5 comments What A-Rod Has Done Wrong Today: He's Doing Harm to "The Kids" By Being a Fox Baseball Analyst

Alex Rodriguez hit .250/.356/.486 this year with 33 home runs, which surprised the shit out of me. That's pretty damn good for a guy who is 40 years old. Of course, as soon as he starts hitting poorly next year the New York media will jump all over him again for the mistake of continuously getting older. Regardless of how good of a year A-Rod had at the plate, and regardless of how little controversy he stirred up, he still did many things wrong. He participated in an unfunny skit, he didn't increase YES ratings, he made his teammates like him, and most egregiously, he showed up early to Spring Training. Simply because the season is over doesn't mean that A-Rod still isn't doing things wrong. Of course. Now he was hired as an analyst for Fox during the playoffs and is ruining everything for "the kids," while poisoning their mind with the idea if they use steroids to enhance their performance then they may one day also be able to be a sports analyst. Christine Brennan has had enough of this and does a public service by finally speaking out about this travesty. In fact, Brennan says they (Fox) "swing and miss" (GET IT?????????) by hiring A-Rod as an analyst.

Of the thousands of baseball players and experts Fox Sports could have selected to appear on its postseason shows, it picked the worst.

You mean the guy who has been banned from baseball permanently, Pete Rose? 

It chose the most notorious, earnest and purposeful cheater to ever play the game. It chose the man whose name is synonymous with performance-enhancing drugs.

Barry Bonds? Roger Clemens? Mike Piazza's bacne? 

It chose A-Rod.

Oh no, not A-Rod. His mere presence on the Yankees roster has caused steroid use among youth to be nearly tripled since April. Millions of kids are dying, with their last breath screaming, "I just wanted to be like A-Rod!" What about "the kids," doesn't Fox care about the kids at all? 

Alex Rodriguez, who admitted to using steroids from 2001-03 and then was suspended for the entire 2014 season for his big role in the Biogenesis scandal, isn’t just any old baseball steroids guy. He is the guy.

He's the guy unless you want to consider Mark McGwire "the guy," Barry Bonds "the guy" or Roger Clemens "the guy." It all depends on the type of article being written really. In this case, A-Rod is "the guy" but this could change if the column is about which current Hall of Fame eligible players should receive the honor of induction. When it comes to a Hall of Fame discussion, McGwire, Bonds and Clemens are the face of steroids. In fact, I would argue given all the government resources and the hysteria surrounding the breaking of Roger Maris' home run record that these three players will always be the face of the Steroid Era. I don't see A-Rod in that role. 

Congratulations, Fox.

You're ruined the world's ability to prevent drug use among teens and driven thousands of young children away from the heroin they are using and into the arms of steroids by hiring A-Rod. Congrats. 

What a terrible message this sends to children

WHAT ABOUT THE FUCKING KIDS? DO "THE KIDS" KNOW ABOUT A-ROD BEING ON FOX? WHAT KIND OF MESSAGE DOES IT SEND WHICH SAYS A BASEBALL PLAYER WHO CHEATED IS STILL CAPABLE OF DISCUSSING BASEBALL IN A NETWORK TELEVISION ENVIRONMENT? 

if kids actually watched playoff baseball games anymore.

Oh, so it's not hurting the kids at all because they don't watch baseball? So disaster averted and we can all move on to other things. Though, if "the kids" did still watch baseball then A-Rod being on Fox would be a total disaster. Let's assume kids don't watch baseball, acknowledge nobody watches FS1 (yet...ever?), and still work under the assumption that A-Rod is singlehandedly poisoning today's youth. Sound like fun? Great, Christine Brennan will now continue. 

Experts say the use of performance-enhancing drugs by kids in high school sports has reached epidemic proportions.

Experts also say kids in high school are increasingly getting addicted to heroin and other drugs such as that. I'm not going to downplay the impact of steroids, but the use of heroin among high school kids has also reached epidemic proportions. I really don't believe A-Rod being an analyst for Fox is going to drive more kids towards using steroids any more than his playing baseball for 162 games a year would drive them in that direction already.

Seeing superstars suspended or hauled before Congress can act an a deterrent to these kids.

This is the biggest crock of shit I have read in this column so far. Hauling these superstars before Congress can serve as a deterrent to these kids? I have quite a few issues with this statement.

1. How does Christine Brennan know this is true? Is there research she can cite that says seeing superstars hauled before Congress is a deterrent to drug use among kids? Is there anything she can use to show this as a true statement, outside of any anecdotal evidence or the idea this is what she WANTS to believe is true? I see nothing in this column confirming this statement isn't a lie.

2. If superstars being hauled before Congress or being suspended really served as a deterrent, then how come experts say the use of PED's by kids is reaching epidemic proportions? Using logic, which I know isn't something Christine is doing right now, wouldn't the stricter MLB drug policy after the Steroid Era where big name players (like A-Rod) have been suspended have served as a deterrent to using PED's?

3. Christine Brennan can't cite how A-Rod has been suspended twice, in an effort to expose his true villain tendencies, then explain that's why he shouldn't be working for Fox, and then claim seeing baseball players get suspended serves as a deterrent to kids. It doesn't work this way. So if seeing players get suspended did serve as a deterrent, then it wouldn't make a difference at all if A-Rod works for Fox during the postseason.

4. If seeing superstars hauled before Congress was a deterrent, then there should be a decrease in high school kids using PED's. These kids grew up seeing Palmeiro, McGwire, Sosa, and Clemens hauled in front of Congress and in court fighting accusations of PED use. Seeing this would cause a decrease in PED use among high school kids, if this statement by Brennan wasn't a crock of shit.

Seeing them propped up on pre-game shows as faux stars does not.

But A-Rod has been suspended! That's the deterrent for "the kids," right? 

Perhaps next year, Fox can put together a panel featuring A-Rod, Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Roger Clemens and Rafael Palmeiro.

Bonds has worked with Giants hitters during Spring Training and McGwire has been a hitting coach in the majors. I get how Christine Brennan is upset, but it's well-known in baseball that A-Rod is a student of the game and knows something about hitting. He's a cheat and has a huge ego, but he's also really good at hitting a baseball and analyzing the game. 

Fox Sports’ baseball audience is minuscule compared with the NFL’s, but that doesn’t make the network’s decision any less egregious. In fact, that’s probably why Fox did it, to try to boost ratings.

Let's see...no one watches Fox, players like A-Rod who get suspended serve as a deterrent to kids and kids don't watch baseball anyway. So how are A-Rod and Fox ruining kids by having him show up on their postseason coverage again? 

It’s not a coincidence that one of Rodriguez’s fellow studio analysts is Pete Rose.

It's not a coincidence. Fox wants ratings and they want guys on their postseason shows that have played in the postseason and played the game at a high level. They also want eyes on their show and Rose/A-Rod also serve that purpose. ESPN hired Tim Tebow, but is he more qualified to talk about college football because he's a good person, as compared to the qualifications of Rose/A-Rod to talk about baseball even though they haven't always been good people? I wouldn't think so. 

Our senses are so dulled by the misbehavior of athletes these days that most of us probably don’t give it a second thought when a bad guy like Rodriguez shows up talking about the playoffs. Do we have any standards anymore?

I bet Christine Brennan's editor asked this same question when reading this article. 

Or maybe we still do. Could you imagine an Olympics telecast featuring Ben Johnson? Lance Armstrong hosting coverage of the Tour de France?

It feels different with A-Rod being on MLB's postseason coverage. Perhaps because he is still an active player and has served his suspension. I can't explain the difference honestly. 

Tonya Harding on Olympic figure skating? Thankfully, I think we’re safe from all three, at least for a few more years.

If she knew enough about Olympic figure skating these days, then I would have no issue with Tonya Harding commenting on Olympic figure skating. The issue is there are more knowledgeable commentators available to discuss Olympic figure skating. A-Rod is a really knowledgeable source about baseball and knows today's players because he is still an active player himself. 

For all baseball’s talk and action on the subject of PEDs, it has never taken them as seriously as the Olympic world has, and it still does not.

But MLB takes PED's much more seriously than every other major sport. Sorry, but the NFL and the NBA have a PED problem (mostly the NFL) even if they don't know it yet. Human beings don't look like NFL players look and I don't believe some guys in the NBA get as strong as they are without some additional help. I'm not pointing a finger at any certain players, but MLB has a strong PED policy. It's not strong enough for some people, of course. It never will be. 

That’s why the sport allows someone who has flaunted the rules as badly as A-Rod has to still be one of the faces of the game.

A-Rod is not one of the faces of MLB. He is not. He's never really even been the face of the Yankees either. A-Rod doing postseason work for Fox doesn't make him a face of baseball. Max Scherzer does postseason work for Fox too and I'm not sure he can be considered one of the faces of baseball (perhaps wrongly). Even on his own team, Bryce Harper, Jonathan Papelbon and Stephen Strasburg move the needle more than Scherzer tends to, even if Scherzer appears on Fox's postseason coverage. 

This tells us that the game, and Fox Sports, will do anything to get attention.

"The game" had nothing to do with Fox hiring A-Rod. That was a decision by Fox. Trust me, if MLB really had an issue with Pete Rose and A-Rod being hired by Fox then neither of these individuals would be working on Fox's postseason coverage.

Anything. 

What about "the kids?" What will the kids who don't watch baseball on Fox and who are already deterred from using PED's by A-Rod's suspension for PED use think about A-Rod being seen on Fox's postseason coverage? Will it drive them right back into the arms of PED's, seeing that they could also one day get a job as a studio analyst if they just use enough PED's to get there? What will happen if an entire generation of studio analysts use PED's in order to further their career and make an even playing field that much more uneven?

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

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

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

I have a list. So do you, right?

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

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

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

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

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

But I have a list.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

0 comments Well Of Course Frank Deford Has an Opinion on Steroid Use and the Hall of Fame

I have created a BotB Yahoo Fantasy Football League if anyone cares to join. There should be some rule changes this year as compared to last year's league. Either way, the league ID is 250429 and the password is "eckstein." I have also created a College Football Yahoo Pick 'Em league if anyone cares to join that league. The league ID is 5656 and the password is "asu."

Sorry for the length of the posts being slightly shorter this time of year. At least your eyesight is being spared. It's summer, so it is a slower part of the sports year when the NFL isn't in full swing, the MLB races haven't heated up, and sports columnists are on vacation. It shouldn't be hard to find bad journalism or journalism I don't agree with, but sometimes the well of bad sports journalism feels a bit more dry during the hot summer months (see what I did there?). It feels like I have picked on Frank Deford a lot recently, which is probably true. Sometimes it is hard for me not to. He has opinions and isn't afraid to voice them. Naturally, Frank has an opinion on steroids and whether steroid users should be in the Hall of Fame or not. It turns out steroids were prevalent in the 1990's, except only a few select star players were using steroids and everyone else was clean...or at least that's what Frank Deford seems to want us to believe.

The 2012 induction ceremony for the Baseball Hall of Fame takes place this weekend, so there's even more discussion about the 2013 election, because then both Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens will be on the ballot,
I feel like the debate on whether Clemens and/or Bonds should be in the Baseball Hall of Fame has gone on for 50 years now. I can't wait for them to either be voted in or not voted in. Knowing my luck neither player will ever get enough votes to receive induction and we will continue to debate both player's Hall of Fame merits every single year for the next 15 years.

along with several other players who are also suspected of having used performance-enhancing drugs.

"Suspected" of using PED's is very different from "proven" to have used PEDs. It's not really proven Clemens/Bonds used PEDs, though it is as close to proven as it can be without having an actual failed drug test from either player. The players "suspected" of drug use should not necessarily be lumped in with the players "proven" to have used PEDs. It's not fair to lump them together when discussing the Hall of Fame. So I take offense to Frank Deford not voting for "suspected" PED users if that player would otherwise have Hall of Fame credentials.

I've been surprised to learn that some baseball writers have declared that they'll vote for Bonds and Clemens

"I'm shocked that someone's opinion on a subject matter may differ from my own opinion on that subject matter. I have such a huge respect for my own opinion, I don't see how this could happen."

because they were the best players in an era when drug use was widespread — ergo if there's a lot of guilt going around, then nobody should be assigned guilt.

Frank Deford knows drug use was widespread in the Steroid Era. Everybody was shooting drugs into their ass, arm, and any other crevice available to get an advantage. That's why it's called "the Steroid Era" after all, because everyone was doing some sort of PED and there is a lot of guilt to go around. So Frank knows how widespread this drug use was in the 90's.

Of course, we do not know how many baseball players took steroids, but it certainly never involved more than a small percentage.

Frank Deford knows only a select few players were using PEDs in the Steroid Era. Not every player was shooting drugs into their ass, arm and any other crevice available to get an advantage. There were clean players who played the game the right way by stealing bases, being white and gritty, and always deferring any sort of credit to their teammates. It's a misnomer to call it "the Steroid Era" since such a small percentage of players were using PEDs. The guilt lies mostly with the star players who used PEDs. So Frank knows only a small percentage of players participated in PED use in the 90's.

I'm not that bright, so I wish someone could explain to me how steroid use was widespread in the 90's, but only a small percentage of players were using steroids during this time? It's fine to hold either of these positions in your mind as true, but it seems impossible to hold BOTH of these opinions as true.

This brings me to another open-ended question...how does Frank Deford know only a small percentage of player used PEDs in the 90's? Does he have access to a list that no other person has access to? So, ignoring the obvious contradiction in saying PED use was widespread and then blaming a select few players for PED use, how can Frank even say a small percentage of players used PEDs? Isn't that the problem with not voting for guys like Jeff Bagwell to enter the Hall of Fame, that we have very little clue as to which players used PEDs and which did not? That's why there are players "suspected" of steroid use...because we don't know who really used PEDs and who did not. There isn't an effective way to say PED use was widespread or it was contained to just a few players.

It was never, for example, like the Tour de France where drugs were as common as toothpaste.

Ah, never say "never." Frank Deford doesn't know how prevalent PED usage was in the 90's among MLB players. If he does, then he needs to either (a) release the list of players who did use PEDs or (b) shred the list since it violates the confidentiality of the drug test.

But what the baseball writers must not forget is that the dopers did not just pad their own statistics. They keep score in games; by definition, sports are zero sum. By taking unfair advantage, the druggies hurt the players who played fair.

Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds weren't the only players who used steroids. There were borderline major league players who used steroids as well. Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds may not have kept a player from making it in the major leagues by using steroids. Both Bonds and Clemens were elite players who even without steroids were one of the best players at their position for most of their career. I can see an argument for how it trickled down to affect other players, but Barry Bonds was going to be in left field for the Giants through much of the Steroid Era even if he didn't use steroids. If a guy in the minors never made it to the majors, it wasn't because Bonds was in left field with a needle in his ass. It could be because that player couldn't beat out the other four position players on the Giants bench for a spot in the lineup. There is a possibility one or more of the four position players on the Giants bench were using PEDs and stole that spot from a clean, hard-working player. Now that 22nd guy (or those guys) on roster did hurt a guy trying to make it in the majors. I'm not defending Barry Bonds, but I doubt he is the sole PED user that was on the Giants roster, and even if he didn't use PEDs I doubt he was going to be giving up his left field spot during the Steroid Era. He was a very talented player even without steroids.

I'm not a Bonds or Clemens apologist by any stretch of the imagination, but it doesn't feel right to simply point to players who could make the Hall of Fame as the ones who took a job away from a clean, hard-working baseball player. I feel like Frank is doing this. I don't know how prevalent PEDs were in the 90's, though I am sure there are quite a few players who are never even suspected of PED use and actually did use, but while Bonds and Clemens are the face of the Steroid Era they also aren't entirely to blame for the entire Steroid Era. Other lesser-known players also used PEDs.

There were far more baseball players robbed by our own cheats; it's just impossible to pinpoint in a team sport.

It is impossible to pinpoint who exactly robbed by the cheats or who was the player doing the robbing, but Frank Deford knows it was Roger Clemens who stole a roster spot from a deserving pitcher and that is part of the reason he should never be elected into the Hall of Fame.

Baseball is an individual sport. If Barry Bonds uses PEDs and puts up ungodly numbers in a season then this doesn't mean Fred McGriff will hit fewer home runs or have a better case to make the Hall of Fame. In baseball, players should make the Hall of Fame on their own merits. So whether Barry Bonds hits 900 home runs or not is irrelevant to whether Fred McGriff hits 500 home runs or not. So in terms of discussing which players should make the Hall of Fame, if voters are being consistent and not voting in players who are proven to use PEDs while also not comparing other candidates' numbers to these PED-using players, then no player should get robbed of a Hall of Fame induction. Fred McGriff should either make it or not make it based on his own career performance. His induction shouldn't have anything to do with whether Barry Bonds used PEDs nor will McGriff be robbed of a Hall of Fame spot because other players used PEDs. I can grasp the concept of Player X not making it in the majors because Player Y used steroids, but in terms of a Hall of Fame discussion one batter's impact on another batter is negligible. Fred McGriff shouldn't have a better or worse candidacy because Barry Bonds used steroids during his playing career. Their career statistics are separate from each other when discussing their candidacy, especially if a Hall of Fame voter takes the position no proven steroid user should be inducted into the Hall of Fame.

I would also think a pitcher like Roger Clemens who used PEDs would have a negligible effect on a batter's candidacy for the Hall of Fame as well. Clemens probably wouldn't face a batter enough to have a deep effect on that batter's career statistics to the point that batter wouldn't make the Hall of Fame because Clemens used PEDs. When comparing Clemens to other pitchers, the same idea applies here as it applies to the Barry Bonds situation. Jamie Moyer's career should be evaluated on a completely independent basis from what numbers Roger Clemens put up. You can compare Moyer to other players in the Hall of Fame who were clean players like Whitey Ford and Gaylord Perry (whoops...they weren't exactly clean, where they?), but Clemens' candidacy should be independent from Cliff Lee/Jamie Moyer's candidacy. Therefore in the framework of a Hall of Fame debate, Clemens' use of PEDs should not rob Lee or Moyer this honor.

Another issue in this discussion is that Barry Bonds probably would have made the Hall of Fame regardless of whether he was accused/proven to use steroids. If a voter doesn't want to vote for Bonds or Clemens, that's their choice. In terms of this present discussion, Bonds was on the Hall of Fame track during the early-to-mid-90's. So perhaps when Bonds was in his 40's he was cheating other players out of a chance to play in the majors, but Bonds was a Hall of Fame player in the early-to-mid-90's and had earned his spot on the field through his play. It's nearly impossible for me to look at Bonds and not give him a vote for the Hall of Fame because he took a roster spot away from another player by using PEDs. Perhaps this is not true for Bonds as he got older, but for much of his career Barry Bonds had a Hall of Fame-worthy resume and had not stolen, but earned, a spot on the field.

The baseball writers should remember those Olympians; from that sample, extrapolate the many baseball innocent who were hurt. Honor them.

I get the whole trickle down effect Frank Deford seems to be using, and there is really no way of knowing how good of a pitcher Clemens would have been in 2001 if he had not been using PEDs, but what if by not allowing Clemens into the Hall of Fame we are honoring some people who really weren't innocent and took PEDs? This is entirely possible. Perhaps Player X didn't make the Yankees roster in 2001 because Roger Clemens took up a roster spot...but what if Player X was also using PEDs in an effort to make it to the majors? Why should he be honored? Of course, I don't have all the inside information that Frank Deford has and aren't able to know for a fact only a small percentage of players used steroids in the Steroid Era, an era where PED was widespread, but only widespread over a small percentage of players apparently.

We cannot unravel the past, but the one way — even if it's only symbolic — to punish drug cheats is to withhold from them any recognition.

So when are we taking Barry Bonds' MVP awards away? When will Roger Clemens have his Cy Young Awards taken back and given to the runner-up? Oh, never? If we want to punish these drug cheats and withhold them from any recognition shouldn't we take away all individual awards that player received? I am confused how Frank can withhold an individual career-long achievement like being inducted into the Hall of Fame, even though we don't know how much of Bonds' career numbers were affected by PED use, but doesn't seem to have a problem with Barry Bonds keeping his MVP awards, when it is easier to determine which year he was using PEDs. I just think if Frank is all about removing individual recognition then he should advocate all individual awards being taken away from proven PED users.

But just because it was a drug era in baseball does not mean, so glibly, well, everybody did it.

But it was widespread. This much Frank knows.

To vote for Bonds and Clemens for the Hall of Fame is, above all, an insult to all the good guys who played fair.

Which players were those that played fair again? I'm not saying Bonds or Clemens should get a vote, but I don't believe we can make an assumption of which players did or did not play fair. There are plenty of players who didn't put up astounding numbers in the majors who also used PEDs. These players didn't put up such great numbers that it seemed out of the ordinary, but there are players who used PEDs to go from a barely deserving to be in the majors to being a starter in the majors. These guys fly under the radar in many ways because they didn't hit 70 home runs.

Boglioli, Wright, Jezek, Siering, Babashoff, Bryant, Sapenter, Ingram, Jiles, McMillan, Shorter. Remember the names, robbed by other athletes using drugs. Multiply by 100 or more and those were the honest baseball players robbed.

11 players times 100 comes to 1100 players that were robbed. This number seems a bit high considering 25 players are on 30 teams, for a total of 750 players in the majors at one time. So 1100 players or more were directly robbed of a career achievement because another player used PEDs? For such a small percentage of players who used PEDs, that sure is a high number.

I don't have a problem if Bonds or Clemens aren't voted into the Baseball Hall of Fame. That is purely up to the person doing the voting. I don't see how Frank Deford can believe the problem was so widespread and PED-use affected so many players directly when he also believes a small percentage of players (only the star players apparently) used PEDs. I'm also concerned about the Marcus Giles-type players who seem to have been mediocre players without PEDs. He wasn't a Hall of Fame-type player. If he used, he very well could have taken a starting spot away from a more deserving players. Barry Bonds? He was going to be in left field for the Giants for much of the Steroid Era anyway.

3 comments Murray Chass Gets All Sarcastic about Wins

We all know Murray Chass hasn't enjoyed the increased use of advanced statistics and the changes in thinking have helped to cause in baseball. He prefers baseball how it used to be. Uncomplicated and easy for him to understand. It makes Murray sad and other emotions similar to that when he thinks about the days when math and baseball were separate. It also makes him sarcastic. Murray gets all sarcastic today when discussing "wins." He loves wins much in the same way Joe Morgan loves wins. Wins determine if a pitcher pitched well or not, at least in their eyes. It seems Murray doesn't want to expand the criteria beyond the use of wins in order to evaluate a pitcher's performance during the season. I thought for a second that Murray had changed his mind about wins, but was let down in finding out he was merely using sarcasm. Also, since he hasn't done this for two weeks, he evaluates Mike Piazza's Hall of Fame credentials on his non-blog.

First, Murray starts the column off by saying Andy Pettitte changed his story when asked to testify during the Roger Clemens trial. I've written before that I don't believe Pettitte changed his story, but merely says he could have misunderstood Clemens when he originally admitted to using steroids. Maybe he was protecting his friend, I'm not so sure. It seems Pettitte kept a pretty consistent line of answers when discussing Clemens' accused steroid use. The idea he could have misunderstood Clemens in 1999 during their conversation is possible. That's what Pettitte was acknowledging. He seemed sure of what he heard in 1999, but then Clemens says Pettitte misunderstood what Clemens said a few years later, so that seems to have left some doubt in Pettitte's mind. I found some of that doubt to be present in his original testimony to the grand jury.

Then Murray begins discussing the Hall of Fame and PEDs, finally to get around to speaking my native language, sarcasm, when discussing wins. Sarcasm or no sarcasm, Murray Chass is still wrong about wins and he relies on wins too heavily in determining whether a pitcher had a good year or not.

“My overriding feeling on both cases is they both lost,” said Sam Reich, a former federal prosecutor in Pittsburgh. “I don’t agree with CNN that the Clemens acquittal vindicates him. A jury decided it had a reasonable doubt. That’s the way juries decide.”

I don't think the trial matters either way in terms of public opinion. If neither Barry Bonds or Roger Clemens had been brought to trial for lying to a grand jury about using steroids, the court of public opinion would still hold that both players were dirty and did indeed use steroids. It seems the majority of people will believe Bonds/Clemens were guilty of steroid use regardless of the trial's outcome. I think the court of public opinion is irrelevant in terms of whether it affected public opinion one way or another. Both Bonds and Clemens have been convicted in the minds of many in the public, so verdict of the jury I believe to be irrelevant to change many minds one way or another.

“In terms of history, both lost tremendously,” Reich added. “Up until the trial the public had only a lot of speculation to go on. In the trials there was a lot that came out.”

In terms of actual proof, maybe Bonds and Clemens lost tremendously. I don't want to speak for anyone else, but my mind hasn't ever changed about Clemens or Bonds. One only has to look at their physical appearance and late career statistics to assume where there is smoke there is fire in regard to steroids. There is some evidence Bonds and Clemens did use PEDs during their career.

“When the 1919 Black Sox players were tried in court,” he said, “they were acquitted, but the verdict of history is unanimous. They were guilty. Most people will conclude both did it just like they have with the Black Sox and O.J. Simpson. I think the majority of people will find them guilty. Both lost by going to trial.”

What were Bonds and Clemens options though? Were they supposed to accept a plea deal and possibly have to do jail time? Wouldn't that have been the option if Bonds or Clemens had not gone to court? That would look like an admission of guilt to many. So I'm not sure either person had an option of avoiding the trial or accepting a plea deal where they would plea guilty...which neither wanted to do.

The next verdict on Clemens and Bonds will come in January when the Hall of Fame announces the results of the voting by the Baseball Writers Association.

I'm making an educated guess that those two aren't getting in the Hall of Fame on the first ballot. It's sad because Bonds at least would have been a Hall of Fame player even without his late career resurgence. The steroid allegations seem to have robbed of a spot in the Hall of Fame that he probably deserved even without the accused steroid use.

Piazza has never been formally linked to steroids, and that’s what enrages his passionate fans whenever I write about my suspicions.

People tend to get crazy when sportswriters take unfounded speculation and try to introduce it as some sort of fact as to why a player should be denied an honor such as the baseball Hall of Fame. Human people are crazy in that way.

In my most recent mention of Piazza, I wrote that his book is scheduled for publication next February and suggested that writers withhold their votes for him this time to wait and read what he writes about steroids.

If he writes anything at all about steroids. Of course, if Piazza denies the use of steroids then it doesn't matter anyway. Murray already believes Piazza is guilty of steroid use (which I do too, except I actually require proof before I start holding out Hall of Fame votes due to my own speculation) and what Piazza has to say about it is irrelevant. See, Piazza had bacne during his playing career. That's pretty much the equivalent of pictures showing a needle stuck right in the middle of Piazza's ass to Murray Chass.

There is a difference in players like Clemens, McGwire, Palmeiro, Bonds, as compared to players like Jeff Bagwell and Mike Piazza. Piazza and Bagwell have been found guilty by some based simply on speculation and zero findings of their PED use.

If he is elected to the Hall in January and he admits in February that he used steroids, it will be too late for writers who oppose electing steroids users to do anything about it.

What if Barry Larkin states he did steroids in a book he will right 10 years from now? It will be too late to take back his Hall of Fame induction too. It's best we don't vote any players into the Hall of Fame over the next two decades until all players have written books and admitted or denied steroid use.

Jeff Bagwell, on the other hand, may avoid the stain of steroids despite rumors about his use. He went up last year from 41.7 percent to 56 percent.

How lucky for Jeff Bagwell. He never got caught using steroids and the voters are starting to pay less and less attention to the rumors, not the facts, about his steroid use. I also think Bagwell used steroids, but there isn't any proof and speculation on my part shouldn't count as proof. If I had a Hall of Fame vote, I would vote for Jeff Bagwell and I don't see how anyone in his/her right mind could not vote for Bagwell if they think he deserves induction based on his career statistics (and consider them compiled without the use of PEDs). Rumors are just that until proof is shown.

The difficulty of forecasting the Hall of Fame fate of Clemens is a feeling among some writers that he had Hall of Fame achievements before he began using P.E.D.’s.

Then base your vote on what these players did during the part of their career where you don't think they did steroids. It's impossible to exactly determine what part of their career this was, but Hall of Fame voters like Murray Chass seem to enjoy using speculation to base their Hall of Fame vote upon, so let's just go all the way with it and speculate about the exact date and time Bonds and Clemens started using steroids. Then Hall of Fame voters can vote for them based on their career up to the point they started using steroids.

One voter, Buster Olney of ESPN.com, offered a novel, if questionable rationalization, for voting for cheaters. He told The New York Tlmes, “The institution of baseball condoned the use of performance-enhancing drugs for almost two decades with inaction. To hold it against a handful of individuals now is, to me, retroactive morality.”

I don't know if I agree with this statement. I do find it funny and interesting how Murray is criticizing Buster Olney's "questionable rationalization" for voting for cheaters when Murray has his own questionable rationalization for not voting for accused and not proven cheaters. Murray believes the mere rumor of PED use should prohibit a player from getting a Hall of Fame vote.

Now Murray moves on to discussing "wins" and how Cliff Lee deserves the Cy Young award.

Cliff Lee appears to be in good position to win his second Cy Young award. He has made it this far into the season without a win and with one of the lowest WHIPs in the National League, 1.12.

Great move to exaggerate the opposing side's point of view. This only goes to show, at least to me, that Murray is still too closed-minded to accept the idea wins aren't the end-all-be-all in determining a pitcher's performance. If Murray has to exaggerate the view of the opposing side this also tells me he has no other comeback to those who advocate using wins to judge part of a pitcher's performance and has taken to making jokes and sarcasm as a way of concealing he is out of salient and convincing points. If Murray really had convincing points to make on this issue he would presented them two years ago when Felix Hernandez won the Cy Young Award. This is a blow Murray still hasn't recovered from. Murray's convincing points at that time seemed to ridicule the opposing viewpoint and then state "this is how it has always been done."

I say this as a veteran user of sarcasm. Sarcasm can be a blanket to cover up a flaw in a person's argument.

It has taken me a while, but I have learned these things, especially where wins are concerned.

More sarcasm!

After spending a lifetime watching pitchers win games and thinking they were doing something good, I learned from some of the readers here that wins are a meaningless statistic for pitchers,

Again, Murray is intentionally misstating the opposing view in order to make the alternative to his point of view seem more arbitrary and less flexible in reasoning. In fact, it is Murray whose reasoning is arbitrary and lacks flexibility. Murray's readers are not attempting to state wins are a meaningless statistic for pitchers. They are stating wins are not the totality of what a pitcher's performance during a given year should be based upon. Murray and those who think about wins in the same manner he does, are the ones who would deny a pitcher the Cy Young Award because he doesn't have enough wins. Felix Hernandez was the leader in most major pitching categories during the 2010 season, but because he didn't have enough wins Murray Chass didn't believe he deserved the Cy Young Award. It truly appears Murray believes wins to be the most convincing statistic in determining a pitcher's performance since he would not vote for Hernandez because he was deficient in this one category.

Stating his readers thinks win are meaningless is a way to discrediting the opposing view by making it seem more extreme and irrational than it truly is. Wins are not meaningless, but the statistic "win" for a pitcher is based on the team's overall performance. I don't see how anyone can disagree with this statement. A pitcher can't get a "win" if his team's offensive players don't score a run. It's impossible for a pitcher to get a win if his team scores zero runs while during the game, no matter how long the pitcher pitches. Cliff Lee could pitch 30 innings and still not get a win if the Phillies don't score a run. Because the pitcher's "win" statistic is based upon how his offense scores, it is a team statistic, much like a team's wins and losses are a team statistic. So a pitcher can pitch well and still not win a game because his offense hasn't scored runs. This makes the statistic "win" a partially team-based statistic.

Let's say Bob Thompson writes in the Sports section for the Picadilly Daily and it has a circulation of 30,000 readers. If Tom Gilbert writes in the Sports section for the Picadilly Observer, which only has a circulation of 10,000 readers, this does not mean he is a bad sportswriter as compared to Bob Thompson. Both newspapers have a Local section. The Picadilly Daily's Local section is run by the best writer in the state with a team of two other writers and covers 10 pages a day with local news. The Picadilly Observer is run by one staff member and only dedicates one page to local news. It is possible Tom Gilbert is a better writer than Bob Thompson even if his columns aren't as widely read because the newspaper's circulation isn't only dependent on the quality of the work in the Sports section. That's my conclusion.

"Incorrect!" Murray Chass would say, "If Tom Gilbert was a good sportswriter then he could somehow make his paper have a higher circulation than Bob Thompson. So what if the Local section consists only of one staff member who only puts pictures of vegetables in the Picadilly Observer while the Local section of the Picadilly Daily has a 10 page Local section with the best local newsreporter in the entire state? It doesn't matter. Tom Gilbert hasn't done enough to make his writing as good as Bob Thompson's writing."

This is a poor analogy that shows (sort of) what nonsense it is to judge a pitcher on "wins" without somewhat acknowledging his offense has to score runs for him to get a "win."

that they have no control over the outcome of games so don’t pay attention to the column with the W at the top.

In essence, a pitcher only has so much control over the outcome of games. He can give up 10 runs and win a game or give up 1 run and lose a game. A pitcher only has so much control over the game in terms of his job. What this means is a pitcher doesn't even have total control over whether he gets a "win" or not. Like Cliff Lee did this year, he can pitch 10 innings and give up 0-1 runs and still lose the game or get a no-decision.

Again, Murray misstates the opposition's point of view. No one is saying pitchers have no control over the outcome of games. The argument furthered by people like me is the pitcher doesn't have total control over the outcome of games. Much of the control is in the hands of his offense, as well as the pitcher.

I used to think – silly me – that pitchers could control games by allowing the opposing team to score fewer runs than their team scored.

If Murray Chass could read, which I am assuming at this point he can't since he apparently can't read what he just wrote, he would see he has proven my point for me.

Pitchers control games by "allowing the opposing team to score fewer runs"---this is the portion nearly completely in the pitcher's control---"than their team scored." This last part is the portion not in the pitcher's control, especially in the American League where there is a Designated Hitter. Murray essentially writes a sentence that shows he is wrong about runs. The pitcher can't control how many runs HIS TEAM scores, because a pitcher really can't do that anymore than a hitter can control how many runs his pitcher gives up during a game. So to get a win, part of the criteria is out of the pitcher's control. Murray can continue to think this statement is true, because it is partially true, but it also shows the fallacy of saying getting a "win" is in the pitcher's total control.

But apparently that’s not how the game is played today.

Apparently you are willfully ignorant and refuse to use your brain to understand this issue.

Win 13 games, or 15 or 16, and you can win yourself one of those huge, good-looking trophies. Win the award with few enough wins, and you can etch the scores of all of the games on the trophy.

This isn't funny really. It's obvious at this point Murray Chass is incapable of even attempting to understand the issue. Felix Hernandez won the Cy Young Award in 2010 with a win total that was seen as unacceptable and we will never hear the freaking end of it. The Cy Young Award goes to the best pitcher in the American/National League. The best pitcher in the American/National League doesn't always have the most wins just like the best quarterback in the NFL doesn't always play for a team that makes the Super Bowl.

If the award were voted today, R.A. Dickey probably wouldn’t have a chance against Lee.

Isn't it weird how the best team in the majors when Murray wrote this, the Yankees, have four pitchers in the Top 35 of the majors in wins (as of the day Murray wrote this) and how the Yankees ever so coincidentally were in the Top 10 in the majors in runs, home runs, RBI, OBP, and OPS? Another pure coincidence is the Texas Rangers, who are at the top or close to the top in every major batting category, have two pitchers in the Top 15 in the majors in wins. It's almost like a pitcher's number of wins depends partially on how many runs his team scores.

In the meantime, since the award isn’t being voted today, I’m going to take a few minutes and look through one of the baseball encyclopedias and find names like Roberts and Jenkins and Hunter and Palmer and Gibson and try to figure out how bad they really were.

That's exactly the point your readers are making when they take exception to your overuse of the "win" statistic. They aren't trying to prove you wrong, no way. They are trying to prove all of the great pitchers in baseball history were actually shitty pitchers. You got us now, Murray.

0 comments Jon Heyman Rescinds Andy Pettitte's Hall of Fame Vote for Non-Baseball Related Reasons, Then Accuses Pettitte of Perjury

(It is 10:23pm at night. Jon Heyman is preparing for bed, Tweeting one last Tweet in the hopes of coming off as a true elitist, when the phone rings and Heyman picks up) "Hello. This is Jon Heyman here, I hope you had a great day!"

(Scott Boras) "Jon, it's Scott."

(Jon Heyman) "Hey buddy! How are you? I was just thinki---"

(Scott Boras) "Shut the hell up or I won't take you out for ice cream this Sunday. Let me speak and don't try to speak when I am speaking. Remember 12 years ago at the owner's meetings when Andy Pettitte dinged my new Benzie with his car door?"

(Jon Heyman) "Of course, I remember that day. You were wearing a blue tie with a white shirt and those grey dress pants that always made you look so...so...in charge."

(Scott Boras) "Enough with the sissy retrospective crap. Do some pushups while I'm talking to you. Remember I told you to do me a favor involving Pettitte at some point, but I don't know when, and it may never happen, but I'll tell you when it does? Don't answer, just nod."

(Jon Heyman nods and then starts doing pushups)

(Scott Boras) "The time has come to repay on that debt and I need you to take down Andy Pettitte today. Not tomorrow. Today. He perjured himself, or just say that he did, and then rescind your Hall of Fame vote for him in print."

(Jon Heyman) "Sure thing, boss. I'm still confused as to why I owe you a debt, but I will take down Pettitte so hard the tears will stain the pinstripes on his Yankees jersey. I wasn't going to vote for him to make the Hall of Fame anyway, but I guess that means it will be easier to take the vote away."

(Scott Boras) "Remember, he perjured himself. Don't bother looking up the facts about this statement, just write it."

(Jon Heyman) "Absolutely. So 6:30pm on Sunday for ice cream?"

(Scott Boras has already hung up)

Here is the offending column that resulted from this conversation between Boras and Heyman.

Yankees pitching great Andy Pettitte may have gotten Roger Clemens out of a jail sentence with his misremembering the other day in court.

I don't believe Andy Pettitte changed his testimony in any way. He thought in 1999 Roger Clemens confessed to HGH use, but in 2005 he states Clemens told him it was Clemens' wife who used the HGH. Pettitte testified in court when asked by the defense if he thinks he could have misunderstood Clemens confessing to his HGH drug use in 1999 and recanting in 2005 and this is what Pettitte said:

“You think it was 50-50 that you might have heard it, might have misunderstood it? Is that fair?”

“I’d say that’s fair,” Pettitte replied.

So Pettitte seems to believe there is a chance he didn't understand his original conversation with Clemens in 1999. This is consistent with his testimony in 2008 under oath to Congress:

Q: It sounds like when you — it sounds like your recollection of the conversation you had with him in 1999, you are fairly certain about that, that he told you he used it. Do you think it’s likely that you did misunderstand what Clemens had told you then? Are you saying you just didn’t want to get into a dispute with him about it so you dropped the subject?

A: I’m saying that I was under the impression that he told me that he had taken it. And then when Roger told me that he didn’t take it, and I misunderstood him, I took it for that, that I misunderstood him.

Basically Pettitte left the option out there in 2005, 2008, and now 2012 that he had misunderstood Roger Clemens in 1999 when he told Pettitte he was using HGH or another PED. Pettitte says it is "50/50" that he misunderstood. He isn't changing his testimony or recanting any part of his testimony. He is simply putting in numerical percentage form whether he believes he misunderstood Clemens or not. Pettitte isn't sure if he misunderstood Clemens. He took it as a misunderstanding in 2008 under oath and he still believes it may have been a misunderstanding in 2012.

I don't see his story as changing. So Jon Heyman is incorrect to claim Pettitte changed his testimony. Either way, Heyman is going to now punitively punish Pettitte for keeping a consistent line of testimony that led to Heyman's assumption of changed testimony.

No Hall of Fame for Pettitte!

But Pettitte's contradictory testimony cost himself a chance of at least one Hall of Fame vote -- mine.

So an off-the-field incident is what is going to lead Jon Heyman to conclude Andy Pettitte's performance on the field doesn't merit Hall of Fame consideration. Doesn't this sound a bit stupid. Is Chipper Jones going to get a vote from Jon Heyman? Jones is a liar and multi-incident adulterer. Do we really need guys in the Hall of Fame who knock up Hooters waitresses? I think not. Plus Jones talks out of the side of his mouth. This is real proof he is a liar.

There are several questions that need to be answered before considering Jon Heyman's childish refusal to vote for Andy Pettitte into the Hall of Fame.

1. Is Pettitte a Hall of Fame pitcher? I probably wouldn't vote for him at this point. Of course, he isn't even retired yet, so I would need a few more years to think about this.

2. If Pettitte is a Hall of Fame pitcher, should we count his admitted PED usage against him? It depends on your point of view about PEDs and the Hall of Fame.

3. If Pettitte is a Hall of Fame pitcher and we aren't going to count his admitted PED usage against him, should we hold off-the-field incidents that are only partially related to baseball against him? In this instance, he "changed" his story under oath. Should we really hold this against him since it has nothing to do with whether his performance on the field merited induction into the Hall of Fame? I say no.

4. Did Pettitte actually change his story under oath? Would this off-the-field incident even apply to his candidacy for the Hall of Fame? Again, I would say no. Whether Pettitte changed his story under oath isn't a matter of fact, it is a matter of opinion. I think he stayed consistent and was simply asked two different questions that he answered in two different ways.

5. Is it okay to test positive for HGH use if you had a really good reason for using HGH? This isn't my question, but instead seems to be a question Jon Heyman considers when voting for a player proven to use a PED. Heyman apparently decides if the player had a good or bad reason for using the PED. You will read more about this in a minute.

Pettitte's candidacy is a longshot, to be sure, and it depends on at least two factors.

You mean one factor? That factor being, was Pettitte good enough during his baseball career to be considered one of the best baseball players of all-time and does this merit his induction into the baseball Hall of Fame? Performance on the field counts. We could use off-the-field incidents from the past to show Hall of Fame voters haven't always taken off-the-field behavior into account. If they did take off-the-field behavior into account Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth possibly would not have made the Hall of Fame.

One, a voter probably has to weigh career impact over career statistics (assuming he doesn't stick around for a few more years and dramatically boost those numbers). And two, a voter probably has to take Pettitte at his word that he only used HGH twice, and only then to recover from injuries.

Yes, but both of these variables were present before Pettitte "changed" his testimony that caused him to lose Jon Heyman's Hall of Fame vote. So why the sudden change in vote now?

Pettitte lied for years when it came to his PED use, denying he ever took any such drugs right up until the day things got serious and baseball-appointed drug czar George Mitchell and the feds got involved. Then Pettitte changed his story to include two instances of HGH use, but only for recovery purposes.

Again, this happened a few years ago...why the sudden change in vote? These are facts. Pettitte denied PED use and then later admitted to it. Again, these are facts, so wouldn't it be easier to base the Hall of Fame vote on these facts? I think Jon Heyman had made up his decision and was still going to vote for Pettitte into the baseball Hall of Fame. It seems that way, doesn't it? Now he's changed his mind.

We who knew Pettitte as an exceeedingly pleasant and God-fearing man nodded right along with him. But now, how can we be so sure he was telling the truth then?

Does the reason WHY Pettitte took PEDs really matter? Isn't the use of PEDs the issue and not the reason behind the use of PEDs the main issue when it comes to Pettitte's Hall of Fame candidacy? If we are drawing lines in the sand on lying and PED use, don't move the line around. PED use needs to be judged simply on the use of PEDs, not on whether a player took them for the right or wrong reasons. I'm not sure we want to jump down the rabbit hole into a discussion of valid and invalid reasons for taking PEDs. So it doesn't matter why Pettitte took PEDs, we just know he took them and that's good enough for me to make a decision on his Hall of Fame candidacy.

Pettitte changed his story about Clemens. And remarkably, he changed it from one day to the next. It is fair to assume he wasn't being completely truthful one of those two days.

It seems Heyman's reasoning for not giving Pettitte his Hall of Fame vote is he believes Pettitte may have lied why he used PEDs, based on Heyman's perception Pettitte changed his story about Roger Clemens' PED use. Pettitte really didn't change his story. So the entire basis for re-considering the Hall of Fame vote is invalid in my opinion.

Let's stay in Jon Heyman's pretend world for a minute where Pettitte did change his story, just so I can tear down his argument on a different level. Why come down hard on Pettitte for lying under oath in 2012 when you know he lied to us previously about his PED use before it was revealed he had used HGH? Pettitte's lie about using PEDs isn't egregious enough to merit losing a Hall of Fame vote, but Pettitte's lie about Roger Clemens' PED use is egregious enough to merit losing a Hall of Fame vote? It seems Heyman is differentiating between severity of lies in an odd way. This isn't Pettitte's first lie. We know Pettitte lied about having used PEDs, but Jon Heyman believed the reason why Pettitte claims he used them and was going to give him the benefit of the doubt. Now Heyman only THINKS Pettitte is lying and this has rocked his view of Pettitte, causing him to question Pettitte's overall truthfulness.

At this point, Jon Heyman is just picking and choosing random reasons not to vote for Andy Pettitte. Pettitte's HGH use isn't enough to lose Heyman's vote. Pettitte's lying about his HGH use isn't enough to lose Heyman's vote. Changing his story about Roger Clemens' PED use IS enough to lose Heyman's Hall of Fame vote. So the criteria to be learned in order for a PED user to gain Jon Heyman's vote are as follows:

1. Have a good MLB career that merits Hall of Fame induction.

2. Use PEDs, but just have a good reason for doing so. Improving recovery time from injury is a valid reason.

3. Feel free to lie about your own personal PED use until the point you are caught.

4. Once you are caught, be a nice guy and admit to it immediately.

That keeps you in Jon Heyman's good graces. The easiest way to lose Jon Heyman's Hall of Fame vote is to be perceived as lying about someone else's PED use or why you specifically used PEDs. At that point, Jon Heyman will assume you just a big, fat liar (despite the fact we know Pettitte has lied before and that didn't bother Heyman) and think you used PEDs for a reason other than to recover from injury. This will cause you to lose Jon Heyman's Hall of Fame vote.

I have a headache. It would be nice if our Hall of Fame voters could base their vote upon whether a player performed well enough during his career to be considered one of the greatest baseball players of all-time. What's crazy is Jon Heyman doesn't care if a player lies about PED use. Instead, Jon Heyman bases his Hall of Fame vote on degrees of lying and the reason a player states he used PEDs. It's madness.

Under questioning by government lawyers, Pettitte, who's trying for a baseball comeback with the Yankees, said Clemens told him about Clemens' own HGH use while the pair were working out together back in 1999 or 2000.

Which is true. This is what Pettitte perceives that Clemens told him in 1999 or 2000.

Then only one day later, under questioning by Clemens' lawyers, Pettitte said he may have misunderstood the key HGH conversation. In fact, it's now 50-50 he misunderstood, he answered to Clemens attorney Michael Attanasio. "I'd say that's fair,'' Pettitte lamely answered to Attanasio.

But in 2008, Pettitte testified to the following:

A: I’m saying that I was under the impression that he told me that he had taken it. And then when Roger told me that he didn’t take it, and I misunderstood him, I took it for that, that I misunderstood him.

Clearly Clemens could have been lying in 2005 when he told Pettitte that Pettitte misunderstood their conversation in 1999. I think Clemens was lying and covering up what he said in order to confuse Pettitte. I don't know if Pettitte is protecting Clemens or not. In 2008, he acknowledged he could have misunderstood Clemens in 1999 when he "admitted" to using HGH. So Pettitte's testimony in 2012 reflects that he isn't sure if understood the 1999 HGH conversation or not, since Clemens claims Pettitte misunderstood it and told him so in 2005. Whether his answer was lame or not, it wasn't entirely inconsistent from his 2008 testimony to Congress.

Pettitte's under-oath changeup is so pathetic, Clemens' defense team is arguing Monday to strike his entire testimony, and I won't blame Judge Walton if he agrees.

No, Clemens' defense team knows Pettitte is a key witness against Clemens. They would probably try to strike his testimony regardless so as to help destroy the case against Clemens.

Pettitte's testimony was viewed by many as the key to the government's case, and now it can be thrown out.

Because Pettitte's testimony is key, the defense wants it thrown out. I don't know their strategy, but I imagine striking Pettitte's testimony would have been on the agenda regardless of what Pettitte testified to during the trial.

Pettitte may have torpedoed a worthwhile yet expensive case of perjury against Clemens with his sudden case of amnesia regarding a conversation he's been testifying consistently about for nearly five years.

I agree that Pettitte has been testifying consistently for five years and if the case is torpedoed it isn't because Pettitte changed his story.

But if Pettitte is willing to bend the truth under oath to aid someone else, why should we believe his own story of two usages of HGH only for recovery and no usages of steroids?

Ah yes, the stupid reasoning for not voting for Pettitte into the Hall of Fame. Not only does Pettitte lose Heyman's vote for non-baseball related reasoning, but Heyman is picking and choosing what lies Pettitte has told and how this will preclude him from being inducted into the baseball Hall of Fame. Shouldn't the fact Pettitte used PEDs be the issue for his Hall of Fame induction and this induction not be based on why he used the PEDs, but the fact he did use them? Every MLB player who used HGH or another PED thought he had a good reason to do so. I don't think Hall of Fame voters should be the judge of what a good/bad reason for using PEDs would be.

If you don't like a player used PEDs, don't vote for him to go into the Hall of Fame. Adding in good/bad reasoning for a player using the PEDs is including an entirely different and (irrelevant) element into the discussion. Jon Heyman has gotten so far from the real criteria he is supposed to use to judge a player's Hall of Fame candidacy, perhaps he should have his vote taken away.

I haven't mentioned this yet, but Jon Heyman is essentially accusing Andy Pettitte of perjury. How much I would like to see Andy Pettitte sue Jon Heyman for accusing Pettitte of this. It's just a pipe dream of course, but I'd still like to see it.

There are people who are going to say Pettitte isn't a Hall of Famer anyway, that he didn't win enough games, strike out enough batters or make enough All-Star teams.

There are also people who don't think Andy Pettitte is a Hall of Famer and use reasons that aren't arbitrary or stupid like using wins, strikeouts or All-Star teams as the main criteria for Hall of Fame induction.

But Pettitte is the only pitcher to begin his career with 16 seasons without a single losing season (Tom Seaver and Grover Alexander started with 15),

A pitcher's wins or losses is a team measurement, not entirely a measurement of how well a pitcher pitched in a given game or season.

his 19 career postseason victories is the most in history (and makes it 259 total victories),

Which can easily be explained by the fact he played for a team that made a ton of playoff appearances in the age of the Wild Card.

Some from the stat set may scoff at individual victories making a Cooperstown case. But there's more. Five times Pettitte finished in the top six in Cy Young voting.

Well, I didn't know Pettitte finished five times in the Cy Young voting. The same Cy Young voting that is tabulated by people like Jon Heyman, a person who wants to take away a Hall of Fame vote based on perceived (and not proven) perjury. Now I'm convinced.

The most similar pitcher to him is Mike Mussina, a clear Hall-of-Fame candidate by most accounts,

BUT HE NEVER WON 20 GAMES IN A SEASON!

So Pettitte is at least a serious Cooperstown candidate based on on-field merit.

Which is the only criteria that should really matter. It isn't the baseball Hall of Fame for Guys Who Were Really Nice People and Good Citizens.

Others may reflexively rule him out based on using HGH at all, and that's up to them.

Others may accuse Pettitte of perjury and then rule him out based on something entirely apart from his HGH use and his record on the baseball field. Those people are Jon Heyman.

But I was of a belief that his impact via big October wins might earn him my vote, and also that I might be able to overlook the two admitted HGH usages as a pair of weak moments for a pitcher with an imperfect elbow.

Now, though, his own sympathetic HGH story comes into serious question.

He still used HGH. I don't believe reasoning should matter. Vote him in or out of the Hall based on this fact and let's not determine if there is a right or wrong reason to use HGH.

If he's willing to suddenly misremember under oath for a good buddy, it's easy to think now Pettitte only admitted to what he had to admit to.

Yes, take away a vote for Andy Pettitte based on pure speculation, while ignoring the facts you could use to base your Hall of Fame vote upon. What could go wrong?

I'd say the chances are 50-50 (at best) that Pettitte misremembered his own supposedly very limited usage.

I'd say accusing Pettitte of perjury, then rescinding your Hall of Fame vote because you pick and choose which type of statement made by Pettitte is a lie or the truth, and then basing your Hall of Fame vote (seemingly) on an off-the-field event is 95.4% stupid.

0 comments Random Thoughts

Traffic goes down faster than a boat taking 2,000 adults to fat camp on an island on Thursdays when I do my random thoughts. I am kidding, I just wanted to make a lame joke. There have been a lot of trades, signings, and almost signings in the past 24 hours so of course I have to give opinion that no one cares about. Let's turn it into The Big Lead without the fancy pictures for a day.

-Brian McNamee, who apparently is a Hall of Fame voter AND a baseball expert, does not think Roger Clemens will make it into the Hall.

"He's done. He's not going to the Hall of Fame," McNamee said in a video interview with Web site sportsimproper.com. "There's no chance. Too much damage. Too much trust was broken. Between the people that gave him his career, the people that wrote about his career, and the people that supported his career."

I am at the point where I believe neither McNamee or Clemens. Is that possible? I wish it was. I believe they are both lying but I can't figure out about what. I will bet $10,000 Roger Clemens makes the Hall of Fame. I don't really think the Hall voters care about trust or who supported his career, and I think the only way he is left out is if someone is trying to make an example of him...I don't think it will happen though. I wish all parties involved would just quit talking, the more either one talks, the less I believe that person.

-I am going to start a new column every week and it will be called "Rick Reilly Gets Paid Millions for Writing Things Like This...Once A Week," with excerpts from his weekly column without my comments.

Rick Reilly gets paid millions for writing things like this...once a week.

These four golfers not only fought off an armed robber, they chased him down in a golf cart and held him for police. And all without resorting to a single Big Bertha!

Question No. 1: Why was the man wearing underpants on his head? A: Perhaps he planned to take the money and launder it.

Question No. 2: Was the color of the underpants originally brown or were they …A: "No," answers Flick. "They were not stained from the day before."

Library custodian Bob Brewer, 58, spun the cart around in hot pursuit, with his friend, real-estate agent Reed Madsen, 57, sprinting behind. Next on the Golf Channel: America's Most Unforgettable Cart Chases!

As for those three, they get out of their cart now with a certain bounce, according to Itow. "We say stuff to each other like, 'Go ahead, punk. Make my putt."

Cha-Ching! (The sound of every person who works hard in America weeping violently.)

-I am almost cried when I read this because it was so pathetic...and then I wondered if Scott Boras would have Tex take the offer.

The Washington Nationals made their best New York Yankees impersonation on Wednesday.

According to MLB.com, the team made an eight-year, $160 million offer to free-agent first baseman Mark Teixeira.

I did not find it sad that the Nationals tried to offer Teixeira a contract, I found it sad they actually think they have a shot at him. The Yankees and Red Sox sign contracts like that in their sleep and they sure as hell are not going to be shown up by some crappy fifth place NL East team. They will be damned if some half ass National League team is going to overbid for a player, if anyone is overbidding for mediocre players it is them.

(Theo Epstein and Brian Cashman then write out competing 5 year $200 million contracts for Tex and then Cashman calls Chad Cordero 3 years $100 million just to get back at the Nationals.)

My second thought was me wondering how much different was this from Alex Rodriguez going to Texas? At least Texas had some good players at the time, like Tex and Michael Young, the Nationals have Ryan Zimmerman and.........other people. Are they not concerned at all with pitching? John Patterson is their #1 pitcher. Maybe that money would be better spent on pitching...especially since they have Nick Johnson and Dmitri Young at first already.

My third thought was me wondering if this was the largest offer, and the Angels offered 6 years $100 million, which offer would Scott Boras have Tex take? I think he would take the Nationals offer then try to get traded to the Yankees in three years.

-The Charlotte Bobcats are continuing to tank in the hopes of running another franchise out of Charlotte. My question at this point is whether the UNC Tar Heels could beat the Bobcats. I am going to go with a "yes" on that.

In this entire article there is not one single quote from a Charlotte Bobcat scout, coach, general manager, or anyone involved with the organization that speaks positively about the trade. If anyone wonders what is wrong, that is your answer. There is one Larry Brown quote:

"When you try to get better, you're going to lose some assets," Charlotte coach Larry Brown told The Associated Press. "We're losing a pretty darn good player and the way Phoenix is trying to make their team, they just added an unbelievable piece.

No fucking way. When you are trying to get better, you are going to gain some assets. Gain, not lose dumbass. At what point after the Knicks disaster and the fact none of his players ever like him is he going to begin losing credibility as a good head coach?

"[Richardson] averaged 20 a game for us this year without a true post game. When you put him with Shaq, who can pass the ball and commands double teams, and Stoudemire as well, and you got a guy like Steve Nash, they got a pretty formidable weapon."

I am sorry, then why did you just trade this "formidable weapon" for two role players and a third string point guard?

Wait, here is another dumbass quote from "General Manager" Rod Huggins...or as I like to call him Chief Dumbass of the Organization.

"We needed to become bigger," Bobcats general manager Rod Higgins told The Associated Press.

Again, incorrect. You need to get BETTER, not bigger. You could have a team full of really tall guys who can't play (which you do with Okafor, Sean "Doughboy" May, and now Boris "I am French so that should tell you all you need to know about my toughness and willingness to work hard, because frankly I would rather grow a wispy mustache and smoke a cigarette outside a cafe" Diaw. I do like Tony Parker and think he is tough, please let me play into a French stereotype to mock Diaw, just this once) and it won't matter if you can't win basketball games. Simple as that.

Also, couldn't you have at least dumped some salary or gotten a contract or two that was expiring? This trade was a pretty much even salary swap for the next two years so I don't know how the Bobcats expect to get better when they have acquired expensive players with less talent than they originally had. What a clueless organization.

It makes me long for the days when Charlotte had a wonderful franchise with a strong fan base and George Shinn did not try to fuck anything with a pulse.

As for Diaw, Kerr said: "Boris' contract just didn't fit into our salary structure. I feel much better paying Jason Richardson to play 35-40 minutes a night as a starter than to pay Boris to come off the bench and play a limited role."

It fit into the Bobcats salary structure though. More useless, expensive guys who can sit on the bench and underperform. What a clueless organization.

-Do you think Omar Minaya realizes J.J. Putz is not of Latin/Hispanic origin?

New York shipped reliever Aaron Heilman, outfielder Endy Chavez, lefty Jason Vargas and three minor leaguers to the Mariners for Putz, center fielder Jeremy Reed and reliever Sean Green in the first trade by new Seattle general manager Jack Zduriencik.

I am going to throw up if Jeremy Reed ends up being a great player for the Mets. I saw him play a few times when he was in the White Sox organization and I thought he would be pretty good. I was wrong...but maybe he was just waiting to be in the NL East to piss me off.

Let's sum up the activity in the NL East so far this offseason:

Mets- they have gotten two incredibly good pieces to their bullpen. Intelligently have not traded their best players from last year in a panic move and have the best pitcher in the NL.

Nationals- have offered a larger contract to Tex than the Braves and Mets would offer (????) and now have three above average outfielders by trading for Josh Willingham. Apparently want to be taken seriously.

Phillies- Zzzzzzzz...still sleeping off the World Series hangover.

Marlins- still trying to get Hanley Ramirez to demand a trade.

Braves- have shored up their starting rotation by trading for a .500 pitcher and want an injury prone inconsistent pitcher to be their #1 starter, so they are offering him double the money he deserves...they are also trying to let John Smoltz sign with another team as a free agent, just as a big "fuck you" to the fan base. (I would let Smoltz pitch until his arm falls off, why would anyone bet against him at this point?)

Needless to say, I think the Mets look like the obvious favorite this year in the NL East. Not that they are completely set behind Santana and Maine, but those two pitchers are better than any other combination in the division.

-Speaking of A.J. Burnett, this is really getting out of hand. He is a great pitcher when healthy, well congratulations, but being injured all the time is a major problem. I don't see this ending well for which ever team ends up with him.

Would the Braves guarantee the fifth year to secure Burnett? Probably. Would the Yankees raise their offer to $91 million to approximate Carlos Zambrano's deal with the Cubs? Perhaps.

Look, if there is no pitching available and a team needs pitching, then they are shit out of luck, there is no need to go out there and overpay for someone who is just going to not be very good for the entire length of the contract. Hell, Burnett may never be good at any part of the contract. I have a headache.

-Alex Marvez lists his most overpaid and most underpaid in the NFL. If you are looking for new information you won't find any here. You will find some really questionable opinions on the overpaid list though, where you will find Vernon Gholston (a rookie this year by the way, who is transitioning into the 3-4 defense) and Michael Huff (he plays for the Raiders for God's sake, how he is expected to play well for them?).

Under the underpaid list, you don't find too many surprises either. Though Marvez cheats incredibly well and 50% of the list includes the players who are still playing out their rookie contract, which means they are going to get a huge raise and could end up on the overpaid list next year. What a waste of time, there was no point to this list if you are going to list players who have not hit free agency yet.

-CC Sabathia (shocker!) is going to the Yankees. Huge contract for a huge man. He can opt out though after three years, and yet again a team bid against itself it seems.

The Yankees' first offer to Sabathia was for six years, $140 million. They added the seventh year to further distance themselves from the Brewers and other clubs interested in Sabathia.

The Brewers made the only other known offer to Sabathia — five years, $100 million with deferrals. But the Giants, Angels and Red Sox all showed varying degrees of interest in signing the pitcher.

From what we know the Yankees had the longest contract offer with six years and then they felt the need to tack on another year and $21 million. Do contracts like this ever end well?

Was there any other destination for Sabathia though? Next thing you will tell me Mark Teixeira will sign with the Red Sox. That's predictable as well.

Yep. Bill Simmons' and Scott Boras' one sided feud has to end now so Boras can feed more of his players to the Red Sox. Peace must be met.

-I guess with the Mets trade for J.J. Putz, there is this one little hangup.

J.J. Putz does not want to be a setup man, according to his agent, Craig Landis, but his change in roles could lead to him becoming a free agent one year earlier.

This doesn't change my mind about the trade, though I can't wait to see how this plays out. Can Putz be a setup man for one year?

Putz is signed for $5.5 million next season. The Mets will assume his $9.1 million club option for 2010, and that option could increase to a maximum of $9.6 million if Putz meets all of his appearance-based incentives.

Two years as a setup man and then the Mets will probably not pick up his option. I think it will end up being ok but you would think someone would ask him whether he is willing to be a set up man before the trade is made.

Anything really interesting or anything good by Simmons will go up immediately.