The 2012 Baseball HoF ballot

The Game Room
21

For an ordinary game or two, you’d be right. But the 1919 World Series was so blatant that MLB had to make a big, public show of cleaning itself up. Everyone on the White Sox who had any involvement, including just knowing about it, had to be used as highly public scapegoats for an endemic, institutional problem. The creation of the Commissioner’s office (just rearranging the org chart, a typical sort of response) was part of that too. Introducing the rabbit ball and getting Babe Ruth to New York, to get people’s minds off gamefixing and onto home run worship was another part (and I know the written record is scanty on that; it would be).

If you’re going to insist that Cobb and Speaker, unlike so many of their colleagues, were actually as pure as angels, then go right ahead.

22

Pure as angels? Nah. Ty Cobb carried a litany of sins we needn’t recapitulate, and Tris Speaker was in the Klan.

There’s no real evidence they ever fixed ballgames, though. If you have some, I wish you’d cite it. Rumors won’t wash.

There are two convicted drug smugglers in the Hall of Fame if you want to get after that.

23

Why not? It works for steroid users.

24

Suit yourself. :shrug:

That would support the point about selective morality.

25

Here’s what I don’t get - no one ever disputes that Ty Cobb was an asshole of the highest order. Yet when people make the argument that “character” needs to be weighed just as equally as “first class defense”, they fail to remember that not only was Ty Cobb elected to the Hall, not only was he elected on his first ballot, he was elected on THE first ballot, amongst a litany of amazing players. (He was such an asshole he didn’t even show up on time and missed the group photo.)

26

Oh, they remember him being an asshole. That isn’t disqualifying and never has been, it just counts off - as it’s supposed to; the criteria include “sportsmanship”. Cobb was still one of the best five ever to play the game even after applying that discount.

27

Also a lot of Cobb’s character issues were racially-related, and we’re obviously a few rungs higher on the ethical issues regarding racism than we were in 1936. I’m pretty sure that anyone who shared Cobb’s stances on black people today would be considered ethically (and ethnically) challenged.

28

To continue the Ty Cobb hijack. My favorite Cobb may not have been the nicest guy story is the time he went into the stands to beat up a heckler who had no hands. The linked story also includes the tale of a pitcher who pitched a complete game while giving up 24 runs on 26 hits as a result of Cobb’s suspension and many of the Tiger’s going on strike as a result of the incident.

Imagine if one of the guys on the current hall of fame ballot had ever done that.

29

Contrary to popular belief, Cicotte was not benched after winning his 29th.

Jackson was a huge star, which sort of makes the claim that stars wouldn’t be banished a little silly, but Cicotte was not at that level. He was a very good pitcher but he wasn’t Tom Seaver.

In any case, the only evidence that Cobb and Speaker fixed that game is the accusation of a guy with an axe to grind who was looking for a payoff. It wouldn’t sway any jury of twelve sane adults.

30

Already explained. Now scroll up and see if you can discuss it in a little more depth, okay?

Exonerated But Probably Guilty pretty well sums up the Cobb-speaker scandal. Good read, try it, you “non-silly, sane adult”.

31

I’ve already read it. “Probably guilty” in a court of law means “not guilty.” We can suspect, but we don’t know for sure.

Joe Jackson et al. stood up in a courtroom and admitted under oath to conspiring to fix games. That’s a hell of a lot more than “Dutch Leonard said so.”

32

Comparing Ty Cobb being an asshole isn’t quite the same as using illegal substances. It seems clear enough that, even if there were allegations, there is not hard proof that Cobb fixed games.

Regarding the comparison between amphetemines and steroids, I’d listen to an argument that the users of any such substances should be out of the HOF. However, I do think steroids had more of a game altering effect than greenies and I think steroid users were much more closeted. They knew they were doing something wrong. I’m really not sure that’s true of guys who took an upper once in a while.

33

It’s OK to cheat as long as you aren’t as good at it as others?

Taking an “upper once in a while”? You should probably read a bit about the history of the game.

34

And where is your hard proof that say Sammy Sosa did steroids?

So you would consider a hall without Mike Schmidt and Hank Aaron?

The problem is there isn’t any actual evidence of this being true. We don’t the effects of either and we don’t know who used what. There is no statistical anomalies among known users of steroids or hgh and everyone else. And of course there is Yookeroo’s point too.

I don’t see this as being true either. Both were known secrets inside the game and not talked about it outside of it until light was shined on upon them.

I wouldn’t be so sure of that either. It isn’t exactly a popular position with the public. I would suggest the widespread use showed players did not see it as against the rules. But I don’t see how this matters. It is okay to cheat as long as you don’t feel bad about? So we are good with Canseco?

How bout the guy who only took steroids once or twice to recover from injury. Is that okay?

35

If I say, “steroids is more of a game changer than amphetemines were,” how do you interpret that as meaning it’s ok to cheat as long you aren’t good at it? The fact that steroids had a bigger impact on the players and the game is the reason I think steroid users kept it hidden more so than the guys taking greenies.

As for reading about the history of the game, I have done so, thanks. There were players who did pop a greenie infrequently. Not everyone was using them on a daily basis. Regardless, my point was not necessarily directed at the frequency of use, but rather the concept that using amphetemines was not viewed as a big deal by anyone in the game. Using steroids, on the other hand, *was * considered a big deal, thus the discretion.

I never said he did.

I said I’d listen to that argument, yeah. Barry Bonds was every bit as good a player as Schmidt and Aaron, but he ain’t getting in the Hall. At the end of the day, for me personally, and for a lot of HOF voters, steroid users damaged the game more than amphetemines users.

I don’t justify steroid users OR amphetemines users. I know amphetemines can have just as damaging effects on your body. I rememeber the Orioles pitcher that died from them. As for the effect on the game, you would be right to say there is a very small verifiable sample size to compare. We can almost pinpoint when Bonds started using steroids and his 4 best OPS+ seasons were his 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th seasons in MLB. That’s not normal.

I can’t really pinpoint when Schmidt started using greenies, and there aren’t any crazy anomolies in his career stats like with Bonds.

Schmidt and others have said greenies were available in the clubhouse.
Non-steroid users have claimed they had no idea who was doing them or when or where or how. They may have heard about it, but it was certainly not as open as amphetemine use. Again, that doesn’t make one more right than the other, but it at leas shows that someone knew they were doing something more wrong in regards to steroids.

If they didn’t know it was wrong, or felt it was even encouraged like greenies in the clubhouse, why didn’t they say so? I’d be A LOT more forgiving if the actual story was, “well the trainer/doctor told me this stuff was legit and I had no idea it was wrong because I trusted him.”

It’s certainly more OK than the chronic user. Is he worthy of the HOF? I suppose it depends on the circumstances.

36

I haven’t done the historical study of the game that you have, Barkis is Willin’, but these quotes from Ball Four support that amphetamine use in baseball during the early 70s was a bit more widespread than you suggest:

Now Bouton was trying to sell a book, and a hearsay quote is no equivalent to a rigorous team wide survey, but I think it supports the idea that amphetamine use then was more than a once in awhile thing. Other quotes in the book allude to guys being utterly dependent upon amphetamines to be able to perform, as well as discussing timing their use—they didn’t want to pop a greenie if it didn’t look like they were going to go into the game.

As far as the game changing effects of PEDs, isn’t the move to smaller, Camden Yards-like stadia from multi-purpose venues like Riverfront, the Vet, and the Metrodome, as responsible for skyrocketing power numbers in the 90s as PEDs were? And as far as excluding Mike Schmidt from the Hall, I just don’t know what to say. If you want to go down that road, and excommunicate every star from the 50s through 70s who may have touched amphetamines, more power to you. I laud you for your consistency, but I think you’ll have a very lonely crusade.

As far as Barry Bonds goes, if you want to exclude someone with three OPS+ seasons greater than Babe Ruth’s peak, that’s up to you. To me, Barry Bonds, loathsome a human being as he may be, is unquestionably one of the top three baseball players to have ever played the game. (Tied with Ruth for the top spot, sorted by WAR: 172 for Ruth, 171.8 for Bonds; Mays comes in at 154.7, Williams at 125.) Excluding him because he, along with anywhere from 15-40% of players of his era used steroids, with estimates of 90% use rates if a “power hitter” (stats from Performance-enhancing substances in sport and exercise, Michael S. Bahrke, pg 13. Google books has it, if you’re interested.) is cutting off your nose to spite your face.

37

  1. I do not want to exclude Mike Schmidt from the HOF. I said I’d hear those arguments if someone wanted to make them. I wouldn’t dismiss it right out of hand. I think you could make a valid case that amphetemines users should be excluded, even if that includes 80% of the current HOFers. If someone wanted to argue that users of any kind should be excluded based on character issues, they’d have a right to say so. I would not, however, completely agree.

  2. As far as I know, there weren’t any congressional hearings regarding greenies in MLB in the 70s and 80s. Steroid users have given MLB a much blacker eye than amphetemine users. Not saying one’s better than the other. Just saying one has had a bigger effect than the other.

  3. When I refer to the “once in a while” use of greenies, I’m referring to players of the 90s and 00s. Morgan Ensberg, who played through the 2000s, said:

  1. Barry Bonds is one of the most gifted, talented individuals to play any sport, ever. He, along with Jose Canseco, also brought as much embarassment and shame to his sport as any athlete, ever.
38

I’ll disagree about Canseco. When he was still playing, he was a clown and an embarrassment, sure, and that included the common jokes about his own unnatural biceps. But his book rubbed the steroid situation in all our faces, fans included, and made us realize just what it was we had so strongly supported for so long. Nothing he’s said has been shown to be false, btw, and every name he named has checked out. Given the great service he has done to the game after his playing years, I’m happy to ignore his conduct during them.

Bonds is another question - he was clearly going to the Hall even before he dove into the containers of “the clear” and “the cream”. Is he out anyway?
PS: RickJay, you may not have realized it, but this is a court of public opinion, not of law.

39

I don’t know that level of public hysteria is good measure of wrongness of an action. It isn’t clear that steroids had a bigger affect on one’s ability to play baseball.

The lack of perspective is astonishing. Sports has had racial lines, murders, rapists stabbing, championships thrown etc… You think a guy taking a substance which was kind of sort of but not really against the rules, one that hundreds of players were also taking, not necessarily especially different then legal substances like say cortisone shots, and having no proven affect of helpfulness, is the most shame a sport has ever had? The black sox scandal could have destoyed the game. Steroids caused record ratings.

40

Well, it seems you are saying that steroids are more wrong to take than amphetemines because they were more effective. How bout you clarify. Why was taking steroids so wrong for a player to do?

Well that begs the question how exactly was the game damaged? Seems to be doing just fine to me.

Nor is Hank Aaron’s career path. Great players have unusual career paths. Mediocre players can have them do, or do think Davey Johnson was on HGH? Many people have looks at the numbers, and none has found any correlation because using steriods and numbers produced.

Again, we have a long list of people we know use steriods. If you analyze there stats there is no evidence of crazy anomolies you speak of. Bonds had a weird career. Steroids probably helped him, but working ridiculously hard probably helped him more. Plenty of steroid users had normal career paths, while strange career paths have been happening since the beginning of the game. How bout Babe Ruth. His numbers were absurd for his time. Must have been juicing.