Talk about a plate of ignorance with a side of bitterness…
The NFL has had steroid testing for over a decade. Players are caught using steroids but it’s pretty rare given the number of players in the league. Nor does the league have any convicted murders in it. As for pimps and drug fiends, what sport did Darryl Strawberry play?
Actually, I think Tiant should be in, and though Blue was my first favorite player, he should not.
[/quote]
The question is: Is Vida Blue the best pitcher in the history of baseball who isn’t in the Hall of Fame? Is Jim Rice the greatest player, or at least the greatest outfielder, in baseball history who is eligible but not yet in? If the answers are yes, let’s put them in. If the answers are no, then why would anyone advocate the selection of Vida Blue or Jim Rice when they should be picking someone else first?
[/QUOTE]
I just reread the original edition of James’ book, and that way of putting the question was possibly the most sensible thing in it. Well, that and his thwacking the Veterans Committee soundly about the head and shoulders.
I readily admit that my opinions on who should be in the Hall are more stringent than some. Were I king of the world, the Hall would be much smaller.
How many “lifetime suspensions” did MLB give Steve Howe before he retired of old age? Seven, was it?
The NFL years ago decided to take the drug/steroid problem relatively seriously and MLB, to now, has not. If that situation changes, MLB will stop getting serious criticism the way the NFL stopped.
Well, I certainly agree with that! Given my druthers I’d toss out about 25% of the current enshrinees. Call me a tough tester but I want those players in the Hall of absolutely shine…not just sort of be very good and know the right people.
If you were to ask that question often enough, wouldn’t ALL eligible players get in eventually?
I thought the best question to ask about a player when debating Hall of Fame merits is not “Is he the best (whatever position) in history to not be in the Hall?” but rather, “Is he a better player than the worst player already in the Hall?”
Then, if you can answer yes, let him in. Otherwise, at some point I’m going to be the best first baseman in history not yet in the Hall. While it’d be cool as hell to have my own bronze plaque and I’d get get enough fur thrown at me to knit a quilt, I’d have no real business being in the Hall of Fame.
Woo Hoo! My dream of getting my boyhood heros, Jim Spencer and Moose Skowron, into the Hall of Fame just got possible!!!
No, that’s a bad question because there are already players in the Hall worse than the aforementioned Blue, Saberhagen, Hershiser, Lolich, Stieb, Guidry, and Tiant. And they’re only the bow wave of a cluster of probably 30 to 40 pitchers of that ilk. Do they all belong in? Of course not.
But your question doesn’t set a standard. Like we said, using your question, eventually it will be debated that Eddie Gaedel deserves a plaque (best pinch hitter in history not currently in the Hall). At least with the “better than the worst” criteria, there’s a minimum standard (for better or worse).
Well, i think Congress is wasting its time and money in a shameless attempt at grandstanding.
Butl, as has been pointed out in other threads, Congress has handed baseball an exemption from US anti-trust law, so at the very least Congress has a greater incentive to care about what happens in baseball.
You can argue all you like whether or not the exemption actually helps baseball, but the fact is that baseball lobbied for it, and baseball does everything it can not to lose it, so it must mean something to them.
It’s remarkable that the only sport with anti-trust protection is also the weakest at controlling its own business. It’s always deserved much better management than it’s had.
Well, it’s not like the anti-trust exemption applies to labor or anything. The only thing it really lets MLB do is control if and where teams relocate to. Frankly, MLB would probably be in better financial shape overall if they did lose it.
But you solve that by virtue of limiting the number of selections that can happen at any given time, see. The current voting structure does that quite well, by limiting annual selections to about two per year, gusting to 3. I think 2 players a year is exacty right; that would be 200 players for a century of baseball, or roughly equal to what we have now.
If you were to name everyone better than the worst player already selected - well, I bet I can name three hundred players better than George Kelly. I could name twenty FIRST BASEMEN better than George Kelly who aren’t in the Hall, without even looking in a reference. Shit, thirty, if you gave me active players. There are more players better than Kelly who aren’t in the Hall than there are Hall of Famers. You’d have to put another three, four hundred guys into the Hall, unless you were going to limit the rate of induction.
And if you’re going to limit the rate of induction, who do you start with?
The greatest player who isn’t in.
Actually, under my system, Moose wouldn’t get in. The rate of new candidates would always keep poor Moose out. If you’re only electing two or three guys a year, the Mooseman is always buried.
But under CASEY’S system, Moose might make it. Moose Skowron was probably a better player than George Kelly. They both played about the same number of games; Moose, in context, was a better hitter. Kelly was a better fielder but Moose was no slouch; his bat more than makes up for it. Moose was also probably a better player, all things considered, than Chick Hafey (Hafey was a better hitter but his career was very short) Ross Youngs, or Freddie Lindstrom. Moose played well in the playoffs, too.
Moose Skowron for the Hall!
OK, we should insist that each HoF inductee should be better than the norm, Siebern. 
No, players who use steroids make themselves better than they should be and
affect the validity of the outcome of games just as much.
Example:
If Barry Bonds hits a 500 ft home run on steroids, you know it probably would have been a 450 ft shot and still a home run.
It’s those ones that just make it by 10 feet. They should have stayed in the park.
What if Bonds wins a game with one of those? The outcome of the game is invalid!
My proposal:
“If you ain’t cheatin’, you ain’t tryin’.” Baseball players have bent and broken rules for generations trying to give themselves an edge and make themselves better players. How many of Gaylord Perry’s 3500+ strikeouts were valid? Mike Scott’s splitter that he discovered before the '86 season? How many of Joe Niekro’s 221 wins were valid? Want to take away all every home victory in the last 80 years from the White Sox and Indians because the groundskeepers there doctored the basepaths and kept the infield grass watered down to suit their pitchers? Norm Cash, Graig Nettles, Amos Otis, Albert Belle, Sammy Sosa, Wilton Guerrero, Billy Hatcher and others have been caught or admitted using corked bats over the years; Whitey Ford, Rick Honeycutt, Niekro and Perry, Preacher Roe, Kevin Gross and Brian Moehler have been caught or admitted doctoring the ball. The '51 Giants spent the entire season stealing signs from their opponents - does that invalidate their NL title?
Pushing the envelope has been part of baseball going back to John McGraw in the 1890s, if not earlier. But they’re all examples of individual players trying a little too hard to win. Steroids have long term health effects that sandpaper and cork don’t, but I don’t think they invalidate the game any more than anything else that goes on every year in every park in the league.
Regardless of how you feel about those other historical examples, steroids were never against the rules until last season. They were illiegal, but MLB rules didn’t prohibit or punish their use. It wasn’t cheating unless they continued it into last season.
Gambling is an entirely different animal. Gambling brings with it the potential for throwing games, fixing series, and threatens the integrity of the sport as a whole. It’s not just one questionable home run ball or a spitball for strike 3; it’s a question of whether everyone in the game is trying to win.
I’m with you, brother. Yes, gambling is a great sin and should be harshly dealt with. That does not at all change the circumstance that Rose may have affected the outcome of a game differently as a result of his gambling. How many games were changed as a result of steroids? We’ll never know.
In 2003, Boone’s 11th inning homer to beat the Sox and advance to the WS would never have occurred if Jason Giambi hadn’t hit two home runs that game to send it into extra innings. Curse of the Bambino, my ass. Is it possible, just possible, that this game could have turned out differently if Mr. Giambi hadn’t been built like a Clydesdale at that point? Giambi’s chemical abuse may have help decide the World Series in 2003, folks. Think about that for a second.
As for steroid not being against the rules prior to the “official” ban–well, in my opinion this is a horseshit excuse. It was still illegal then, correct? Wasn’t that enough? MLB didn’t specifically ban a pitcher poisoning the food of the opposing team’s pitcher just before the game, but I think we’d all agree that, (1) it would provide an unfair advantage, and (2) it would be illegal. Just my opinion, but saying that steroid use prior to the “official” ban is OK is nonsense.
I mean be serious. Is there a single quote from the pre-ban era from a player saying, “Sure, I take steroids. Why shouldn’t I? They aren’t against the rules!” They routinely denied it for a reason–they would rightly be villified by their teammates, the media and the fans (at least all right-thinking fans like me ;)). It’s cheating now, and it was cheating then. Everyone, including the players, know it. Why wouldn’t McGwire just admit it, otherwise? After all, steroids weren’t banned during his “magical” season of 70 home runs?
Hank Aaron is probably my favorite non-Phillie player of all time. I sincerely hope Bonds retires and Hank’s record stays as is, not to be broken except by someone untainted by the rumor of cheating.
Whoop-de-damn doo. And how many Red Sox players were taking steroids?
It just doesn’t matter to me. I don’t care about steroids. Let them all juice for all I care.