into the Hall of Fame. Stats geeks hate Morris, which means Murray loves Morris.

Barring a change in my thinking, which I don’t expect, I believe the time has come to relinquish my right as a 10-year (actually 50-year) member of the Baseball Writers Association of America to vote in the Hall of Fame election.

(Fireworks shoot off, a marching band begins to play, and all immediately becomes right with the world)

I offer two reasons for my decision.

1.What's the weird feeling I have in my stomach?

2. Oops, I crapped my pants.

Though I don’t believe there is a more qualified set of electors, certainly not the new-age stats guys who are envious of the writers and believe they should determine Hall of Famers,

This is as opposed to old-age stats guys who are bitter towards the progress baseball has made towards embracing more complex and advanced statistics and believe they should determine Hall of Famers.

I don’t think reporters and columnists who cover and comment on baseball news should be making baseball news.

Naturally, Murray comes to this conclusion after years of voting for the Hall of Fame inductees while being a columnist who covers and comments on baseball news. This would be like me announcing I wasn't writing on this blog anymore because I don't think non-"professional" sportswriters know what good sportswriting is.

The steroids issue has made it impossible to conduct a rational vote and cast a reasonable ballot. No matter how a writer votes or on what he bases his decision whom to vote for or not to vote for, his reasoning has to be flawed and open to challenge.

There is a part of me that agrees with this statement. The steroid issue has really clouded the water when it comes to voting for the Hall of Fame. It's hard to know if players who used steroids should be considered, if players who were suspected of steroid use should be considered or even how to consider players who aren't suspected but people claim to "know" that player used. It's hard enough judging the steroid issue in regard to players who may or may not have used, but then the voters have to also decide what their position on the steroid issue means for other players on the ballot. If a person isn't voting for a suspected/proven steroid user, does Fred McGriff get in because he was seen as clean? Does Dale Murphy get in because he was a good guy and very moral? It's not easy to vote for the Hall of Fame.

That being said, it is not impossible to conduct a rational vote and cast a reasonable ballot. It's hard, but not impossible. Simply giving up isn't the right answer. Even if there is no set criteria for how to consider the steroid issue this doesn't mean a writer can't base his decision on his own logic and then defend his position if necessary. Hall of Fame voters use different criteria from each other every single year. The steroid issue just makes this different criteria being considered more obvious.

There are the writers who say they will not vote for anyone who cheated. There are writers who say they will vote for players who established Hall of Fame credentials before they became cheaters.

If I'm a Hall of Fame voter, which (spoiler alert) I'm not, I would probably lean towards voting for players who established Hall of Fame credentials before the documented time they were using steroids. Yes, this is arbitrary and probably very difficult to determine when a player started using steroids, but any decision about who to vote for or not vote for is going to be arbitrary. There are no guidelines. If I didn't try to do a good job of separating out a player's statistics from when he used/did not use steroids, then I would probably have to find another standard for voting. Either way, a voter can choose his own standard and that makes for interesting voting, but voters tend to have their own standard of voting anyway.

There are writers who say they will ignore steroids use, even in obvious cases, and vote as if the stuff didn’t exist because it’s impossible to know for sure who used and who didn’t use.

I say do or don't vote for players we know used steroids and don't use circumstantial evidence to prevent other Hall of Fame worthy players from receiving your vote. I could make a list of players I believe used steroids, but my beliefs weren't proven, so I won't use my own opinion as a way to keep these players out of the Hall of Fame. Jeff Bagwell is a great example. He needs to be in the Hall of Fame. Mike Piazza is another example. I think there is a chance Piazza used steroids, but I can't base my opinion on bacne or any other non-proven reason. If a voter thinks Piazza's statistics were good enough, he should get a Hall of Fame vote. 

It’s a perfectly good and fair question to ask, but it shouldn’t be answered by voting for known or suspected cheaters. The most logical answer is don’t vote. I have not made a study of the matter, but I noticed the other day a column on ESPN.com by T.J. Quinn, who declared an end to his voting. Good for him.

I am in no way upset Murray isn't voting anymore, but not voting because it has gotten a little too hard is a cop-out. I don't want voters who can't accept the Hall of Fame voting is difficult and want it to be easy. These people should not vote. Seeing the muddied waters, the complex issues that need to be considered, and then deciding it is all too hard seems like a cop-out to me. It's the equivalent of taking your ball and going home because the game is too hard for you.

Now, you might ask and reasonably so, if I plan to stop voting, why did I vote this year? I voted in the hope that my vote would contribute to Morris’ election.

It must have been Jack Morris' mustache that has some sportswriters in hysterics to vote him into the Hall of Fame. That's all I can guess. Morris was a very good pitcher, but not one of the greatest pitchers of all-time.

I didn’t vote for anyone else because anyone I might have considered was a known or suspected cheater, and I didn’t want to aid and abet a cheater.

What if Jack Morris was a cheater? How does Murray know he wasn't? The answer is Murray knows Morris didn't cheat the same way he knows Jeff Bagwell did cheat...because he is just guessing and making shit up. There is nothing but circumstantial evidence that says Jeff Bagwell cheated, but Murray "suspects" Bagwell of being a cheater and that's good enough for him. I "suspect" Murray Chass kidnaps young women and tortures them (by reading his columns to them) in his basement, so I may as well convey my suspicions to the authorities, right?

I think I am safe in concluding that Morris did not cheat.

I think if you are basing a Hall of Fame vote on what you "think" instead of facts then I am glad you aren't voting after Morris gets inducted or is no longer eligible on the ballot.

I know the stats zealots don’t think Morris is a Hall of Famer because his rankings in their new-fangled ratings fall below their standards. But they don‘t have a formula for intestinal fortitude or determination.

No, there is no formula for intestinal fortitude or determination which is why these factors are impossible to measure and should not be considered when deciding whether to vote or not vote for Morris in the Hall of Fame voting. The very fact we can't measure determination is why this shouldn't be used in any way to determine which players get a Hall of Fame vote and which don't.

Morris willed the Minnesota Twins to win Game 7 of the 1991 World Series, refusing to leave as long as the game was scoreless.

He "willed" the Twins to victory in that Lonnie Smith was stupid enough to fall for a fielding trick that caused him not to score the run which would have potentially won the game for the Braves in nine innings. 

The stats zealots are tired of hearing about that game, but it is symbolic of the fatal flaw in their way of viewing players. Numbers simply don’t tell the whole story.

Numbers don't tell the whole story, this is true. This one game is symbolic of the fatal flaw in Murray's way of viewing players. He uses a one game sample size and ignores any information to the contrary of that one sample size to vote Jack Morris into the Hall of Fame. Morris's career ERA in the playoffs was 3.80. In fact, this number is very misleading because three times in his career Morris was outstanding in a postseason series, three times Morris was absolutely terrible, and once he put up an ERA of 4.05. The fact Morris wasn't an excellent postseason pitcher overall doesn't faze Murray. He sticks to that one game where Morris was great as the only criteria needed to say Morris was a Hall of Famer full of determination and intestinal fortitude. He conveniently leaves out Morris's 0-2 record, 8.44 ERA, and 1.781 WHIP in the World Series the very next year against a very similar Braves team. Of course, Murray also leaves out Morris's career statistics which are impressive in showing how reliable and durable Morris was. Reliable and durable are great qualities in a pitcher. They aren't the top two qualities looked for in a Hall of Fame pitcher though.

Morris pitched all 10 innings. John Smoltz, the Atlanta starter, left in the eighth.

John Smoltz is a pussy who doesn't have the determination or intestinal fortitude that Jack Morris has.

Morris, Kelly added, “did that quite often through the ‘80s and ‘90s. He shut down the other team. If he had the split-finger thing going you felt sorry for the other team. Through the ‘80s and ‘90s if you had a pitcher you had to pick out whom you didn’t want to face Morris had to be in the conversation.

This is a great example of how rememberances and recollections should not be used as facts when determining a player's Hall of Fame candidacy. He posted an ERA under 4.00 one time in the 90's and his 21 wins in 1992 with a 4.04 ERA is a great example of how a pitcher can win games without being dominant, as long as he gets enough run support.

Lest anyone think Kelly was praising Morris because he managed him, I note that they were together only one year in Morris’ 18-year career.

Morris also helped Tom Kelly get a World Series ring, so I would imagine the one year they spent together is remembered fondly, which most likely affects Tom Kelly's opinion of Morris.

“I sure hope it goes his way,” Kelly said. “It seems absurd that he’s not in. How many rings does he have? Three? I wish those young guys would look at that.”

Scott Brosius has three World Series rings. Should he be in the Hall of Fame?

In case those “young guys” don’t know what Kelly is talking about, he was referring to the three World Series championship rings Morris won with three different teams.

Please do give a history lesson to "young guys" who use statistics and ideas that are too complicated for Murray to understand so he rejects them completely. Who is really the ignorant dumbass behind the times in this situation?

In 2010, Morris broke 50 percent with 52.3, then rose slightly to 53.5. Last year, in his 13^th year on the ballot, he made a major breakthrough, receiving 66.7 percent and getting to an historically significant plateau.

During Morris’ first 13 years on the ballot, eight players gained more than 60 percent, some more than once, and all were subsequently elected.

I've accepted Jack Morris will be elected to the Hall of Fame next year. I think it happens in his last year on the ballot. I don't like it and it further dilutes the Hall of Fame, but that's the price we pay. I can't imagine a Hall of Fame without Jeff Bagwell or Mike Piazza that has Jack Morris in it, but Piazza and Bagwell are suspected cheaters so they should burn in Hell for what Murray Chass suspects (but can't prove) they did.

If Morris isn’t elected this time, he could face a problem next year because Greg Maddux and Tom Glavine will be on the ballot for the first time.

Sure these two guys had fantastic career numbers, but what kind of intestinal fortitude did they display? How determined was Tom Glavine and Greg Maddux? More importantly, why do they only have one World Series ring? I have a feeling Murray Chass would vote for Jack Morris over Tom Glavine or Greg Maddux.

My motion easily lost so here we are today talking about Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Sammy Sosa, Mike Piazza, Craig Biggio and Jeff Bagwell among others.

Why are Piazza, Biggio and Bagwell lumped in with three proven steroid users? This is the problem with people like Murray Chass. He equates "accused" with "proven" and it is wrong. Yes, I think every single one of these players used steroids, but I have no proof to back up my suspicion for three of them.

When Bagwell was eligible initially a couple of years ago, I voted for him, then was told he was a steroids guy. Trusting the information, I haven’t voted for him since.

I'm very glad Murray Chass isn't voting anymore. He went his entire writing career believing Bagwell was clean, so he gave Bagwell a vote for the Hall of Fame. Then Murray gets some "information" and completely changes his mind, ignoring what he believed to be true for Bagwell's entire playing career and stopped voting for Bagwell. New-age statistics loving, new-age statistics hating, it doesn't matter. We need less voters like Murray.

For some reason, the news media have not talked about the former catcher and steroids the way they have talked about Bonds, Clemens and Sosa.

Possibly because there is some sense of proof that Bonds, Clemens, and Sosa used steroids while the proof surrounding Piazza deals with his body size and bacne.

When I worked for The New York Times, I tried more than once to write about Piazza and steroids, but the baseball editor said I couldn’t because his name hadn’t been linked to steroids.

I can link his name to steroids, I countered, but I had to wait until I started this Web site

Boy, Murray certainly showed this baseball editor. It's no wonder The New York Times wanted Murray to take a buyout. If Murray can't understand the seriousness of libel and looking like he is exacting a vendetta against Piazza then it is probably time to move on. But good news! Murray started a Web site, not a blog mind you, and now he can libel whoever he wants and talk about Fay Vincent to his heart's content. The Internet is a wonderful place to further your point of view...just as long as Murray agrees with your point of view of course. Otherwise, if you are using the Internet to argue against Murray then you are a new-age geek who lives in your mom's basement.

to talk about Piazza’s acne-covered back, a generally accepted telltale sign of steroids use.

Bacne can be seen most commonly in people ages 10 to 40 years of age. Bacne can be caused by clogged pores, excessive perspiration after a physical activity, fitting or tight clothes, and excessive eating oily foods. Of course Murray knows Mike Piazza so well he knows there is no possibility an athlete who wears a uniform or wears tight-fitting workout gear could ever get bacne for these reasons. He also knows what kind of meals Mike Piazza ate well enough to know how much oil was in these meals. There are other causes of bacne, outside of steroid use.

Piazza’s passionate fans ridiculed me for that assertion (and surely will again) and ignored the fact that Piazza’s back cleared up as soon as baseball began testing for steroids.

My question is how often and how long did Murray Chass stare at Mike Piazza? Did he leer for short periods of time or take short glances over long periods of time?

A book for which Simon & Schuster paid Piazza an advance of $800,000 or $750,000 had been scheduled for publication next month, but there’s talk about a delay because of a dispute between the publisher and Piazza over the subject of steroids and their presence in the book.

More empirical evidence Piazza used steroids! His publisher is arguing with him over the subject of steroids in his book, which obviously means Piazza used steroids.

The Hall of Fame wouldn’t look too good if Piazza were elected next week, and then his book came out with his admission that he used steroids.

But the Hall of Fame would look great if it had an above-average pitcher who was elected to the Hall of Fame based on one standout performance in the World Series. Now that Morris hasn't been elected to the Hall of Fame this year I hope he doesn't get elected next year because I don't believe he deserves it. Plus, with it being Murray's last year of voting and all I just want to see him sad.