(01-07-2015 04:46 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(01-07-2015 04:01 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Sorry you are tired of it... the recent HOF brought it back to light. I'm personally tired of people saying if you don't have hard evidence then you have to assume innocence. There is simply not going to be hard evidence available on the majority of those players who were taking steroids during this era. You are, in essence, going to reward that percentage of players who did it without getting caught.

That's a fundamental tenet of our justice system. Otherwise, its a witch hunt.

Yes... but does the justice system apply to voting for baseball's HOF? We're not talking about capital punishment here. I don't think the same standards apply. You are right about it being a witch hunt but the other option is turning a blind eye towards the cheaters.

(01-07-2015 04:46 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(01-07-2015 04:01 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Sorry you are tired of it... the recent HOF brought it back to light. I'm personally tired of people saying if you don't have hard evidence then you have to assume innocence. There is simply not going to be hard evidence available on the majority of those players who were taking steroids during this era. You are, in essence, going to reward that percentage of players who did it without getting caught.

That's a fundamental tenet of our justice system. Otherwise, its a witch hunt.

No one is saying Bagwell or Luis Gonzalez or Brady Anerson or Mo Vaughan should go to jail.

We're talking about the Hall of Fame, not an inalienable right

(01-07-2015 04:07 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(01-07-2015 03:54 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(01-07-2015 03:27 PM)At Ease Wrote:  [quote='Rice93' pid='11631564' dateline='1420660251']
Somewhat related...

Bagwell's numbers are pretty much unassailable. That being said, his candidacy is clouded by suspicions of steroid use. I don't agree with those commentator's who say that it is ridiculous to hold off on voting with him based on suspicions.

Minor league stats for
Player 1: Player 2:
Games 212 483
BA .321 .259
2B 48 85
HR 6 23
Slg .436 .368
OPS .847 .714

Player 1 is Bagwell and Player 2 is Adam Everett. Power numbers not that dissimilar.

This is weak analysis, given the differences in duration that both were in the minors, the quality of competition both faced before entering pro ball, and the expectations of their defensive positions. Not to mention that a .133 difference in OPS is arguably quite dissimilar.

Minor league HR/game played
Bagwell 0.028
Everett 0.047

May not be significant but I find it interesting nonetheless.

Since you are going there:

1989 Florida League Average Slugging Pct: .338
Bagwell in 1989: .419

1990 Eastern League Average Slugging Pct: .344
Bagwell in 1990: .457

2000 Pacific Coast League Average Slugging Pct: .435
Everett in 2000: .342

2001 Pacific Coast League Average Slugging Pct: .437
Everett in 2001: .365

2002 Pacific Coast League Average Slugging Pct: .427
Everett in 2002: .380

2003 Pacific Coast League Average Slugging Pct: .414
Everett in 2003: .360

Bagwell played his minor league ball in a place where homers were suppressed due to the ballpark, weather, etc. Bob Ryan of the Boston Globe discussed this here: http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_...-travesty. However, homers aren't the only number that defines power. Slugging percentage, IMO, is a better metric of how well someone is driving the ball. Clearly Bagwell was well above average and Everett was below average.

I think we set a bad precedent because we are going to hold people out of the Hall because we "think" they cheated or because they "looked" different (BTW, Bagwell looked pretty jacked here https://twitter.com/keithlaw/status/551918915329482752 ). I think it is also horrendous to just try to wipe away as much of the late 80s, 90s, and early 00s because baseball writers feel like they have to be the moral authority. If we are going to start keeping cheaters and "suspected" cheaters out (whether there is any hard evidence to suspect them or not), then we need to start taking cheaters out who are already in the HOF like: pitchers who doctored the ball, or threw spitballs, or players who took greenies to give them some pep. Maybe we shouldn't stop at cheaters since the BBWAA has made this some kind of a moral question. Maybe we should start looking at a player's character too...don't think Ty Cobb would last long then.

If it wasn't for the fact that Bagwell and Biggio were involved in this, I would try to ignore this farce of a voting process. But, since they are, I get sucked into this every year.

(01-07-2015 04:51 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(01-07-2015 04:46 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(01-07-2015 04:01 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Sorry you are tired of it... the recent HOF brought it back to light. I'm personally tired of people saying if you don't have hard evidence then you have to assume innocence. There is simply not going to be hard evidence available on the majority of those players who were taking steroids during this era. You are, in essence, going to reward that percentage of players who did it without getting caught.

That's a fundamental tenet of our justice system. Otherwise, its a witch hunt.

Yes... but does the justice system apply to voting for baseball's HOF? We're not talking about capital punishment here. I don't think the same standards apply. You are right about it being a witch hunt but the other option is turning a blind eye towards the alleged cheaters.

Added the key word here.

Sure, this isn't the criminal justice system. But it seems questionable at best to guess as to who is innocent and who is guilty of PED use without real evidence.

(01-07-2015 05:40 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(01-07-2015 04:51 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(01-07-2015 04:46 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(01-07-2015 04:01 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Sorry you are tired of it... the recent HOF brought it back to light. I'm personally tired of people saying if you don't have hard evidence then you have to assume innocence. There is simply not going to be hard evidence available on the majority of those players who were taking steroids during this era. You are, in essence, going to reward that percentage of players who did it without getting caught.

That's a fundamental tenet of our justice system. Otherwise, its a witch hunt.

Yes... but does the justice system apply to voting for baseball's HOF? We're not talking about capital punishment here. I don't think the same standards apply. You are right about it being a witch hunt but the other option is turning a blind eye towards the alleged cheaters.

Added the key word here.

Sure, this isn't the criminal justice system. But it seems questionable at best to guess as to who is innocent and who is guilty of PED use without real evidence.

With estimates that up to 40% of MLB players were juicing in that era, and the fact that every person who we now know juiced emphatically denied using PEDs until caught or implicated by others, unfortunately you do have to start questioning numbers that suddenly changed, or uncharacteristic career arcs and sudden changes in physical traits or physique. When some of these occurrences appear in groups, and there are associations with others who are or were known steroid users, I think it is fair to ask questions. It was done with Bonds, Palmiero and others before they were "caught".

I read a Bagwell interview from about 2001 (?) on the subject and with the customary denial, there was also some vintage Bill Clintonesque responses and a lack of outrage, and sympathy or at least empathetic understanding expressed for those who gave in to the temptation to juice (and the opinion that the player's union was too strong to let things change - wrong as it eventually turned out)

I have had to face the strong possibility that some players I used to look up to likely used PEDs. One has been in the HOF for quite some time and his name is almost never mentioned in that context, another is still playing and appears to be impacted by the change in scrutiny.

That Bagwell has staunch defenders in Houston doesn't surprise me. When some of the guys I rooted for are eligible come up for a vote, I will not be surprised if they are held out for awhile (like Bonds and Clemens) or kept out perhaps completely (Palmeiro)

I understand that not everyone thinks it is a big deal, but I feel bad for those like Berkman who had a fairly typical career arc for a hitter or Frank Thomas who I think was the Eddie Mathews/Willie McCovey of his, but who had to share what became a stage crowded with bulked up players whose numbers may have been good, but less spectacular without help.

Does the HOF museum have a collection or exhibit about juicing?

Congrats to Biggio! He seems like a nice guy. And I have his autograph!

Hell, baseball players have always used PEDs of one form or another. Babe Ruth used them, Lou Gehrig used them, Stan f-ing Musial used them (read "The Long Season," which was "Ball Four" before "Ball Four," if you doubt this). And everybody involved knew what the hell was going on. "Hey Doc, give me a couple of those green pills and don't tell me what they are," is pretty clear.

All this moral outrage strikes me kind of like the character in Casablanca when he learns that gambling is going on. Forgive the sins of the past, buckle down hard in the present and the future.

(01-07-2015 09:27 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Hell, baseball players have always used PEDs of one form or another. Babe Ruth used them, Lou Gehrig used them, Stan f-ing Musial used them (read "The Long Season," which was "Ball Four" before "Ball Four," if you doubt this). And everybody involved knew what the hell was going on. "Hey Doc, give me a couple of those green pills and don't tell me what they are," is pretty clear.

All this moral outrage strikes me kind of like the character in Casablanca when he learns that gambling is going on. Forgive the sins of the past, buckle down hard in the present and the future.

Nice a Jim Brosnan reference. Jim passed away in June and I was pleasantly surprised that there were so many articles about him. The Long Season and Pennant Race were every bit as good as Ball Four and you had to love the fact even his wife called him Meat.

From the Columbia Journalism Review an article from Michael Shapiro about Brosnan in 2009.

http://www.cjr.org/second_read/of_heroes...print=true

(01-07-2015 09:27 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Hell, baseball players have always used PEDs of one form or another. Babe Ruth used them, Lou Gehrig used them, Stan f-ing Musial used them (read "The Long Season," which was "Ball Four" before "Ball Four," if you doubt this). And everybody involved knew what the hell was going on. "Hey Doc, give me a couple of those green pills and don't tell me what they are," is pretty clear.

All this moral outrage strikes me kind of like the character in Casablanca when he learns that gambling is going on. Forgive the sins of the past, buckle down hard in the present and the future.

+1. As a Cards fan, i felt those same sentiments when McGwire was getting roasted. At the time, Bob Gibson said that if steroids had been around in his era and would have made him better, he would have used them. Spit balls, greenies, corked bats and PEDs were all legal before they became illegal under baseball's rules.

While not justifying the use of amphetamines, comparing their impact on performance to the impact from steroids, HGH and the like is a little disingenuous. We're talking orders of magnitude difference.

From 1966 to 1990, two players reached 50 homers.

Look at what happened in the 1990's, and the single season homer record which had stood at 60 since 1927, and only bumped by 1 with an 8 game increase in schedule, suddenly went up by 20%.

We're talking about physically altering human beings.

(01-07-2015 05:40 PM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(01-07-2015 04:07 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(01-07-2015 03:54 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(01-07-2015 03:27 PM)At Ease Wrote:  [quote='Rice93' pid='11631564' dateline='1420660251']
Somewhat related...

Bagwell's numbers are pretty much unassailable. That being said, his candidacy is clouded by suspicions of steroid use. I don't agree with those commentator's who say that it is ridiculous to hold off on voting with him based on suspicions.

Minor league stats for
Player 1: Player 2:
Games 212 483
BA .321 .259
2B 48 85
HR 6 23
Slg .436 .368
OPS .847 .714

Player 1 is Bagwell and Player 2 is Adam Everett. Power numbers not that dissimilar.

This is weak analysis, given the differences in duration that both were in the minors, the quality of competition both faced before entering pro ball, and the expectations of their defensive positions. Not to mention that a .133 difference in OPS is arguably quite dissimilar.

Minor league HR/game played
Bagwell 0.028
Everett 0.047

May not be significant but I find it interesting nonetheless.

Since you are going there:

1989 Florida League Average Slugging Pct: .338
Bagwell in 1989: .419

1990 Eastern League Average Slugging Pct: .344
Bagwell in 1990: .457

2000 Pacific Coast League Average Slugging Pct: .435
Everett in 2000: .342

2001 Pacific Coast League Average Slugging Pct: .437
Everett in 2001: .365

2002 Pacific Coast League Average Slugging Pct: .427
Everett in 2002: .380

2003 Pacific Coast League Average Slugging Pct: .414
Everett in 2003: .360

Bagwell played his minor league ball in a place where homers were suppressed due to the ballpark, weather, etc. Bob Ryan of the Boston Globe discussed this here: http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_...-travesty. However, homers aren't the only number that defines power. Slugging percentage, IMO, is a better metric of how well someone is driving the ball. Clearly Bagwell was well above average and Everett was below average.

Interesting... what do the numbers look like for both players once they hit the majors?

(01-07-2015 05:40 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(01-07-2015 04:51 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(01-07-2015 04:46 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(01-07-2015 04:01 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Sorry you are tired of it... the recent HOF brought it back to light. I'm personally tired of people saying if you don't have hard evidence then you have to assume innocence. There is simply not going to be hard evidence available on the majority of those players who were taking steroids during this era. You are, in essence, going to reward that percentage of players who did it without getting caught.

That's a fundamental tenet of our justice system. Otherwise, its a witch hunt.

Yes... but does the justice system apply to voting for baseball's HOF? We're not talking about capital punishment here. I don't think the same standards apply. You are right about it being a witch hunt but the other option is turning a blind eye towards the alleged cheaters.

Added the key word here.

Sure, this isn't the criminal justice system. But it seems questionable at best to guess as to who is innocent and who is guilty of PED use without real evidence.

Well...if Family Law judges can use their "discretion" to ignore state laws and statutes, why be bothered if individual baseball sports writers, who have no such obligation to meet any legal standards, use their discretion to decide who they wish to vote for and what criteria they will and will not use?

I still don't like the "holier than thou" attitude that so many have taken on this. It really does remind me of Captain Renault (was struggling for the name earlier) being shocked, shocked that gambling is taking place at Rick's. Baseball players have always used PEDs of one form or another, some legal, some almost assuredly not. You don't go through the wear and tear of a 154/162 game season without some help.

Everybody looked the other way for decades, then all of a sudden it became this terrible thing. I just don't buy it. Nobody really got excited until the PEDs themselves became much more potent. I started to say both illegal and much more potent, but the truth is that many of them were illegal, at least in the ways that they were being used, going back to Ruth and Cobb and Mathewson.

I also find it somewhat troubling that many of the self-righteous sportswriters and sportscasters who are most critical of Barry Bonds will turn around and argue that Marvin Miller belongs in the HOF. If not for Marvin Miller, the drug problem would have been cleaned up a lot quicker and we wouldn't have had the steroids version of Barry Bonds, just the earlier version who was a solid HOFer in his own right. I've been asked would I vote for Marvin Miller for the HOF. My answer has always been, "When you vote for Barry Bonds, I'll vote for Marvin Miller."

Some rather blurry pictures of this afternoons Craig Biggio Day festivities at Minute Maid Park:

https://www.facebook.com/george.webb.319...618&type=3

I discovered after the fact that at least one other Parliamentarian was there as well.

(01-09-2015 08:01 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  Some rather blurry pictures of this afternoons Craig Biggio Day festivities at Minute Maid Park:

https://www.facebook.com/george.webb.319...618&type=3

I discovered after the fact that at least one other Parliamentarian was there as well.

Sorry, this profile is unavailable...