Tuesday, January 08, 2013
A Few Things On Which Murray Chass and I Agree
My dislike for baseball writer Murray Chass is now well-known. It started in 1997, when I asked him if steroids were a big part of baseball and he dismissed me with a sneer. Now Chass is taking my position (a position I have grown into) steroids users should not be in the Hall of Fame. He also agrees that he shouldn’t have a vote, he’s giving his up. But not before he casts one – or two – defiant votes in favor of Jack Morris.
Let’s start with the steroid users. I’ve made a minor adjustment in my position and I would seek to ban all steroid users from the Hall of Fame. I admit that’s is hard-line, and my strict adherence to this principle may end up being capricious and unfair but it’s better than any other way of voting.
Some voters just say let everyone in, forget steroids, just judge based on performance whether it was steroid-aided or not. I can’t stomach that.
Others say vote in the guys who would have been Hall of Famers based on their pre-steroid performance.
Others want to punish anyone linked to steroids but not cast aspersions on those whose names (if not their bodies) have remained clean.
Here’s why I feel so absolute: It’s impossible to know when players started taking steroids. They’re liars, we can’t believe them. It’s impossible to know how their careers would have turned out fir not for steroids keeping them healthy and prolonging their primes.
It’s not fair to allow those who didn’t get caught or admit it while other better players who did the same thing got left out. If anything, we should let in the admitted users, in hopes to smoke everyone out and to get a better understanding of what exactly went on.
Please don’t tell me: players in the 50s and 60s were using amphetamines. It’s not even close to being the same thing in terms of effect on performance.
Steroids weren’t against the rules. Yes they were. They were against the law. Using illicit drugs was against baseball’s rules. Failure to enforce those rules is shameful, but it doesn’t absolve the rule breakers.
So here’s what I’ve got: Bonds and Clemens are out because they’re known steroids users.
Palmeiro and Manny are out because they failed tests.
Sosa, Bagwell and Piazza are out because of serious suspicions about them. I put Craig Biggio in that group too.
So that could result in an entire era of players, stars from the 90s and 00s, pretty much wiped out of the Hall. I’m ok with that. Hopefully a new breed of stars like Mike Trout, Bryce Harper and Buster Posey will fill those vacancies in the Hall and in our hearts.
Now, if I had a ballot for this year I would cast one vote: for Tim Raines. He was one of the greatest players at his position during his time period. No he wasn’t Rickey Henderson but he was close enough that he warrants induction as well.
I would never vote for Jack Morris. His 3.90 ERA would be one of the worst of any pitcher in the Hall. His career ERA+ (adjusted for park and run-scoring environment) of 105 means he was barely an above-average pitcher. Yes he had a few great postseason games which is nice, but not enough to elevate an above-average pitcher to greatness.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
The problem with your position is how far does it go? How can we be sure anyone who played in the steroid era is clean? Would you vote in Pujols? Pedro? Jeter?
agreed. But any position is problematic.
I would elect people for whom I would be comfortable saying they didn't use. I'm sure I would be wrong in some cases. The three you mentioned, I would vote for all of them.
Very interesting post. I am kind of a Puritan regarding steroids, and would not vote in anyone who was caught using them, since they broke both the rules of the game and the law. And I don't for one second buy the argument that someone who was caught once only used them once, a la Andy Pettitte. Right, and I've had 1 speeding ticket in my life, and have never otherwise gone over the speed limit.
But I don't think it's fair to not vote in qualified people whom you suspect used PED's but who were not caught. So I would vote for Piazza and Pujols, even though I strongly suspect both of them have been users.
I like Jack Morris very much but agree that he's not a hall of famer.
It is very tough to distinguish the right thing to do and the guilty parties. Do I feel 100% sure Roberto Alomar was clean..no. But without proof (failed test, even Mitchell report) it is tough to keep people out. I am suprised you put Biggio in that group, I didnt really peg him as a steriod guy.
Bonds and Clemens are also tough for me (and i hate both of them as people) becuase I really feel they both had HOF type careers prior to the steriod era/use (alleged steriod use, I guess. So do they get judged for their career prior to say 1996? Or does the suspicion negate all? I'm glad I don't have to make these decisions.
I think we have to remember this is an honor, the highest honor in baseball. Do you deserve it just because for half of your great career you didn't cheat? Or because everyone else was doing it? It greatly cheapens the honor if guys like Clemens and Bonds get in.
Then again, if guys like Bagwell and Piazza get in, they're both great, but not as good as Bonds, and I believe they did the same thing. So should they get in just because they didn't get caught red-handed?
Yes, it's hard to do, yes it is messy, yes deserving people who never cheated will be wrongfully besmirched, and guilty people who hid it better will get in, but that's not a reason not to draw some kind of line.
I just had a good thought, actually inspired by something Chris Mad Dog Russo said. Why not wait until year 15 for guys like Piazza and Bagwell and others who have no direct link, only suspicion. If it is 20 years after retirement and nothing substantial emerges, then vote that person in. Now I know this will lead players to lie publicly for years, but it might be better than the alternative.
What you propose is exactly what I think about 20-30% of the writers were thinking w/ respect to Piazza and maybe Bagwell were thinking.
The 68% vote for Biggio actually doesn't seem unfair at all for the first ballot and doesn't suggest they think he was juicing. He has good career stats but if you go year by year there's not much that's overwhelming. He'll get in but I don't think you can call him a sure-fire, first ballot hall of famer.
Also, does anyone else find it a bit hypocritical that the same writers who won't vote in the guys with inflated stats because of steroid use/suspicion also won't vote in Crime Dog, probably because he was 7 HRs shy of 500? He was one of the best power hitters of the pre-steroid era and has never been suspected of using. I don't know how you can reconcile those two positions.
I think the answer is a lot of these writers are voting on emotion, instead of rationally trying to elect the best players. Unfortunate.
Post a Comment