3 comments Roundup of Crazy Hall of Fame Voting From Baseball Hall of Fame Voters

I guess I shouldn't call it "crazy" since everyone is entitled to their opinion. Just be consistent and don't have a stupid opinion, that's all that I ask. I usually do a few posts about Hall of Fame voting and may end up doing a few more before it's all said and done, but felt the need to try my best to condense the crazy voting into as few posts as possible. I will probably fail in doing so. As always, Jon Heyman will probably deserve his very own post. He seems like a nice guy in real life, but his ballot is always very vexing to me. He's a shill for Scott Boras and tends to use bad reasoning for his Hall of Fame selections.

So I will start first with Dan Shaughnessy's Hall of Fame ballot. Dan is the type of Hall of Fame voter who won't vote for players accused or suspected (by him) of using PED's. If I'm going to be nice, I will say it is refreshing that at least he just states he won't vote for these players because he thinks they used PED's rather than pussy foot around the matter as if there is some new information he's waiting to see revealed. It's interesting who he thinks the steroid taint (giggles) has touched and who it hasn't.

Wednesday my ballot will be mailed with boxes checked next to the names of Pedro Martinez, Randy Johnson, John Smoltz, Curt Schilling, Tim Raines, and Alan Trammell.

Six votes. I think it’s a personal high.

A personal high for me would be if Dan Shaughnessy didn't get the opportunity to troll his readers anymore.

This means I am not voting for (among others on the ballot), Craig Biggio, Edgar Martinez, Fred McGriff, Mike Mussina, Larry Walker, Lee Smith, Carlos Delgado, and Nomar Garciaparra. Oh, and I also am not voting for Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Sammy Sosa, Mark McGwire, Gary Sheffield, Mike Piazza, and Jeff Bagwell.

I'm going to try and keep my blood pressure down about Bagwell being thrown in with Clemens, Sosa, Bonds and McGwire. Let's just say I think that's extremely uncalled for and overly-presumptive.

Yikes. Imagine going into a seven-game series with a roster of the guys I’m not voting for: Piazza behind the plate. An infield of McGwire, Biggio, Nomar, and Bagwell. An outfield of Bonds, Sosa, and Sheffield. Edgar at DH. Clemens on the mound. Lee Smith in the bullpen. Mussina ready to pitch Game 2. Who wouldn’t take their chances with that team against any team?

It's almost like these are some of the best players in the history of baseball and if there were an honor these players should receive for being the best players in baseball then they could perhaps receive that honor.

So let it rip. Bring on the hate. Bring on the humiliation. Bring on the blogboy outrage. Bring on the analytic arrogance. Bring on the PED Hall Pass. It’s a tradition like no other.

Dan needs to be hated. It allows him to get pageviews by writing columns that troll his readers and further irritate them. Hey, it beats actually taking the time to write a good column.

So don’t expect Pedro to be unanimous. His win total of 219 (accompanied by a mere 100 losses) will put off some voters, but Pedro (three Cy Young awards) should come in well north of 90 percent. Johnson is a 300-game winner (always Hall-worthy, unless you cheated),

How does Dan know that Randy Johnson didn't cheat? Because he was skinny? He was also 6'10". Writers love to talk about hitters who still hit well later in their careers being PED users, how about Johnson having 300+ strikeouts each season from the age of 35-38? That's 1999-2002, right in the middle of the Steroid Era. He has 290 strikeouts at the age of 40, but in 2003 he started to struggle a little bit more and his strikeouts per 9 innings dipped, as did his ERA rise. If Randy Johnson were Mike Piazza then the steroid stigma would be all over him, but he was skinny, so he definitely didn't use steroids. Right? Even though his career decline was at the same time baseball started testing for steroids. Of course, his decline could also be due to his age, but if that's not good enough reasoning for Mike Piazza's decline then why is it good enough to explain Randy Johnson's decline?

Biggio missed by only two votes last year. He has 3,000 hits, four gold gloves, and almost 300 homers. I would put him in the Hall of Very Good (only one 200-hit season),

Raines was a rare combination of power (170 homers) and speed (808 steals). He had six 100-run seasons. Trammell is going to be off the ballot soon, and won’t make the Hall with the BBWAA, but there’s lots of value in a shortstop who hit .300 seven times, won four Gold Gloves, and should have been MVP (he lost to George Bell) in 1987. 

Where's the Hall of Very Good for them? Raines had zero 200-hit seasons and Trammell had one 200-hit seasons.

Raines and Trammell are problematic and I am guilty of inconsistency with their candidacies.

You don't say? This is another problem with the Hall of Fame voting, the inconsistency of the voters. Trammell and Raines get Dan's vote because they've been on the ballot a long time, while Biggio is held to the multiple 200-hit seasons standard that Raines or Trammell can't meet either. 

The Roids Boys are the greatest burden on voters. Some voters don’t care. Some cherry-pick the cheaters. Some turn away from anything that even looks dirty. Withholding votes for guys who cheated and guys who look like they cheated is unfortunate, sometimes unfair, and almost impossible to impose consistently.

It's not really impossible to impose consistently if you choose to impose it consistently. Is there proof that a player used PED's? If so, choose not to vote for them. If there is no proof, but only suspicion because the player looks like he used steroids, then vote for that player to enter the Hall of Fame. It can be imposed consistently.

The thinking becomes, “This was the era. They were all doing it.’’ Or, “Bonds and Clemens were already Hall of Famers before they started cheating.’’

Well, they WERE already Hall of Famers before they started cheating.

Sorry, I am not there. No votes for guys caught using. And worse — no votes for guys who just don’t look right. Bagwell and Piazza are the two players most penalized for this arbitrary crime. By any statistical measurement, Bagwell and Piazza are first-ballot Hall of Famers, yet their vote totals (62 percent for Piazza last year, 54 percent for Bagwell) remain considerably lower than their résumés merit. 

Just like I won't give a person credit for committing a crime and then confessing to it, I won't give Dan credit for being arbitrary in punishing Bagwell and Piazza. At least he can admit he's being arbitrary though. A lot of writers bullshit around Bagwell and Piazza (as you will see), rather than just say "I'm being the moral police and have no real reason for doing so."

Happily, none of the bad stuff ever touched Pedro.

Wait, what? None of that bad stuff ever touched Pedro? If Jeff Bagwell is guilty by association or by how he looked, then please keep in mind Pedro played on teams with Nomar Garciaparra, David Ortiz, Manny Ramirez, Mike Piazza, Jeremy Giambi, and Paul Lo Duca. Every player who played in the Steroid Era is touched by steroids in some fashion. It's impossible to say this bad stuff never touched Pedro, because it's not true. He had plenty of teammates who were in the Mitchell Report or were suspended for using steroids. Of course it's just accepted by Dan that Pedro didn't use steroids, while "the bad stuff" is all over Jeff Bagwell because he was a big guy and hit for power. Pedro would have possibly played with Bagwell too if the Red Sox hadn't traded him to the Astros. "The bad stuff" touched nearly every player during the Steroid Era. Don't act like Pedro was immune.

Speaking of Pedro Martinez, Paul Hoynes wants us to know why he didn't vote for Pedro Martinez to enter the Hall of Fame. Don't worry, he thinks Pedro deserves it. It's just Paul couldn't be bothered to actually submit a Hall of Fame ballot this year. He forgot. Hey, shit happens. Sure, it's an honor to be able to vote for the Hall of Fame and many sportswriters would considered it be an achievement to have this honor, but what good is the privilege if you don't abuse it?

I didn't vote for this year's Hall of Fame class that will be enshrined in Cooperstown in July 26. It's the first time I've missed since I became eligible to vote in 1994.

I forgot to pay the mortgage this month and now I'm living on the street (not really). What's your punishment for abusing the privilege of being able to vote for the Hall of Fame? Nothing? Great, carry on.

Somehow, someway the ballot never got from my mailbox to my eager fingers. Between the curb and my desk, the ballot took a powder. By the time I realized it was really lost, there wasn't time to get a new one.

My bad. I didn't mean to indicate the privilege was abused. The privilege was just lost. That's so much better. Maybe I'm old school, but if I had a Hall of Fame ballot mailed to me then I would probably keep it in a safe place to where it wouldn't get lost. Of course I give a shit about the Hall of Fame and would consider it a privilege to vote, so maybe I'm out of line for believing this.

Well before the ballots were released, I was wrestling with the idea of voting for Pedro Martinez. As great a pitcher as he was, I thought he was punk on the mound.

I feel like every year Hall of Fame voters compete amongst themselves to come up with the most arbitrary reason to not vote for a player. Pedro was a "punk." You know who else was a punk at times? Bob Gibson, Don Drysdale, Nolan Ryan, Juan Marichal and I'm bored of typing now.

In Game 3 of the 2003 ALCS between the Yankees and Red Sox, Martinez threw behind Karim Garcia's head and hit him high in the back in the fourth inning. The players yelled at each other with Garcia eventually gaining revenge on a hard, spikes-up slide at second base.

Which, to be clear, was not a punk move and was simply retribution. I'm sure that's how Hoynes sees it.

In the bottom of the inning, Roger Clemens of the Yankees retaliated by throwing a pitch high in the strike zone to Manny Ramirez. The pitch wasn't as menacing as Martinez's, but Ramirez screamed at Clemens and the teams sprinted onto the field.
The late Don Zimmer, New York's bench coach, came out of the dugout and charged Martinez, standing a good distance from the melee. Martinez yanked Zimmer, 72 at the time, to the ground.

Juan Marichal bashed John Roseboro's head in with a baseball bat and he is in the Hall of Fame. Let's gain some perspective here. Baseball brawls happen.

Since we're having a come to Jesus moment here, I have to say those weren't the only reasons Martinez irritated me. He quite simply dominated the Indians. He was 11-1 with a 1.77 ERA in 16 games against some of the best lineups the Indians have ever fielded.

And that was just the regular season.

A Hall of Fame voter has to be devoid of emotion like this. It's just part of the deal. If a voter can't divorce his emotional feelings from a player from the player's performance through his career then that voter shouldn't have a Hall of Fame vote.

Was Martinez a great pitcher, yes. Would I have voted for him if I had taken proper care of my ballot, yes. Here's why.

He's one of the greatest pitchers in MLB history? 
 
In 2009, 10 years after Martinez eliminated the Indians in that postseason game, he was on his last legs. It was spring training and teams were trying to coax him into pitching one more year. I asked Mark Shapiro, Indians general manager at the time, if he was interested in signing Martinez.
Shapiro said that if he could sign Martinez to a one-year deal, he'd do it in a heartbeat. Now, Shapiro watched Martinez beat the Indians year after year just like I did. He'd seen Martinez's whole act.
But when he looked at him, he saw talent. I saw a punk.

So Hoynes would have voted for Pedro because he saw Pedro as a punk. I'm just glad he would have voted for him, had he remembered where he put his ballot of course.
Emotion had gotten in my way. It's hard to see clearly like that.

Yes, it is. Now if Paul Hoynes could just prevent forgetfulness from getting in the way of him actually submitting his Hall of Fame ballot.

Jeff Schultz of the AJC gives his yearly breakdown of his Hall of Fame ballot. 

I’ve been pretty consistent in my voting philosophy when it comes to the Hall of Fame. I won’t vote for players who used performance enhancing drugs, at least not before there’s some admission of guilt and clarity how it may have affected their numbers.

In the case of Mike Piazza and Jeff Bagwell, Schultz wants them to admit to guilt for the use of PED's that they may not have even taken. Just admit that which you may not have done and Jeff Schultz will honor you with his Hall of Fame vote. If you can't make it all the way up to the pedestal to kneel before Schultz, he'll give you a hand so you can make it up there and hold yourself accountable for something you may not have done.

The Hall of Fame voting process has come under significant scrutiny in recent years, and for good reason. For the last few years, I’ve considered giving up my vote and may still do so if clearer guidelines are not given. 

Here's the thing though. What kind of "clearer guidelines" does there need to be? Does the BBWAA need to tell these Hall of Fame voters who to vote for? Isn't the purpose of having 538 voters that each one has their own criteria and opinion on which players should be inducted and which should not? The BBWAA isn't going to come out and say, "You can't vote for players suspected of using PED's." They can say they will have a PED wing and there will STILL be Hall of Fame voters who will grandstand and state they won't contribute a vote to a player entering this wing.

Those are the eight players I voted for: I consider all of them to have Hall of Fame credentials there also is no reason to believe they used performance enhancing drugs. The players: John Smoltz (first ballot), Randy Johnson (first pitcher), Pedro Martinez (first ballot). Craig Biggio, Fred McGriff, Tim Raines, Curt Schilling, Alan Trammell.

Fair enough. It seems Schultz has a pretty good idea for the criteria he will use to vote players into the Hall of Fame. His criteria and guidelines aren't consistent with the guidelines other voters use, but if the BBWAA takes away part of the voter's decision-making ability to vote for one player over another then they would be dictating how to vote. Even if the BBWAA attempted to clear up how to vote for PED users, which I wouldn't be against, it still won't unmuddy (not a word) the waters. You think if the BBWAA says they will have a PED wing that Mike Piazza will get Murray Chass's vote? Of course not. If the BBWAA says if a player has used PED's then that player can't be in the Hall of Fame, then don't you think this means Jeff Bagwell will be guilty by association? Of course he will. The guidelines are great, but it's still going to be up to each individual voter to choose to vote for a player or not.

Those with two players with HOF credentials I’m in holding pattern on: Mike Piazza, Jeff Bagwell. I may vote for them in the future but I’m using the full extent of the 10-year window allotted to a player’s eligibility on that chance more becomes of allegations  of PED use.

There probably won't be other information that involves provable allegations of PED use. Why not wait for every Hall of Famer's 10-year window to almost run out before voting for that player? Maybe Randy Johnson did use PED's, maybe he didn't. Let's wait and see if more evidence comes out one way or another. John Smoltz came back from Tommy John surgery throwing at a high velocity. Better make him wait 8-9 years to see if any allegations come out against him.

I don't know what makes sportswriters like Jeff Schultz the expert when it comes to determining which players used steroids and which didn't. I'm sure he had Jason Grimsley pegged as a PED user from the start of course. This whole "I'm waiting for new information" thing is just an excuse to push a decision into the future with the hopes some allegations will come out that makes his job as a voter easier. It's been five years (well, more than that) since Bagwell and Piazza retired. Judge their career on what you know now and don't arbitrarily pick players to suspect. If waiting for more allegations (or in the case of Bagwell, any allegations) before voting, then that's fine, just hold every player in the Steroid Era to that standard.

These are 19 other players on the ballot. Some are worthy of Hall consideration but didn’t make it onto my ballot this year: Rich Aurilla, Aaron Boone, Tony Clarke, Carlos Delgado, Jermaine Dye, Darin Erstad, Cliff Floyd, Nomar Garciaparra, Brian Giles, Tom Gordon, Eddie Guardado, Jeff Kent, Edgar Martinez, Don Mattingly, Mike Mussina, Troy Percival, Jason Schmidt, Lee Smith, Larry Walker.

But you could have voted for two more players. Why didn't you vote for them if they are worthy of Hall consideration? What is with all this waiting to vote for players? This is how players suddenly start to creep up in percentage every year. It's not like the career numbers for these players changed. It's that Hall of Fame voters don't want to elect too many players in one year, which is absurd. If Edgar Martinez is a Hall of Famer, then he's a Hall of Famer. How many other players in his Hall of Fame class there are should be irrelevant.

When the voice of reason is Bob Klapisch, the same guy who criticized A-Rod for trying to get into playing shape, then you know some part of the system is broken. I do disagree with a few of Klapisch's choices, but think he is reasonable in his explanations for the most part.

Here, then, is how I voted, broken down into three categories: the slam dunks, the gray-area candidates (who I said yes to) and the one who almost fell off my ballot (but didn’t).

Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez, John Smoltz, Craig Biggio, Mike Piazza, Tim Raines, Mike Mussina, Jeff Bagwell, Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens.

Murray Chass hates this ballot and will probably write a retort on his non-blog.

My feelings about Bagwell are similar to those about Bonds, Clemens and Piazza. The former-Astros slugger finished with a .297 career average and 449 home runs. Those numbers have to be viewed through the prism of the PED era, which delivers us to the doorstep of the third category.

Every player's numbers during the Steroid Era have to be viewed through the prism of the Steroid Era. It's not just Bagwell who should be judged by the Steroid Era. Pitchers used PED's too.
 
THE FINAL CUT: Bonds, Clemens, Piazza.

Last year, wrestling with the first-ever steroids era ballot, I decided I would never vote for a proven cheater. That means a permanent “no” on Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmeiro and Alex Rodriguez. The ban applies to Andy Pettitte, too, as much as I like him personally.
 
I still believe that those who used (or use) PEDs gain an unfair advantage over those who follow the rules, whether it’s increased bat-speed or greater raw power or better velocity readings on the radar gun.

Well, this is awkward because Bonds and Clemens are as close to being proven to have used PED's as they could be without admitting it or being caught red-handed.

So why did I vote for Bonds, Clemens, and Piazza? Because, as I stated last year, it’s not my job to investigate or prosecute rule-breakers. Bud Selig took no action against the notorious duo, Bonds and Clemens, which is reason enough for me to stand down, as well. If the federal government couldn’t get a conviction against either one, then the matter is settled.

I don't remember the federal government getting a conviction against Mark McGwire either. Perhaps I'm misremembering.

As for Piazza, I voted for him last year and did so again because there is no proof he used steroids. Don’t ask me to sift through circumstantial evidence like late-career spikes in home run production or back acne. That’s a weak standard to keep someone out of the Hall.

cc: Murray Chass

LEFT IN THE DUST: Schilling, Alan Trammel, Edgar Martinez.

There’s no strong case to be made against Schilling, other than the ballot’s 10-man limit and my insistence that Mussina be included. It was one or the other this year, although I have no doubt Schilling will be elected by 2017 at the latest.

I'd probably vote for Schilling over Mussina personally. Otherwise, it seems that Bob Klapisch has a (fairly easy to understand) standard and that's how he votes. I'm not sure I would put Piazza in the group with Bonds and Clemens and I can't wait for Klapisch to change his mind about Andy Pettitte because Pettitte seemed so damn contrite.

Jerry Green has a reasonable Hall of Fame ballot and wants to remind others (um, Paul Hoynes) that voting for players to enter the Hall of Fame is serious business. Still, there are two things that stand out in this column that don't make sense to me.

It is super serious. I was not being frivolous that day nearly 30 years ago when I left Nelson Fox off my Hall of Fame ballot. I was exercising an opinion — an opinion that I ultimately changed.

It is how we vote — mostly by opinion. We vote, most of the 500-plus of us seasoned baseball writers, by knowledge, by experience, by observation, by conscience, by conversation with others.

Unfortunately, it seems some writers vote based on only their memory and on emotion. Jack Morris had a great game. It made me feel good! He gets my vote!

(looks at Jerry Green)

Our responsibility is to Baseball, the game itself. It is to the players, the best few of those athletes who played the game. But mostly our responsibility is to the fans, those citizens who love sports and who love baseball.

As much as Jerry has vexed me through the years, this is true. The Hall of Fame isn't a shrine or the moral center of the baseball universe. It's a museum for fans of baseball to view the best players who ever played the game.

My ballot consisted of 10 ballplayers I deemed worthy: Craig Biggio, Roger Clemens, Randy Johnson, Edgar Martinez, Pedro Martinez, Mark McGwire, Mike Piazza, Tim Raines, Gary Sheffield and Alan Trammell.

I pretty much agree with this list here. It's a pretty good ballot, though I would vote Jeff Bagwell in before Gary Sheffield. Jerry Green voted for suspected and proven PED users it seems. There on his ballot is Clemens, McGwire, Piazza, Sheffield, and Barry Bonds.

(checks list again)

It must be a mistake. Let me copy and paste again.

My ballot consisted of 10 ballplayers I deemed worthy: Craig Biggio, Roger Clemens, Randy Johnson, Edgar Martinez, Pedro Martinez, Mark McGwire, Mike Piazza, Tim Raines, Gary Sheffield and Alan Trammell.

For some reason the copy and paste function keeps leaving Barry Bonds' name out.

(counts up the players listed)

There are 10 players here and Jerry Green is voting for PED users, so the all-time home run king should be on the list. Maybe when writing "Gary Sheffield" Jerry Green meant "Barry Bonds." I mean, I love Alan Trammell, but Barry Bonds should be on any voters list before Trammell if that voter isn't concerned about PED use. So here's my question...HOW THE HELL DOES JERRY GREEN NOT VOTE FOR BARRY BONDS?

Here is the best part. There is no explanation given. Jerry Green includes PED users on his Hall of Fame ballot, but doesn't include Barry Bonds. It's unfathomable to me. The words "Barry" or "Bonds" don't even appear in this article. Jerry Green has erased Bonds from existence and I can't figure out why Bonds is different from Clemens and McGwire. 

Roger Clemens, with 354 victories and some unproven steroid allegations, has a miniscule shot because a multitude of voting writers consider themselves moralists with perfect lifestyles. Mark McGwire is destined to miss out for the same reason.

I chuckled at this because Hall of Fame voters do love themselves some moralizing.

Smoltz won 213 games, mostly as a starting pitcher, and saved 154 as a reliever for the Braves. Great stats.

Jack Morris had greater stats with 254 victories, mostly for the Tigers. He was a dominant pitcher in his World Series and playoffs starts. He pitched for four World Series winners.

Morris was rejected 15 times by the voters of the BBWAA, some of whom just didn't like him because he was too often abrasive to the media. My opinion. Not frivolous.

So if Jack Morris doesn't make the Hall of Fame then Jerry Green will be damned if John Smoltz is making it. Seems fair.

As happened with Nellie Fox, Jack Morris ultimately must be voted belatedly into the Baseball Hall of Fame by the codgers on the Veterans Committee.

The "codgers" on the Veterans Committee? Jerry Green has been working in the sports industry since 1956. That puts him as being at least 77 years old if he started right out of high school. That's like the Civil War pot calling the War of 1812 kettle "old and rusty."

Bill Madden joins Murray Chass in the great bacne conspiracy surrounding Mike Piazza. This has become a real thing.

On his stats alone —.308, 427 homers, .545 slugging percentage, six 100-RBI seasons, 12-time All-Star, most homers as a catcher (396) — Piazza should have been a slam-dunk first-ballot Hall of Famer.

Rob Parker disagrees. (Don't worry, I'M GETTING THERE!)

But even though he never failed a drug test or appeared in the Mitchell Report (as both Bonds and Clemens did), Piazza has been unable to shake the innuendo of having been a steroids user.

Maybe because sportswriters like Bill Madden keep writing columns about how Mike Piazza is under a cloud because of steroids. It's hard to shake the innuendo when those responsible for the innuendo keep bringing it up.

A big reason may be that Piazza’s career went downhill fast and he began being plagued with the kind of injuries often related to steroids in 2003, the year testing began.

Craig Calcaterra covers the retort to this same argument Bill Madden has made on repeated occasions better than I. Piazza was a catcher and any Hall of Fame voter worth a shit knows that catcher is the most physically demanding position on the baseball field. There is a reason that many catchers like Buster Posey end up having a "When he should move positions to first base?" discussion surrounding them. Piazza's career began to decline at the age of 34. No shit. Welcome to the club. Gary Carter started declining at the same time in his career. It happens to catchers who don't have the luxury of being the DH.

A similar case to Piazza is that of Jeff Bagwell, a singles hitter in the minors (six homers in 859 plate appearances) who bulked up when he got to the majors and went on to hit 449 homers with eight 100-RBI seasons and an MVP Award in 1994.

They are similar cases except Mike Piazza wasn't a singles hitter in the minors. So they are both white, right-handed hitters who are linked to steroids, but other than that, Piazza's minor league career does not mirror Bagwell's minor league career. Piazza hit 64 home runs in 1862 at-bats in the minors.

Bagwell also never failed a drug test or appeared in the Mitchell Report, but nevertheless has been widely suspected of being a steroids user. 

Is Bagwell widely suspected or is this just the case of those with the pulpit to saying "Hey! Bagwell is widely suspected of being a steroids user by people!" being the same ones who are the ones doing the suspecting? Could it be those with the megaphone are the ones yelling the loudest, giving the impression of wide suspicion?

And then there is poor Fred McGriff, a five-time All-Star who never had a hint of steroid association. Had he played in any other era, McGriff, with his overall numbers (.284, 493 homers, 1,550 RBI, .303, 10 HR, 37 RBI, .532 slugging in 50 postseason games) easily would have been elected to the Hall. Instead, with those numbers dwarfed by his cheater contemporaries, Bonds, Sammy Sosa, Alex Rodriguez, Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmeiro, McGriff is in danger of falling off the ballot, with just 11.7% support last year.

So McGriff gets the benefit of having no steroid suspicion, but his numbers will also be compared negatively to those who used steroids, even though most Hall of Fame voters think these are tainted numbers. So McGriff would have good enough numbers to make it if he weren't compared to those whose statistics are deemed to be elevated by PED use. Seems fair to hold McGriff to a standard most Hall of Fame voters deem to be artificially achieved while acknowledging McGriff didn't use PED's.

Amid all the controversy over steroids, and the continued presence of Bonds and Clemens on the ballot, a lot of the Baseball Writers are complaining about being limited to vote for only 10 candidates.

Mostly, however, these are the writers who vote for Bonds and Clemens, two guys who are never getting elected.

So who cares what these people think, right?

But as a result, two straight years of three no-brainers coming on the ballot has served to substantially stifle the vote totals of such candidates as Curt Schilling, Jeff Kent and Mike Mussina in particular, who all can make a legitimate case for the Hall.

Jeff Kent? Eh...not sure.

Like every Hall-of-Fame election, this one does promise to stir raging debates, not to mention plenty of intrigue — none more so than with Piazza, who’s eventually going to get elected, but if it turns out to be this year and makes it an electorate of five, it would be the first time that many go in since the original Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, Christy Mathewson, Walter Johnson, Honus Wagner class in 1936.

Piazza didn't make it, but Bill Madden's bacne article gloating about this with the mention of bacne (of course) deserves it's very own post. I enjoy how Bill Madden writes an article about Mike Piazza's link to steroids while saying there is a lot of talk about Mike Piazza's link to steroids. It's almost like he is helping to create the news he reports on.

Speaking of Mike Piazza, Rob Parker wouldn't vote for Mike Piazza even while not caring about Piazza constantly being linked to steroids. This is just a crazy opinion that really doesn't deserve any real consideration. I will give it consideration anyway.

Here is Parker's ballot. Notice he thinks Lee Smith deserves induction but Mike Piazza does not.

Anyway, so this is what Rob Parker said about Mike Piazza.

PARKER: I just looked at his numbers, I thought they were very good. There's a lot of guys very good. Fred McGriff's not in the Hall of Fame, he's a few home runs away, three home runs away, from 500. He has way more RBIs than Piazza, he's not in the Hall of Fame.

Because if McGriff sticks around another year and takes 200 at-bats to hit three more home runs then all of a sudden he is a Hall of Famer. Incredibly logical line of thought. McGriff has 215 more RBI's than Mike Piazza. That's over 1846 more at-bats by the way. Remember that Rob Parker gets to vote for the Hall of Fame and these aren't things he has considered. He just derps it up and tries to talk about RBI's, while ignoring how many plate appearances it took each player to get to the RBI number they came to by the end of their career. Just stupid. Sandy Koufax didn't even have 30 RBI's in his career. HOW CAN YOU CONSIDER HIM TO BE A HALL OF FAMER?

So there are guys like him.

There are guys like Piazza. He has the 4th most RBI among catchers in MLB history. Two of those other catchers are in the Hall of Fame. He's 1st in HR among catchers, with the four guys below him all Hall of Famers. He's 6th in hits, with four Hall of Famers immediately below him. 1st all-time in slugging percentage and 2nd all-time in OPS. There are guys like him. They are guys who are in the Hall of Fame.

And I know, it's the catching position, and people want to give more credit because it's so hard to catch and play, but some of the defensive issues—not throwing out runners,

This is an incredibly vague statement, but Piazza had a 23% caught stealing percentage in his career. He is 94th all-time in runners caught stealing with 423. Sure, some of this is a product of teams running on him. Piazza was a historically great hitting catcher. That counts for more than being an average defensive catcher in the same way Ozzie Smith being a defensive wiz put him in the Hall of Fame even though he didn't put up Hall of Fame hitting numbers.

no Gold Gloves as a catcher, things like that—that bothered me. I thought he's a great hitter, he was a great hitter, batted over .300, but something told me he belongs in the Hall of Fame—or, Very Good, but not the Hall of Fame.

That something that told Rob Parker that Mike Piazza shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame? The voices in his head caused by insanity. I despise Piazza as a player, but anyone who thinks he shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame is crazy.

Rick Telander says the Hall of Fame cheats are paying the price for their actions. I'm just kidding. He says they are paying the price for Bud Selig's inaction. I'm not a huge Bud Selig fan, but to blame him for players choosing to use PED's seems a little bit like moving the blame to where it shouldn't necessarily completely lie.

Oh, how fun were those days of bulging biceps, Flintstones vitamins and home runs that flew off bats like ball bearings off anvils.

They were the result of a sport run amok on performance-enhancing drugs. And as history informs us, once the conspiracy has been uncovered, somebody’s gonna take the fall. And it’s almost never someone at the top. Find a mid-level, overzealous, loud-mouthed worker. Get a grunt.

And of course, Bud Selig has decided (UNFAIRLY, Rick Telander believes) to have those players who actually took steroids and helped the sport run amok with PED's take the blame. In reality, he should be blaming himself 100%. After all, Selig is the one who was in the locker room everyday interviewing Sammy Sosa and other PED users seeing their bodies changing, noticing the Andro hanging out on the shelf, with their finger on the pulse of the team. Wait, that wasn't Bud Selig who was in the locker room everyday, that was the sports media. They are, of course, in no way to blame for the Steroid Era because it's their job to report the news as it happens with gleeful joy and not question anything they are writing. Look, sportswriters are just along for the ride and it's not their job to question the bulging biceps or Flintstones vitamins. They are certainly no way at fault nor is Sammy Sosa. The blame lies solely not with those in daily contact with the players or the players themselves, but with Bud Selig.

If there were a red ‘‘C’’ — for cheater — that could be hung around Sammy’s neck for all to see, it seems certain the Baseball Writers’ Association of America would do it.

He and his brother-in-arms, McGwire, who was named on only 10 percent of the ballots and also is plummeting toward the vanishing point, are two of the poster boys for the Steroid Era, which has quieted down but never will be clearly completed.

I don't think anyone in their right mind would say that Bud Selig is blameless in all of this. But I always find it funny when the same sportswriters who stood around in awe, wrote pieces about the greatness of these Steroid Era players, and had daily contact with these players are now saying, "HEY! Why didn't someone blow the whistle and stop this shit?"

I think Murray Chass and his bacne theory about Mike Piazza is kind of crazy given Piazza crouched down in a hot uniform all summer, but at least he wanted to write a story about it and his editor would not allow him to do so. Others, like Rick Telander, enjoyed the ride day after day and now wanted someone to step in and do something. Certainly not him though.

Sosa is the guy who just went too far. He rubbed our noses in it, changing from a slender outfielder to a bulging beast before our eyes.

Before your eyes, huh? Interesting how some sportswriters didn't want to point the finger at some of these players during the Steroid Era, but after these players retire, these same sportswriters don't mind accusing players who haven't been proven to use steroids as having used.

Sosa was slain by the law, the government and innuendo while commissioner Bud Selig dozed. Because, yes, Sosa changed shape before Selig’s eyes, too. That Selig did nothing about the obvious muscle madness going on in his leagues for more than a decade is the main reason we have reached the point where statistics mean so little and qualified Hall of Fame players are shunned.

Selig should have been more aware. This was a systematic failure and not just the failure of one person. Blaming Selig for Sammy Sosa using steroids is trying to find a fall guy for the Steroid Era, in the same article where Rick Telander accuses Bud Selig of finding a fall guy for the Steroid Era.

But he built it at the expense of integrity. That he didn’t do anything about rampant steroid use in the majors is a pity, even though the strongman tent show brought Selig’s game back from near irrelevance after the ugly 1994 strike.

If Selig didn’t know men such as Sosa were juicing, then shame on him. 

Right. Shame on Bud Selig. He should have unilaterally started a drug testing policy and forced the union to go along with it. This shouldn't take more than a day or two, right? 

Books, magazine articles, rumors, the drug corruption of the Olympics, bodybuilding freaks everywhere — the evidence was mind-boggling.

The evidence was so mind-boggling that Bud Selig should have stepped in immediately and stopped the madness. Of course, it wasn't so mind-boggling at that point in time that Rick Telander actually broached the subject of just how obvious it was that Sosa was juicing. Phil Rogers was fawning over Sosa after he won the 1998 MVP award and Telander apparently forgot to mention how obvious it was that Sosa was using steroids when he voted for Sosa as the 1998 NL MVP and then said he did it because Sosa was nicer than Mark McGwire. 17 years later it was SO obvious that both players were cheating, it's just that Sosa was being so nice to Rick he forgot to bring it up at the time. He totally thought Sosa was cheating at the time though, I mean how could he not? The evidence was mind-boggling.

Maybe Rick's mind was so boggled by Sosa's politeness and the chase for the home run crown that he didn't feel it was right to bring up steroids as an issue. If so, he's as bad as Bud Selig.

But how convenient to reap the benefits, then let over-egoed simpletons take the rap.

Fall guys. We need them. We find them.

BUT YOU ARE USING BUD SELIG AS A FALL GUY FOR THE STEROID ERA RIGHT NOW!

Writing Tuesday in USA Today, baseball columnist Bob Nightengale said we voters — and I am one — should get over the Steroid Era and vote anybody in who deserves it.
We never will know for sure who was clean and who was dirty the last 30 years, Nightengale wrote, ‘‘so wake up and knock off this absurdity.’’

Not me. It’s not absurd to me. I’ll never vote for players I have judged to be cheaters.

Way to uphold a tough standard that you refused to do 17 years ago. It's good to see a real tough guy beat up on the players for cheating nearly two decades later when you didn't have the foresight and guts to say anything at the time. 

Uncle Bud and the players’ union did nothing to stop cheating for years, so I am forced to do what is unfair.

Yep, Uncle Bud, the players' union, and every sportswriter covering the Cubs, Cardinals and every other MLB team during the Steroid Era did nothing. That includes you, Rick. Get off your high horse.

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.