6 comments Flaming Hot Takes on Deflated Balls and the New England Patriots

I have a history of hating the Patriots. They have been too good at football over the last decade and a half and they beat my favorite team in the Super Bowl, which did not please me. I almost got in a fight with three Patriots fans in Charleston, South Carolina in the early 2000's because I insisted Tom Brady wasn't as good as he's given credit for while arguing with them and waiting in line for a hot dog from a street vendor at 2:30am. I was very inebriated AND wrong, which are two states of being that go hand-in-hand well. I'm still not a huge fan of them, partly because of their famous fans (Hey, Bill Simmons!), but I get over it and I'm more impressed by their long-term excellence at this point. So it turns out they deflated footballs against the Colts (at least during the first half) in the AFC Championship Game against the Colts. They then used regular footballs in the second half and buried the Colts. It seems like they played better without the deflated footballs. Either way, this is not legal and they are being killed by the general public. By "the general public" I mean "sportswriters with hot takes." I'm not going to defend cheating and I do believe the Patriots will be and should be punished in some way, but it's never enough with the media for the Patriots to get punished, something VERY SEVERE must be done. Sportswriters say this is the ABSOLUTE TURNING POINT AND HERE'S SOMETHING TO GET YOUR ATTENTION THAT'S BEING WRITTEN BY ME RIGHT NOW SO PAY ATTENTION. That's how hot takes happen.

Again, I'm not going to defend cheating, and once they figure out who deflated the balls then the punishment needs to be handed down, but these draconian hot takes just make me laugh. I can still agree the Patriots were in the wrong while also laughing at those who react strongly to the Patriots being in the wrong. They'll be punished, it's just a matter of when and how badly. It's fun to discuss sportswriters freaking out over the integrity of the game being ruined. I love a good disaster.

I'll start with Gregg Doyel, who spent most of the week up to the AFC Championship Game getting in contrived and immature fights with the New England media as a way of getting the word out there that he now works for the "Indy Star" and furthering his burgeoning brand/app/whatever. There's no such thing as bad press and Doyel got some press for getting in pissing contests with the New England media. So of course he jumps on the story of the Patriots deflating footballs.

Here's the thing about DeflateGate, this silly idea that the New England Patriots used under-inflated footballs in the AFC Championship Game against the Colts:

It's not silly.

It's the Patriots.

Gregg seems to use this reasoning a lot. It's not whether Gil Hodges should be in the baseball Hall of Fame or not, it's that he is Gil Hodges and that's why he should be in the Hall of Fame. The state of existing is the only reasoning Gregg needs.

Lots of people will forever believe the Patriots cheated the Colts on Sunday. Why? Because it's the Patriots.

Insightful. It needed to be mentioned twice apparently that the Patriots are the Patriots. I feel prepared to move on now.

Either you are, or you are not, willing to cheat.

And Belichick is. The NFL found him guilty of – even responsible for – the Spygate scandal during the 2007 season.

And yet, Belichick managed to escape the death penalty. How could that be?

With very few exceptions, people can be divided into various either/or categories: Employed or unemployed. Smoker or nonsmoker.

Cheater or not a cheater.

Yes, with very few exceptions there are no shades of gray. It's one extreme or another. This is EXACTLY how life works. No areas for maneuvering between two extremes. Welcome to the Gregg Doyel reality, now have a seat on the couch or chair, but don't even think about putting your feet on the loveseat because it doesn't exist in his reality. There's a couch or a chair. Choose one.

Indiana knows about this. The Hoosiers hired Kelvin Sampson in 2007, shortly after he had been busted for NCAA recruiting violations involving impermissible phone calls at Oklahoma. The idea in Bloomington, surely, was this: No way he'd do it again.

Since coming to work for the "Indy Star" Gregg has also been doing a lot of this "I'm an Indian/Indianaite/Indianan like you and here is an example specific to Indiana" stuff.

He did it again.

Oops.

Cheaters cheat. It's what they do.

Now then, is that a definitive statement that Bill Belichick or the Patriots cheated the Colts on Sunday? Nope. It is not.

Yes, it is a definitive statement. Cheater or not a cheater. Belichick has been proven to be a cheater so that's what he is. Remember, "divided into either/or categories" that's how it all works?

But it's a definitive statement that his past history of cheating makes this allegation – which is ludicrous and absurd and really, really, hard to believe – not so ludicrous. Not so absurd.

Specifically if you are still a little butt hurt that you talked trash all the way up to the AFC Championship Game about how the Colts would win and then they got their ass kicked. It makes it easier to believe the allegations are not absurd in this instance.

Butt hurt or not butt hurt. That is the question. Choose one. 

This sort of thing has happened before. Deflating a football is a thing, thanks to Lane Kiffin's 2012 USC Trojans, who were fined and reprimanded by the Pac-12 for deflating footballs against Oregon. Kiffin denied it. A team equipment manager was fired. Was the equipment manager acting on his own? Well sure, that's possible.

Just like it's possible the Patriots are utterly and completely innocent of the allegation against them now, that they deflated one or more footballs on the sideline after NFL officials had examined them before kickoff.

Maybe Lane Kiffin did it. Bill Belichick is close to Nick Saban and Lane Kiffin is Nick Saban's offensive coordinator and Lane Kiffin has deflated balls before. Where was Lane Kiffin on Sunday evening?

First, any idea how easy it is to deflate a football?

No Gregg, I have no idea how to deflate a football. It sounds like a complicated procedure.

It requires one little needle. That's it. Hold the ball, jab the needle, listen for the hiss. Take the needle out.

Take the needle out or don't take the needle out. One or the other.

Second, any idea how awkward it feels to write this story from here, in Indianapolis, as if deflated balls might be the reason this city's team lost on Sunday? The footballs aren't the reason. That game wasn't about the Deflatriots. It was about the Patriots. They're better than the Colts, so much better than lots of us – the line starts right here – had given them credit for. The Patriots were tougher, more skilled, more poised and more innovative. In hindsight the Colts had no chance.

Nice way to bring the story of the Patriots deflating footballs back to you, while also linking your old hot takes. Really the deflating of footballs was about Gregg Doyel more than anything.

Third: What if?

Great point. It gives me a lot to think about.

What if the NFL finds that the Patriots were in fact using a football that was deflated below regulation levels? Maybe the NFL won't be able to determine when or how it happened.

What then?

Obviously Belichick will have to be stripped of his hoodie and forced to work slave labor in the mines of whatever country has the most dangerous mines to work in.

Maybe then Belichick will get the black lung after a day or two of working in the mines and he'll die. Because that's what Belichick deserves, to die.

I'm kidding of course. Doyel's suggestion isn't this extreme, but is equally as stupid.

I'll tell you what should happen: The Patriots should be removed from the Super Bowl. Which means the Colts should be going to Glendale.

An Indianapolis writer thinks the Colts deserve to go to the Super Bowl. Homer or not a homer? Choose one and there is no gray area.

Someone on the Patriots deflated those footballs, but I'm not sure that was the difference in the game nor does a satisfactory punishment seem to be to allow an unworthy team to be in the Super Bowl.

Will this happen? Of course not, which is why I'm mentioning it way down the story – it has to be said somewhere – but not starting this column with that idea. Because it's a preposterous idea, not worthy of the headline. The NFL would never, ever remove the Patriots from the Super Bowl, even if it does find they were using illegal footballs.

Nice troll job, Gregg. Here's how this troll job worked.

-Gregg says what SHOULD happen.

-Gregg says this won't happen.

-Gregg says his own idea of what should happen is so preposterous it doesn't deserve being mentioned in the headline.

-But again, the preposterous idea of what should happen wasn't so crazy or unworthy that Gregg doesn't think it shouldn't happen.

It's a nice way of coming up with a crazy punishment and then not standing by it.

Cheating can't be tolerated. Simple as that. A team can't use an under-inflated football, get caught, and then be allowed to play its next game – a game it reached by winning the one with the deflated football – as if nothing happened.

Cheating can't be tolerated. I can agree with that. But I thought sending the Colts to the Super Bowl was an unworthy idea that didn't merit a mention. Now all of a sudden it's the idea Gregg is building the end of this column around.

Contradictory or not contradictory. Choose one and there is no gray area.

Not a fine, not a docking of draft picks, not even a lifetime suspension of Belichick, though I would support all three, if the Patriots are found guilty of cheating. Sorry -- left out a word. If the Patriots are found guilty of cheating … again.

So the preposterous idea that won't happen and doesn't seem worthy of a headline is the best punishment for the Patriots in Gregg Doyel's opinion. I wonder if he understands how stupid this sounds.

Meantime, allow the system to run its course. The Patriots are innocent until proven guilty. They deserve that.

Even if lots of us have made up our minds already.

Because the Patriots deserve that, too.

(Bengoodfella burns himself closing the article because the hot take is still simmering)

Now Bob Kravitz chimes in with his own hot take about what should happen to the Patriots.

If the NFL deems that the Patriots doctored the footballs to the team's advantage in Sunday's game, one of two things must happen:

Indianapolis writers are all about there being two options. Obviously the two options here are:

1. Death penalty

2. Life imprisonment without parole

If Patriots owner Robert Kraft has an ounce of integrity, he will fire Bill Belichick immediately for toying with the integrity of the game for the second time in his otherwise magnificent career — the first issue being the SpyGate fiasco that earned Belichick and the team fines and a forfeited first-round draft choice.

Okay, that could happen. It sounds sort of dramatic though.

If Roger Goodell has an ounce of integrity,

We could stop here. The answer to this is known already. If it helps the NFL, Goodell does it. If it hurts the NFL, Goodell Jedi-waves it away.

and he's not spending all his time going to pre-game soirees at Kraft's mansion, he will not only fine Belichick and take away draft choices, but suspend the head coach for the upcoming Super Bowl.

Does this sound excessive?

The whole "ounce of integrity" thing sounds a bit dramatic.

It is very hard for me to believe — no, it's impossible for me to believe — that this was one large, cosmic accident. A deflated football, and we're talking about two pounds worth of deflation,

Yes, but not a real two pounds of deflation. A typical football weighs less than a pound. Otherwise quarterbacks would be slinging just short of the equivalent of two newborn babies around the field in the form of a football. So two pounds of air isn't two pounds like most people think of pounds. It's noticeable, but not to the extent Bob Kravitz paints it as being. The Colts-Patriots officials touched the football after every play and managed to not notice the ball was semi-deflated.

It's very hard for me to believe that some rogue ball boy, acting on his or her own, unilaterally decided to use a pressure gauge to independently take some of the air out of the ball.

There's only one way this could happen, and that's with Belichick's full knowledge and approval.

Nope, it could also happen with the approval of Josh McDaniels without Belichick knowing. Think Jon Gruden knew that Brad Johnson took air out of the football during the 2003 Super Bowl? Maybe, maybe not.

Go ahead and chalk it all up as sour grapes on the part of the Colts, who would have lost badly had they used a beach ball, a hockey puck or a badminton shuttlecock. But, the Colts noticed something odd about the football when D'Qwell Jackson intercepted Tom Brady. Jackson himself told me he didn't notice anything strange, but, then, the Colts want to distance themselves from this thing as much as they can.

So D'Qwell Jackson did or didn't notice something strange? Kravitz says Jackson noticed something strange, but Jackson claims he didn't notice something strange. Of course, Kravitz assumes Jackson is lying in order to show his ounce of integrity in protecting the very same cheaters that Kravitz claims lack integrity for covering up the use of deflated footballs. Jackson is either lying or he isn't.

General Manager Ryan Grigson walked over to the Colts public relations spot and took a phone call, and seemed quite perturbed. This was very unusual for a general manager who spends his time quietly watching the game from the press box.

Was this investigation inspired by the Colts? I have no doubt that it was.

So if Jackson is lying about noticing something strange, what does that say about his integrity? Or does he have integrity by staying out of his whole thing? What if Tom Brady is lying about noticing whether the football was deflated or not? Is he staying out of it or lacking an ounce of integrity?

This was cheating — pure and simple.

And either Kraft or Goodell have to do something very dramatic to make it clear that this kind of nonsense will not be tolerated.

If it was anybody but Belichick, if it was a coach who has no history of attempting to circumvent the rules, it would be worth a fine and maybe a draft choice.

See the penalty of deflating footballs isn't such a big deal, but because it's Bill Belichick it becomes a much bigger deal. Because as sportswriters love to point out, sports doesn't deal with innocent before guilty, but apparently sports does have an off-the-books "three strikes" or "repeat offender" rule that should be used for Belichick's latest transgression.

And here, too, is the shame of it: Belichick doesn't need to cheat. His team is that much better than anyone else, save the Seattle Seahawks. We'll find out more about that next Sunday.

Not if Gregg Doyel has his way.

Let's be honest about this: If the balls were properly inflated this past Sunday, the Patriots would have won…um…45-7. The footballs had little or nothing to do with the outcome. The Pats simply ran over the Colts. They out-coached them and out-played them. Badly.

Which is why it would be stupid to remove the Patriots from the Super Bowl.

Winning without honor, without integrity, is not winning. (Unless you're a myopic Patriots fan).

I can agree that winning without integrity isn't winning. To deflate a football against the rules is to lack integrity. I can't figure out how much integrity it really shows is lacking. The Patriots didn't win because they deflated the football. That much is agreed upon. Is deflating the football lack as much integrity as a baseball groundskeeper who landscapes the foul lines to favor the home team's hitters (such as helping the ball stay in play on bunts, etc)? Is deflating the football lack as much integrity as the Minnesota Twins starting fans behind home plate when the home team is at-bat? If Clayton Kershaw was found to have scuffed a baseball during a playoff game and the Dodgers went on to win the series, should Kershaw not be allowed to play in the next series when the Dodgers advance? Should the Dodgers even advance to the next series because they had a player cheat in the previous playoff series? I don't know the answers to these questions, so that's why it is hard for me to jump on the "LOOK AT THE LACK OF INTEGRITY!" train because I have no idea how deflating a football equates to other equal or non-equal minor changes that are legal or not legal in other sports. Does it lack integrity that Boise State's uniforms blend in with their playing surface, thereby giving the team a slight advantage at home?

It was instructive to spend early-morning Wednesday on a couple of Boston radio shows. They wanted to know if Aaron Rodgers should be penalized for admittedly over-inflating footballs. (Not if they're within the prescribed PSI). One wanted to know if Pete Carroll should be fired because so many Seahawks have been popped for using performance-enhancing drugs. One moron even rolled out the Nixonian “well everybody cheats'' argument, which inspired blind laughter on my part. All deflections from the issue at hand.

They are deflections, but also legitimate questions that need to be asked. If Seahawks players were busted for PED's, doesn't that lack integrity too? Why shouldn't Pete Carroll pay for this transgression? If a head coach knows the football his team is using was partially deflated, then wouldn't that same coach know his players are using PED's? Maybe.

Kraft needs to do the right thing. Goodell needs to do the right thing. Belichick should not be coaching in the Super Bowl, or worse.

Or worse. What's worse than not coaching in the Super Bowl? Should the Patriots be forced to trade Tom Brady? Perhaps the Patriots should be stripped of all draft picks until Bill Belichick is publicly drawn and quartered. Bob Kravitz knows deflating the footballs had no impact on the Colts-Patriots game and there is really no precedent in the NFL for deflating footballs, but one thing is for sure. The response must be severe, swift, and be "the right thing" even though few people even know what the fuck that is.

Chris Chase chimes in with his own hot take about how the Patriots should be disqualified from playing in the Super Bowl.

Cheat on a test in school? You fail, no questions asked.

Really? No questions asked? No questions like, "How did you cheat?," "Was anyone else cheating?," nothing like that?

Cheat on your taxes, the IRS will find you. It won’t be pretty.

They may not find you. I've seen plenty of people who cheat in minor ways on their taxes who have never been caught or audited.

The New England Patriots cheated in the AFC championship. As such, the team should be disqualified from the Super Bowl.

(The hot take sizzles on the ground)

Deflating 11 of 12 balls in Sunday’s game, as has been reported by ESPN, is a major violation and something that had a great affect on the game.

Apparently it has a 30+ point effect, even though the Patriots only used the deflated footballs during the first half.

Given the number of deflated balls, it’s almost impossible this was accident, meaning that someone in the New England organization willfully tampered with the rules to give his team an advantage.

Not exactly. Given that nearly all of the footballs were inflated to the wrong pressure it could show this was an accident. If the gauge measuring the pressure in the ball was in error or the person pumping up the balls had the wrong pressure (by accident) then it was a consistent error. If the footballs were all at different pressures with only half of the footballs at the wrong pressure then I could see how the rules have been tampered with. 11 of the 12 footballs being at the wrong level could speak to a consistent error in measuring the pressure. Of course I don't believe this happened, but a consistent error like this could show malfeasance or possibly just a basic error that caused the balls to be improperly inflated.

Of course, it’s not realistic to disqualify New England from the Super Bowl.

Why do the sportswriters who first suggest banning New England from the Super Bowl follow it up with "That's not realistic"? Stop suggesting this solution if the solution isn't realistic.

But, again, they should.

But, again, it's not realistic. But, again, they should. You know, if it weren't unrealistic. But, again, they still should. Though it is unrealistic. It's probably a good penalty. Even though it is unrealistic. Still, the NFL should ban the Patriots from the Super Bowl. It's just not realistic to do this. But, again, it should happen. If only it were realistic. Which it isn't. Though it should be.

The defenders of New England have been even more laughable than they were during the videotape controversy of 2007. “It doesn’t even help that much!” Sure it doesn’t. That’s why they were doing it. Of course it helps. Deflating gave Brady an easier grip on the ball (at least in the first half; there’s question about whether the balls were re-inflated at half time when it was 17-7).

I'm not a defender of New England. I simply know it was an advantage that didn't seem to show up too much on the scoreboard in the first half as compared to the Patriots performance in the second half without the deflated footballs. New England re-inflated the balls at halftime and began to destroy the Colts from that point on...with re-inflated footballs. I have no idea how much a deflated football affected this game and I don't know if anyone else has this answer either.

If it’s found out that Bill Belichick knew anything about this, even after the fact, Draconian sanctions are the only way to go...If Sean Payton gets suspended for an entire year because of Bountygate, Belichick deserves at least the same thing. He affected the sanctity of the game and fairness of one of the three biggest battles of the year.

I would disagree with this. I think intentionally injuring opposing players is worse than deflating footballs. I know deflating footballs involves the whole "integrity of the game" thing, but intentionally injuring opposing players is causing physical harm outside of the game being played. I think that's worse.

Draft picks should be taken away, not for one year, but for two or three, because the Pats are always picking toward the end of the first round anyway. Or take away some salary cap space, like the league unjustly did to the Washington Redskins and Dallas Cowboys.

Yes, the NFL should choose to take away salary cap space in the same injust way they did it to the Washington Redskins and Dallas Cowboys.

But I’ll happily blame the Patriots for being skeezy once again. I’ll blame Belichick because, as Goodell said about Payton during Bountygate, the head coach is supposed to know what’s going on with his team.

Oh, so you are going to use Roger Goodell's words as it pertains to knowing exactly what a supervisor's knowledge concerning his underlings actions should be? Okay then.

I’ll blame Tom Brady who clearly knew the balls were deflated but is getting off scot-free in this controversy because he’s the Golden Boy and is handsome and is married to a supermodel. (It’s amazing how no one criticizes Brady. He’s just as guilty as the others.) But there’s blame for others too.

How about the Patriots' center who handled the football on every play? How about the officials who handle the football after every play? The officials are there to enforce the rules and since deflating footballs by two or three pounds is just SO FUCKING NOTICEABLE one would wonder why the officials didn't notice.

But in the here and now, if the report is true, the New England Patriots should be hit hard. But they won’t and the Pats legacy will grow even more.

This will not deflate the Pats legacy.

With a Super Bowl win in two Sundays, people will be inclined to say Bill Belichick is the greatest coach of all time. But at what?

The greatest coach at football. I can't wait for Belichick to be up for Pro Football Hall of Fame induction. The NFL gets it's very own asterisked PED user when Belichick comes up for enshrinement.

Mark Kiszla is also prepared to blame Tom Brady and wonders why nothing ever sticks to him. Kiszla says Brady is like Barry Bonds. Yep, those words were written.

As I was writing this post, I found these words from Boomer Esiason. It doesn't excuse what the Patriots did or didn't do, but it shows there is more than the "It's just like the Patriots to stretch the rules" narrative that is being pushed. It seems other quarterbacks had an issue with the integrity of the game, including Saint Peyton Manning, who wanted to be allowed to scuff up the football. I'm sure he never scuffed it up without permission though.

Tom Brady is too good to be true. At age 37, the sexy quarterback of the New England Patriots looks cool, whether wearing a championship ring on his finger or Uggs on his feet. He married a supermodel straight from the pages of the Victoria's Secret catalogue. And his hair is perfect.

Not really. In his long hair phase, it was pretty disgusting. 

Too good to be true. Isn't that what we once believed about Tiger Woods and Lance Armstrong?

Deflating footballs is now equivalent to using PED's, slandering others when they choose to call you out on using PED's, and cheating on your wife. Got it. At least Kiszla comes out swinging and throwing his hot takes around. I'd be disappointed otherwise. 

In a league ruled by quarterbacks, made filthy rich by quarterbacks and personified by quarterbacks, Brady is the undisputed king. Oh, Peyton Manning might sing about chicken parm in a television commercial. It's Brady, however, who owns three Super Bowl rings. He's the No. 1 quarterback of his NFL-crazy generation.

Every generation is QB-crazy. It's the most publicized position in the NFL, which explains why fans are QB-crazy. 

Before any knucklehead calls for disqualification of New England from the Super Bowl tournament because the Pats played with squeezably soft footballs inflated significantly below the league requirements, let's make it clear the Colts, the Broncos or anybody else weren't going to win in Gillette Stadium on a rainy evening in January.

Because that's unrealistic. Though it should happen. But, again, it is unrealistic. Still, it should happen. 

But as defensive tackle Terrance Knighton, the social media conscience of the Denver locker room, declared on Twitter: "If the footballs were deflated by that amount, it's definitely cheating. Harder to fumble, easier to catch, and helps you throw further."

Who would benefit the most from the deflated footballs?

Brady.

As well as Blount and the Patriots' receivers. They would all benefit the most. Though I would also add that if the football is easier to catch then the opposing team's secondary should find it easier to intercept a pass, right? Maybe D'Qwell Jackson made the interception because the ball was deflated so much. 

Long on the record with his affinity for throwing with an underinflated football, Brady tossed three touchdown passes against Indy in wet conditions where having a firm grip on a slippery pigskin definitely could have helped him.

Peyton Manning is on record as liking a scuffed ball. If the Broncos ended up using a scuffed ball, does that mean Manning did it? 

But let me humbly ask: If suspected cheaters in baseball are treated with such disdain in Hall of Fame balloting and Armstrong fell so hard from grace for the same transgressions committed by so many cyclists in a tainted sport, then why is there not more outrage about the Patriots?

Oh dear God. Because using a deflated football is the same thing as using performance enhancing drugs? The are equivalent misdeeds? That's really what Mark Kiszla is claiming? This seems like a pretty tenuous comparison to me. 

Because cheaters never win. Or so are we were taught in elementary school.

It's not the truth that hurts. It's the shrapnel from the shattered myth that makes us bleed.

I have known for years that cheaters do win. No shattered myth here. 

Not all forms of cheating are created equal. But, in his heart, maybe, just maybe, Brady isn't all that different from Barry Bonds.
 
Yes, maybe Tom Brady is exactly like Barry Bonds. Really there is no difference in these two athletes. It's like Kiszla has a hot takes handbook with key words in it and he found the name "Barry Bonds" in the book, so he felt like adding Bonds' name to this column for maximum hot sports take result.

Maybe Tom Brady is more like Bernie Madoff. Brady asks for his fans to buy into him as a clean-cut guy who plays the game "the right way" but he's really taking the fans investment in him and then selling that investment to Satan himself, while continuing to ask for more investment in him as a football player and person, all while putting on a public face of being an angel. This public face of an angel tricks his investors into thinking Brady is doing something with their investment of love and fandom that he really isn't doing. At the end of the day, the fans have nothing to show for their investment in Brady, while he rides off into the sunset with Super Bowl trophies, MVP trophies, and his name as one of the greatest quarterbacks ever. Tom Brady is Bernie Madoff. 

Tom Brady you are a PED user who ran Ponzi Scheme so evil, which affected the outcome of the AFC Championship Game in such an obvious way, that even the officials who touched the football after every offensive play didn't know you were obviously taking the air out of the football. Go train for the upcoming baseball season with Barry Bonds and Alex Rodriguez and may the fates deal with you as they see fit.

3 comments Gregg Doyel Thinks Gil Hodges Should Be in the Hall of Fame Because of Fond Memories, But Mostly Because He's Gil Hodges

There is nothing like using the reasoning of "because" to explain why something should or should not happen. Gregg Doyel, one of those rare sportswriters who goes from online media to print media, thinks that Gil Hodges should be in the Hall of Fame because Hodges is from Indiana, he was one of Gregg's favorite heroes growing up and because he's GIL FREAKING HODGES! It's him, Gil Hodges, that should be enough to get Hodges into the Hall of Fame, right? Much to Gregg's dismay, apparently not. That should change though, because Hodges is from Indiana. That's right, he's a Hoosier AND he was popular in Gregg Doyel's world. I never knew "As a child, did you idolize him?" was Hall of Fame criteria that should be used by voters. Maybe the Veterans Committee doesn't know that Gil Hodges is GIL HODGES!

Gil Hodges won't make it into the Baseball Hall of Fame. Not in 2014. Not ever. That's the takeaway from the Golden Era Committee voting announced Monday, something bigger and more disappointing than the reality that Hodges won't make the Hall of Fame this year.

Yep, Hodges probably isn't making it into the Hall of Fame. He will be relegated to the Hall of Very Good for the rest of eternity with other MLB players who are good enough to be stars in their own time but also weren't one of the best players in MLB history.

The awful truth is this: He won't make it any year.

You just wrote that and then wrote it again. 

I'm banging the drum for Gil Hodges for two reasons, the first being that he's an Indiana native, a Hoosier.

Which, for the record, is an absolutely terrible reason to bang the drum for Gil Hodges. Hall of Fame votes are supposed to be based upon reasoning and non-emotional factors. My favorite player growing up was Dale Murphy, but simply because I loved him as a player doesn't mean he should be in the Hall of Fame. Emotion should be divorced from the process. That's the whole idea behind making sure a player is retired for five years before he is even up for Hall of Fame consideration. So the fact Hodges is from Indiana, and voting for him because of this, goes against what the Hall of Fame wants to stand for.

Born in Princeton and raised in Petersburg in the southwest corner of the state, then educated at St. Joseph's College in Rensselaer in the northwest. He's one of ours, and he deserves to be in the Hall of Fame,

Because he's from Indiana, Gil Hodges deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. Andy and Alan Benes are from Evansville, Indiana. Why aren't they in the Hall of Fame also? They are one of "us" and therefore deserve induction. By the way, when hearing Doyel say Hodges is one of "us" remember Doyel was born in Hawaii and grew up in the South and attended the University of Florida. He works for a newspaper in Indianapolis, which is his only tie to Indiana and being one of "us." Food for thought.

Baseball writers around the country have taken up for Gil Hodges, and so am I.

If by "around the country" Gregg Doyel means "in New York where Hodges played," then yes, Tom Verducci and Mike Vaccaro represent all writers from around the country.

So should we. He's one of ours. The baseball Hall of Fame just rejected us. You mad? I am.

But hey, at least Doyel isn't taking it personally. The Hall of Fame is all about emotions and taking up for players who are from your area, even though Doyel isn't really from Indiana (see how he's trying to get in good with the people of the fine Hoosier state?), the Hall of Fame is not about statistics and numbers that determine a player's candidacy for the Hall of Fame. Give Gregg Doyel emotion, not facts, even though the Hall of Fame specifically takes measures to make sure emotion is taken out of the voting by instituting a five year wait period before a player can be inducted.

Three votes or fewer for Gil Hodges, who retired as the 3rd leading RH home run hitter of all time. Then managed the '69 Mets. Shameful.
— Keith Olbermann (@KeithOlbermann) December 8, 2014

Another sportswriter from New York thinks Gil Hodges should be in the Hall of Fame. Writers from Atlanta think Dale Murphy should be in the Hall of Fame. It's a bias, not news or proof Murphy should be in the Hall.

The second reason I'm taking up for Hodges is that he's special for more reasons than geography. If you were a baseball-loving kid in Mississippi, a sports fan before ESPN was all that, you played the game and you read about it. You had a small, wooden souvenir bat and a small orange Nerf basketball, and you tossed the ball into the air and hit it against a wall and tracked how far it ricocheted the other way. Hit it past the chair, that's a double. Hit it off the book shelf, it's a home run. Hit it off the second shelf? Upper decker. That was me in the late 1970s.

What an ironclad case for Gil Hodges that Gregg Doyel is making. First off, Hodges is from Indiana. If that's not enough, there is nostalgia. If nostalgia and geography can't get in Hodges in the Hall of Fame then what else would it take?

Me and Gil Hodges.

Down by the schoolyard?

Yeah man. He was my guy, or one of them. George Foster was another. Why those two? Don't ask me now. Who knows what makes a 9-year-old fall in love with a current Red and a former Brooklyn Dodger?

Yeah, who knows what makes a 9-year-old fall in love with Gil Ho---

But I did, falling for Hodges after reading Roger Kahn's The Boys of Summer. Of all the great Brooklyn Dodgers highlighted in that book – Campanella, Erskine, Robinson, Snider, more – why Hodges? Probably because he played first base. So did I. When you're 9, that's a bond.

That certainly seems to be the reason that Gregg Doyel fell in love with Gil Hodges. It seems like Gregg knows the reason he fell in love with Hodges so I'm not sure why he asks "Who knows?" how it happened.

"I don't know why I liked Gil Hodges as a child. Who knows why these things happen? It's a mystery to everyone. Here is exactly why this happened..."

But that's not why Hodges deserves to be in Cooperstown. Nor is his Indiana background the reason.

Well great, because those two reasons are probably two of the shittiest reasons to vote Gil Hodges into the Hall of Fame. They make "Game 7 of the World Series and he had a lot of complete games" as the reason Jack Morris should be in the Hall of Fame look like solid and very persuasive reasoning. At least Gregg has come to his senses. Get ready for the analysis on why Hodges deserves to be in the Hall of Fame based on his career statistics and impact on th---

The reason he deserves to be in Cooperstown is because he deserves to be in Cooperstown.

Oh my. What a tragedy. Gregg Doyel has done something amazing. He has found three really bad reasons, perhaps the worst three reasons that could be thought of, on why Gil Hodges should be in the Hall of Fame. They are:

1. Hodges is from Indiana.
2. He was Gregg Doyel's hero as a child.
3. Because he should be in the Hall of Fame.

So Gil Hodges should be in the Hall of Fame because he should be in the Hall of Fame. Brilliant writing and brilliant reasoning. Now I can see why Gregg Doyel tends to stick to non-analytical lack of thought pieces. Opinions are his thing, persuasive writing is not.

He was a special player in a special era, so special that when he retired in 1963 he was No. 2 in the National League in career home runs by a right-handed batter: 370. That's not an enormous number today, what with the steroid era completely devaluing so many of the statistics a kid in Mississippi once held dear.

Reason #4 Gil Hodges should be in the Hall of Fame. The Steroid Era happened. Sure, it had nothing to do with Hodges, but he didn't play in the Steroid Era so he should be rewarded for that. Hodges is now 75th all-time in home runs and 43rd among right-handed hitters. To blame the Steroid Era for this is misplaced. Of the right-handed hitters who passed Hodges only 18 of them played during the Steroid Era. This includes those guys who played during the Steroid Era but were never linked to steroids. The Steroid Era isn't what devalued Hodges' home run numbers. That happened when players from his own era and the era after that exceeded his accomplishments.

But in 1963, it was more than any right-handed batter in the National League -- save Willie May -- had ever hit.

Right, but it's not anymore. Compared to Hodges' own peer group he still doesn't stand out in terms of hitting home runs. His home run record was devalued because others surpassed it, not because of the Steroid Era.

Case closed, honestly, but there's more to Gil Hodges' candidacy.

What more could there be? Hodges likes burritos and Gregg Doyel likes burritos, so that's why Hodges should be in the Hall of Fame?

He received MVP consideration in nine seasons. Eight All-Star Games, back when an All-Star invite wasn't the watered-down, trophies-for-everyone honor it is now. Three Gold Gloves. All those home runs. And 1,274 RBI.

So Gregg Doyel wants Gil Hodges to be considered for the Hall of Fame, not based upon Hodges' own records as they stand now versus other Hall of Fame members, but based entirely against Hodges' peers from when he played 50 years ago. Doyel talks about "trophies for everyone" but he wants Hodges to get a trophy on statistics from 50 years ago at the very point Hodges retired. Doyel doesn't want Hodges' statistics compared to statistics from players who have played since Hodges retired. So Doyel hates trophies for everyone until he doesn't anymore.

And again, he was Gil Hodges.

And again, his existence as Gil Hodges isn't a reason to induct him into the Hall of Fame.

First baseman for the Brooklyn Dodgers, one of a handful of players from that era whose combination of name and fame and game reverberates a half-century later because he helped baseball rocket through the 1940s and '50s as America's pastime, holding off its eventual loss in line to football.

Hyperbole isn't going to help Hodges' case or make up for the fact the reasoning Doyel is using here to make a Hall of Fame case for Hodges is absolutely terrible. 

He wasn't singlehandedly responsible for baseball's popularity, obviously, but he was a key figure. Want to tell the story of baseball? You can't tell it correctly without some prominent mentions of Gil Hodges.

(Bengoodfella tells the story of baseball to someone without mentioning Gil Hodges)

Plus some other stuff. He interrupted his baseball career – and surrendered two years of it – for World War II, joining the Marines and fighting at Okinawa and receiving a Bronze Star Medal for courage under fire as an anti-aircraft gunner. What would his lifetime statistics be were it not for those two missing seasons he spent in an airplane near Japan, risking his life for our country?

 The statistics certainly would be higher than his current career statistics. Of course, so would other baseball players who played during Hodges' era and fought in World War II. The idea that Hodges isn't the only baseball player who served in the military during World War II isn't something Gregg Doyel wants to consider. He only wants to increase Hodges' career statistics to make up for the two years he missed while in the service, but not increase any other player's statistics correspondingly. He's dead-set on making a case for Hodges to be in the Hall of Fame, consistency be damned.

How do you quantify – how do you not quantify – that?

If you are able to do basic math, which apparently Gregg Doyel is not, you take Hodges average statistics during a season and multiply two. Fine, quantify this. Be sure to quantify this for other players who played during Hodges' era as well.

But hold on! Gregg is following up his use of four bad reasons to induct Hodges into the Hall of Fame with misleading information. Hodges served in the military during his baseball career, but he served when he was 20 and 21 years old, not during the peak of his career. Then at the age of 22, after he returned from the war, Hodges played a season in the minors. So how does his two years of service get quantified? It doesn't. There's no guarantee Hodges would have played in the majors during his two seasons in the military. He had two at-bats in the majors before he went away to join the service. Gregg Doyel appears to have a slight honesty issue. If not honesty, he's intentionally misleading the audience in order to further his agenda for Hodges to make the Hall of Fame. Hodges served in the military during the time in his career when he would have probably posted statistics much lower than his career averages. So Hodges time in the military does not get quantified because he didn't serve in the military when he was actively playing in the major leagues nor during the peak of his career.

Hodges also managed the 1969 Mets.

A shockingly irrelevant fact.

Read that again. Gil Hodges, once the National League record-holder for home runs by a right-hander, legend of Brooklyn, war hero, managed the Miracle Mets of 1969.

Read this. Hodges had a 321-444 record as a manager. I'm not sure he should be inducted into the Hall of Fame based on one good season as a manager.

All that, and he's not in Cooperstown. Never will be, based on the results announced Monday. Understand the background: Players from baseball's so-called Golden Era of 1947-72 are considered every three years by the 16-person committee, meaning Hodges was last on the ballot in 2011.

While Oliva and Allen received 11 votes apiece, Kaat received 10 and a handful of other candidates had their specific vote tally announced, Hodges was in a group (along with Ken Boyer, Bob Howsam, Billy Pierce and Luis Tiant) whose tally was announced merely as having received three votes – or fewer.

I bet none of these players are from Indiana, are Gil Hodges, or were Gregg Doyel's hero growing up. How dare they receive any votes from the Veterans Committee!

Hall of Fame voting is all about momentum. Watch the results long enough, and you'll see. Tony Perez gets 50 percent of the vote his first year on the Hall of Fame ballot, and slowly climbs – 55 percent, 57 percent, 65 percent, then finally induction at 77 percent – until he makes it. Momentum works the other way too. Fred McGriff and his 493 home runs peaked at 23.9 percent of the voting in 2012. He dropped to 20.7 percent in 2013, and to 11.7 percent in 2014. He'll be off the ballot soon. Momentum. It's everything.

It sounds like McGriff would have had a better shot at being inducted into the Hall of Fame if he were from Indiana, played first base in New York or managed the 1969 New York Mets.

So there's Gil Hodges, who once received 63.4 percent of the regular Hall of Fame vote – before being dropped from the ballot after 15 years – now going from nine votes from the 16-person Golden Era Committee to three votes. Maybe fewer.

I'm sure Hodges was a great player, but compared to players even from his own era and the era after his, Hodges' baseball resume just doesn't seem to hold up.

He's done. It's not going to happen for Gil Hodges. Nine Indiana-born ballplayers are in Cooperstown, according to this book, but Hodges won't be the 10^th.

And Gregg Doyel, adopted Indianan (Indianaite? Indian?) for a couple of months now, thinks this is a travesty. Trophies for everyone is dumb, but a trophy should go to Indiana-born ballplayers because they are from Indiana, and especially if they are Gil Hodges. I mean, HE'S GIL HODGES!

There is company in our misery, however. Indiana isn't the only loser in this story – Cooperstown lost, too.

I think the only people who would go to see Hodges' plaque in the Hall of Fame are those who lived in New York during the era Hodges played and people who treasure Hall of Famers from Indiana. I'm sure there is a convincing case to be made for Gil Hodges being in the Hall of Fame. Stating "because he should be in the Hall of Fame" and "because he's from Indiana" isn't that convincing case though.

3 comments Gregg Doyel Thinks Pete Rose Deserves a Second Chance Simply Because He Deserves One

I am one of those people (I guess there are others) who isn't against Pete Rose being reinstated by Major League Baseball. I've just never heard a good argument as to why MLB should reinstate him. Perhaps I am biased by the fact that I consider gambling on sports as a coach/player to be worse than taking PED's. I consider it to be a great offense to sports to either bet on (and especially against) your team. Using PED's is bad, and it does cheat the opposition, I understand that. Gambling is just...different to me. So Gregg Doyel thinks Rob Manfred should reinstate Pete Rose because he thinks Rose has done his time. I don't find his argument persuasive for reinstatement. I think Pete Rose should be allowed in the Hall of Fame, much in the same way I lean towards allowing PED users in the Hall of Fame. The baseball Hall of Fame is a separate entity from MLB and I think Pete Rose belongs in the Hall as one of the greatest baseball players of all-time.

Maybe I'm being harsh. Rose knew the ramifications of his decision and he gambled anyway. The punishment fits the crime. I recognize the same Big Red Machine teammates that are horrified at the thought of PED users being in the Hall of Fame want Rose reinstated, which makes chuckle. On a side note, I miss Joe Morgan. I miss covering his weekly ESPN chats (a tear falls) here. I'm fine with Rose in the Hall of Fame, but he admitted to gambling (once he had a chance to make a profit off his admission, which probably irritates me more than it does most rational human beings) and a lifetime ban is the punishment for this admission.

It's time for baseball to forgive Pete Rose.

Absolutely forgive him. Don't lift the ban just because it's been a long time since he was banned. A lot of time having gone by since his ban doesn't mean Rose should be forgiven.

Simple as that, but this isn't a tweet and I have a lot more than 140 characters to work with, so I can keep going. Don't see why it's necessary, because the first sentence says it all.

Except it doesn't say it all, because it doesn't include the reason why Rose should be reinstated. Why Rose should be reinstated seems pretty important when making the statement that "it's time for baseball to forgive Pete Rose." I can make a statement like, "Anyone convicted of marijuana possession at any point in their life should be given $10,000 in cash, tax free," but this statement doesn't explain WHY I believe this. It's kind of important to know why.

It's time for baseball to forgive Pete Rose.

Saying the same thing over and over doesn't make it more true.

The only reason for the game to hang onto its grudge -- and make no mistake, this has moved beyond justice and into grudge territory -- is cruelty.

Incorrect. The only reason for the game to continue to enforce the punishment, it's not a grudge, is because Rose knew what he was doing is against the rules and did it anyway. They are enforcing a punishment, not hanging onto a grudge. A grudge would be if baseball had no reason to suspend Pete Rose for life and still wouldn't reinstate him, but MLB does have a reason for doing this.

Baseball doesn't like Pete Rose. Baseball wants Pete Rose to suffer.

I fail to see how "Baseball wants Pete Rose to suffer, so they enforce the rules regarding betting on baseball" is a persuasive argument. Why should baseball reinstate Rose? Doyel gives no other reason outside of accusing Bud Selig of disliking Rose and saying it's been 25 years since Rose was banned from baseball. I find neither argument persuasive.

Bud Selig doesn't like Pete Rose. Bud Selig wants Pete Rose to suffer. And so Bud Selig won't forgive Pete Rose.

I don't like Pete Rose. I think he's a rat fink who only looks out for himself and only will accept responsibility for his actions when there is a financial gain for him in doing so. I think Rose hangs around the periphery of baseball trying to gain sympathy as if he were in some way wronged, all while rolling in the money by exploiting his position as being banned from baseball. He's within his rights to do this, but it doesn't mean I have to like him. I think he should be in the Hall of Fame and I haven't heard a good reason he should be reinstated, but I don't hold this position because I don't like him. It's because most of the reasons I have read for reinstating Rose suck. The reasons given for Rose's reinstatement are usually similar to the reasons Doyel is giving here.

That's what was happening in recent years. Selig didn't like the way Rose hijacked the Hall of Fame induction ceremony every year in Cooperstown by setting up an autograph table not far away. He didn't like the way Rose turned his admission of guilt -- "I'm sorry I bet on baseball" -- into the phrase he signed on the baseballs he was selling at Cooperstown. Pete Rose confused contrition with capitalism, and it looked horrible, and as the person overseeing the integrity of baseball Bud Selig didn't like it. Hell, I didn't like it either. Who would?

So of course Gregg Doyel is making the assumption that because Bud Selig allegedly doesn't like Pete Rose for very valid reasons, Selig is refusing to reinstate Rose not because of a lifetime ban from 25 years ago for admitting to violating one of the most important rules of sport, but because Selig just doesn't like Rose. Doyel is about to do a comparison to the justice system, but this is like saying a parole board won't grant a prisoner parole based on the fact they don't like him, not based on the fact he was in jail for murder. The very reason that prisoner is in jail is enough of a reason for denying bail.

I'm not accusing what Rose did as being the same thing as murder, simply explaining the violation of baseball rules on gambling is enough reason to not reinstate Pete Rose. There's no consistent effort by Selig to keep Rose out of the game, which would potentially be the act of a person holding a grudge, because there doesn't have to be a consistent effort. The lifetime ban is enough to keep Rose from being reinstated.

But he's leaving, and in January when baseball has a new commissioner, it will be Rob Manfred's call.

I almost want MLB to reinstate Rose. That way the baseball Hall of Fame has to be the bad guys. I would love for Hall of Fame members to come out in support of Pete Rose being eligible for the Hall of Fame because he has been reinstated. That way I could show the hypocrisy of these Hall of Fame members allowing Pete Rose in the Hall of Fame, but not PED users. It would be a gold mine of posts for me.

On the surface that would suggest Manfred and Selig see eye-to-eye on most issues.

And they probably do. But on all issues? Is it logical to assume Rob Manfred, a labor lawyer out of the Ivy League, is in intellectual lockstep with Bud Selig -- a car-lot owner from the University of Wisconsin -- on every single issue? Of course not. That's not logical.

BREAKING NEWS FROM GREGG DOYEL: Two individual human beings will never agree on every single issue presented to them.

That's delusional. NFL commissioner Roger Goodell was Paul Tagliabue's right-hand man; does anyone think Goodell is another Tagliabue? Same goes for David Stern when he replaced Larry O'Brien as NBA commissioner.

Gregg, I don't know if anyone but you indicated that Manfred and Selig might see eye-to-eye on every issue. Logical people wouldn't think this to be true.

He became a partner in a global law firm based in Philadelphia, where his work in labor law attracted the attention of baseball. He became the owners' outside lawyer, then joined Selig's staff in 1998.

Nearly a decade after Rose was banned from the game.

I like how Doyel is grasping on desperately to this idea of time. Time is why Rose should be reinstated. Time is why Manfred doesn't have the perspective that Selig had. It's as if Manfred will be like, "I didn't personally ban Pete Rose, so I will ignore the rules that state gambling on baseball will earn that person a lifetime ban."

Gregg Doyel is hiding some facts here when discussing Manfred. Rob Manfred went to work for MLB in 1987, before Rose was banned. He was part of the owners' team during collective bargaining during the 1994-1995 season. He joined full-time as part of the owners' team in 1998. 16 years after beginning to work for the owners full-time is Manfred really still an outsider? If Selig isn't an outsider and he was the owner of an MLB team, doesn't that mean the guy who has worked for MLB prior to Pete Rose being banned is not an outsider either? He's been on the owners' side from the time Selig owned the Brewers and been with Selig for the past 16 years.

My point? Selig had something Manfred does not: a personal history with Rose. In 1989 when commissioner Bart Giamatti banned Rose, Selig owned the Milwaukee Brewers. He was part of the machine. In 1992 when Rose applied for reinstatement to Giamatti's replacement, Fay Vincent didn't act on it; Selig was still part of the machine. And in 1999 when Rose applied for reinstatement to Vincent's replacement, Bud Selig ignored it too.

I like how it is Bud Selig that has the grudge, even though he wasn't the commissioner who banned Pete Rose and isn't the commissioner that initially ignored his attempt at reinstatement.

Selig was there from the beginning with Rose, is my point. He was entrenched. Rose wants reinstatement? Selig shrugs.

I'm not saying Manfred wouldn't consider it, but Rob Manfred is entrenched too. He's been a part of the owners' team since the 1994-1995 season and has worked with MLB since 1987. He has been there through Rose's banishment and every single one of his appeals. He's not quite the outsider that Gregg Doyel wants to paint him as being.

Manfred will probably be his own man, just like Adam Silver is his own man as the NBA commissioner, but he's pretty entrenched with the owners and MLB. As far as Bud Selig being entrenched and holding a grudge against Rose, I don't think Rose has given Selig a reason to reinstate him.

Some day soon Rose will ask Manfred to consider the same. Just a matter of time, because time is running out on Pete Rose. He's 73 years old, 

The fact Pete Rose is getting older is not a reason to reinstate him. It was a lifetime ban, not a ban until the very point Pete Rose is young enough to remember he got reinstated but old enough to where he can't participate in any baseball events due to his health.

how much time do any of us have, much less any of us in our 70s who have lived with the stress and disappointment that Rose has dealt with for the past 25 years?

Gregg Doyel leaves out the fact that Pete Rose has caused the stress and disappointment that he has had to deal with over the past 25 years. Such small details I know, but Rose brought this all on himself. Not to mention, he's making money off his name and who he is, and he doesn't seem to be struggling or headed for a retirement home in the next few months. I would feel bad for the "stress" Rose has caused for himself, but all of his wounds are self-inflicted.

Enough's enough, know what I mean?

I know what that means, but I don't know what you mean in this situation. A lifetime ban is a lifetime ban, you know what I mean?

Baseball wouldn't be sending a message of weakness to anyone considering betting on the game, the cardinal sin Rose broke -- and it is a huge sin, and he did break it. I minimize neither of those.

Doyel isn't minimizing it, but time and suffering...what about time and suffering. Plus, grudges!

Betting on baseball is horrible, something all players are reminded of with a sign in every clubhouse spelling out the punishment: a lifetime ban.

And there we go. It's in every clubhouse and the players know the penalty. Allow Pete Rose to be eligible for the Hall of Fame, but I don't see a reason to reinstate him. I'm open to it if a good enough case can be made, but Rose knew the rules and his only commitments to being apologetic are when he make a profit off doing so. There's no grudge involved, but that Rose wants to make money off his lifetime ban certainly isn't helping his case. Rose comes off as an opportunist more than he comes off as remorseful. Rose has cried publicly about being banned from baseball, so maybe he is contrite. Maybe it's an act for those who want to believe him.

If anything, it would get this topic back into the forefront of conversation around the game, and the conversation would start like this:

They banned the all-time hit king for 25 years. Embarrassed him. Humiliated him. If they can do that to Pete Rose, what would they do to me?

That conversation has started and goes like this: "They banned the all-time hit king for life. Imagine what they would do to me."

I think it's hilarious that Gregg Doyel thinks giving Rose a 25 year ban, instead of a lifetime ban, would serve as a greater deterrent to future players who want to gamble on baseball. The fact MLB eventually let Rose back in would start a conversation about that as well. Maybe if a player just admits to gambling on baseball immediately and is contrite, he won't get a 25 year banishment.

Twenty-five years isn't life, but a life sentence doesn't always have to be a life sentence. It's not in our court system, where a life system often leads to parole. How come? Because our court system feels like there are times when the prisoner has done his time, and whatever he did to earn that lifetime sentence, he's paid his price.

This isn't a court system. Pete Rose had paid his price. He's still paying his price. It doesn't have to be a life sentence, but what reasoning has Pete Rose given MLB to reinstate him? Other than hanging around baseball and trying to remind everyone how much he loves and the game and oh by the way do you want an autographed baseball for $100? Rose will write he bet on baseball on the ball for $50 more dollars.

Where's the forgiveness for Pete Rose? Where's his second chance?

Sometimes there is no forgiveness. Sometimes there is no second chance. This is something that gets lost in society today. There may not be a second chance given. I think a lot of people run on the assumption if they screw up, they will get forgiveness or a second chance, and that doesn't always happen. Sometimes there is only one chance to not screw up and sometimes once you screw up there is no second chance to save face and get back to where you were prior to screwing up.

Oh, right. It's in the hands of Rob Manfred. And I like it there. Because Rob Manfred is no Bud Selig.

He may not be Bud Selig. We will all find out. Manfred isn't the outsider that Gregg Doyel seems to think he is. Plus, if Rose is reinstated it will start a whole new set of columns where the old guard of sportswriters will defend gambling on baseball as so much better than using PED's in an effort to get Rose in the Hall of Fame, but still keep PED users out. Those are some articles I would like to cover here.

0 comments Gregg Doyel Has a List of Baseball Players Who He Knows Use PED's, Which He Will Totally Reveal Once It's Confirmed They Used PED's

You know guys, I know who is going to win the World Series this year. I can't obviously tell you now who will win the World Series this year, because that wouldn't be fair, but I will tell you after the baseball season is over who will win the World Series. Also, I know who the next President of the United States will be. Again, I can't tell you yet, but it's going to surprise you. Don't worry, I will tell you after the next President is elected if I was right or not. Much along the same lines, Gregg Doyel has a list of baseball players he knows use PED's. He can't name their names right now, but when the new Biogenesis names come out he will confirm those were the players he suspected of PED use. The reason he knows these players used PED's is because it's so obvious when an MLB player is using steroids. Just take a look at this list. Who didn't take a look at J.C. Romero or Neifi Perez and say, "Now THAT is a player who is using PED's." I remember looking at Freddy Galvis' career statistics and knowing he couldn't have hit nine career home runs without a little additional help from illegal performance enhancing drugs. Pablo Ozuna's fastball doesn't dip and dive like that without a little help from the old Cream and Clear.

The best part about this column is it gives readers a chance to speculate in the comments about which MLB players are using PED's. So Gregg Doyel's guessing game---I'm sorry, that's wrong---scientifically accurate judgment based on visual inspection on which current MLB players are using PED's is a game that YOU TOO can play at home. This is an interactive column.

I have a list. So do you, right?

Oh yeah, I do. I have a grocery list, a list of improvements needing to be made around the house, a list of people who I will call and cuss out once I'm old enough to pretend to be senile, and a shit-list which had new names added every week.

If you're a baseball fan and you're hearing that more names are about to be connected to Biogenesis, the cheatingest PED factory since BALCO, this is where you dig through your mental rolodex for the names of guys you're sure are cheating.

Nope. Don't have a list. I don't care. Players cheat and players I never dreamed would cheat (Hi, Clay Hensley!) are caught cheating. I enjoy the sport of baseball, and as much fun as it would be to speculate, I have long gotten over the PED name-and-then-blame game. MLB does testing, players will get caught, sportswriters will write columns about what a terrible person he is for cheating, and then I will cover a few columns on this site if the outrage is silly enough. Guess what? NBA and NFL players are using PED's too. I would give out my mental rolodex for the guys I'm sure are cheating, but I don't care enough to do that. If the NBA and the NFL doesn't care, why should I? MLB does care, which is why they have a PED policy. That's good enough for me at this point. I'm taking back my love of baseball by not worrying if there are certain players using PED's.

It wouldn't be fair to say that list out loud, certainly not with a megaphone as large as the one given to me here at CBSSports.com,

Well yes, that certainly would not be fair. It's much more fair to have a mental rolodex of these player's names and then write an entire column stating you know the players that have cheated because it's so obvious. Contribute to steroid hysteria by claiming you can name names, it's much more fair that way.

But I have a list.

Which Gregg will reveal immediately after the new Biogenesis names are announced. Once that happens, we will all see just how right Gregg was.

Baseball deserves the scrutiny, even the suspicion, that its players have stirred among us since the 1990s -- when the ordinary became stars, and stars became superstars, and superstars began doing things we had never seen before. Mark McGwire hitting 70 home runs? Barry Bonds hitting 73? Roger Clemens posting a career-best 1.87 ERA at age 43?

Yes, baseball does deserve the scrutiny. Though I am very focused on the current players who aren't putting up crazy numbers like this. All of those numbers happened over a decade ago. What crazy, insane, hard-to-believe numbers are MLB players putting up currently that sends Gregg Doyel's PED radar off so much?

Come on. To this day Bonds hasn't admitted he was cheating. Neither has Clemens. So they're on another list, a list that seems fair to say out loud, even on a megaphone as large as the one given to me here at CBSSports.com. Given their superhuman results and their constant links to PEDs, Bonds and Clemens -- and Sammy Sosa -- are on that list of players we suspect used PEDs.

(Gregg Doyel drags 10 year old PED story horse out and starts beating it)

At some point, these sportswriters have to move past the Clemens, Bonds, and Sosa names. It won't happen for a while because these are the go-to names whenever PED's in baseball are brought up. PED use by these players is the gift that keeps on giving when some enterprising sports columnists needs to crap out a column about baseball's sordid PED history.

The players we suspect are using them to this day? That's another list, and soon baseball will provide us with its own list, and we can compare notes.

And I bet Gregg's list will have a few names that are revealed by baseball. Not that Gregg would ever have a list and then pretend some of the names that are revealed were on his list too. That's not something he would do. He wouldn't have to, because his PED list is so obvious, just like Humberto Cota's PED use was obvious to anyone willing to pay attention.

It would be foolish, not bordering on naive but bordering on outright denial, to think baseball doesn't have a PED problem anymore.

I recognize this is a strawman argument, but where is the outrage and denial about PED use in other sports? Whey doesn't Julius Peppers' PED suspension not lead to angry columns from sportswriters about how the NFL has a PED problem? MLB has faced their PED problem and have very stringent drug testing. And yes, it would be naive to think baseball doesn't have a PED problem anymore. Just like it is foolish to think there will never be another murder in the United States. It's ridiculous to suggest baseball, or any sport for that matter, will be completely free of PED's. That doesn't mean there is a massive problem throughout baseball and it doesn't mean contributing to steroid hysteria is a logical reaction to this reality.

Here's a tip for you, so mark this down in ink: Baseball will always have a PED problem.

Here's a tip for you, so mark this down in ink: No shit, Sherlock. I don't think anyone has ever suggested baseball wouldn't have players trying to use PED's. I guess that makes it a problem if a person wants to be hysterical about it, but as long as humans are humans (and not dancer), then athletes are going to find a way to cheat. The fact there is a stringent drug policy in question that MLB is committed to which will lead to baseball players testing positive for PED's doesn't make it seem like a "problem" to me. It seems like the positive effect of drug testing.

The cheaters are always ahead of the testers, and while the PED police eventually catch lots of cheaters -- as they caught Victor Conte of BALCO and Anthony Bosch of Biogenesis -- there are more cheaters out there. Baseball can't catch them, because baseball doesn't know they exist. Not yet anyway.

So baseball can't catch cheaters they don't know about yet? No way.

Some things are so obvious that they don't need to be spoken. The fact baseball will have more players who try to cheat is an example of one of these statements. This doesn't mean baseball has a "problem," it means baseball players are human. As long as Sabermetricians are kept away from the sport, baseball will be played by humans and not computers. This means humans will try to cheat. So yes, the cheaters will always be slightly ahead of the PED police.

There's nothing new in this column. It's the same stuff as other PED hysteria columns.

The next Conte and Bosch think they're untouchable, because for now they are. The cheaters are always ahead of the testers, and they're like degenerate gamblers or thieves on a hot streak: They stupidly think they'll stay ahead forever.

So what baseball needs are pre-cogs. People who can predict a crime before it happens so that the PED police can round up these future cheaters and punish them for the crime they are going to commit.

The fact these cheaters "think" they will stay ahead forever is why I would argue baseball doesn't have a PED problem. MLB may not be able to stay ahead of the cheaters, but they will catch up, and the players who have cheated by using PED's will be found out most likely. It's not a problem, because lateness aside, MLB has a system that enables PED users to be caught.

Ryan Braun used to think he would never be caught, I promise you. So did Melky Cabrera. And Alex Rodriguez. And going back, Mark McGwire.

So the system works and MLB doesn't have a problem? Does it mean I have ant problem if I lay out ant bait systems in my house that attracts and kill ants or does it just mean that ants are going to find their way into my house and I have a way of killing them before they end up crawling on my food?

And I'm 100% sure before Melky Cabrera was caught using PED's he was on Gregg's list of players who DEFINITELY used PED's. I don't doubt that at all.

Nothing lasts forever, not even something as murky and vaporous as a drug the police don't yet know exists. The cream that Barry Bonds took? Drug testers didn't catch that because they didn't know what it was. Just as life finds a way to survive, evolving to adapt in the conditions it has confronted, cheaters are the same.

And yet, writers like Gregg Doyel trot out the same tired names like Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Sammy Sosa, and other "name" players to show the huge problem MLB has, as well as show how it's so obvious which players are using PED's. This is all done in a way to prove it's easy to figure out which players are using PED's, but conveniently ignores the hundred other players suspended for PED use whose name wasn't on any person's mental list.

And people like us, we sit back and wait for the next wave of players to be caught, then outed publicly, so we can scorn them like we scorned A-Rod and Braun.

Perhaps it says something about me, but I don't wait for the next wave of players to be caught so I can scorn them. Is there some sort of self-satisfaction in scorning athletes publicly for using PED's that I just haven't chosen to experience to it's fullest morally superior extent? Athletes who use PED's deserve to get caught and suspended, but I'm very much over taking up my energy to scorn these players.

When the next list comes out, I'll scan it for three names I'm sure are cheating.

These are three names Gregg KNOWS are cheating. No matter who they are, I'm betting those three names will be on the new Biogenesis list. It's obvious these players are cheating and Gregg would out them, but that's not the classy thing to do. It's more classy to vaguely refer to players you know are cheating, since it's so obvious who is using PED's and who isn't, and then gloat once these names appear on the Biogenesis list. But don't worry, Gregg will reveal just how right he was once that new Biogenesis list is revealed, just like I'll tell you all who is going to be the next President of the United States (because it's so obvious) just after the next Presidential election occurs.

What do I look for? I'll tell you some day, when the list comes out and if any of my names are on there. I figure one of them will be at least. This stuff is easy, really. It's simple to look at certain guys and just think, just know, "He's not doing that legally."

Someone like Jesus Montero. Someone that is playing baseball and you look at and KNOW he can't be that slow and unable to hit the baseball well naturally. He must be secretly less talented and is using PED's to just bring himself up to the level of being a massive disappointment. What about Kevin Frandsen? He makes hitting .256 look a little too easy if you ask me. How did we not see his PED suspension coming? 

Especially given what we know about the nature of baseball, just like the nature of sprinting and cycling. Certain things have never been possible before, and while breakthroughs and advances do happen, there are some ceilings that get cracked that just don't seem plausible. Not legally plausible, anyway.

I'd love to know what ceilings have been cracked that don't seem plausible. It's been well-documented that hitters are striking out more and this is supposedly the age of pitchers (it's the pitchers who are using PED's!). No players are destroying home run records and no players are putting up the numbers seen during the Steroid Era. I'm just wondering what the advances and breakthroughs that are happening now are. Of course if Gregg Doyel told me now, it would ruin the surprise once the list comes out. 

So my list is ready. Is yours? Baseball's about to release its list, and while I have no idea who's nice anymore, I have a strong feeling about which guys have been naughty.

Of course you do. Just be sure to tell us how right your list was once the Biogenesis list is released. I'm dying to know how right you were and what factors you looked for that tipped you off to whether a player was using PED's or not. My guess is Gregg is going to reverse-engineer this whole thing and everything will look way more obvious once he gets the answers to the test questions. Of course we should have expected Player X! I mean, that one time he did that one thing! We should have known, just like it was obvious Antonio Bastardo was a PED user.