Whichever side you're on of the Hall of Fame Steroids Debate ...

[DrungoHazewood]

I hear you on him sticking around too long and if that's part of your grudge against him, that's fine. I understand that line of thinking, too. But even in 1985 he still got on base at a .395 clip (86 walks vs 35 strikeouts). 1984, he got on base at a .359 clip. I don't think it's 100% right to slam his later years and write him off as a below replacement level player. Clearly, he brought some value to the table. Now I'm not sure what good he was as a defender and his power numbers near the end completely sucked but that's to be expected from a guy who never really hit for a ton of power in the first place.

He was what he was. From 1980-on he was a below-replacement player with no power and -5 defense playing first base. Can you imagine the outcry if the O's signed a 5' 11", 40-year-old first baseman with a .650 OPS and -5 defense and then played him every single day for three or four years so he could break a record? My goodness, when BJ Surhoff came back as a reserve outfielder for a year we assumed management was a bunch of baffoons.

[El Gordo]

What objective prove do you have that the ball was juiced during that era any more than it was before and more than it is now?

This makes interesting reading IMO.

http://highboskage.com/juiced-ball.shtml

http://steroids-and-baseball.com/changing-baseball.shtml

[osfan83]

The big issue for me is the difference between how a player found to be involved in gambling and an umpire found to be involved in gambling are treated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Garcia

"Controversies

In 1996, Garcia made a controversial call during Game 1 of the American League Championship Series between the Baltimore Orioles and the Yankees; he was umpiring in right field. In the 8th inning, the Yankees tied the game 4-4 when Derek Jeter hit a fly ball to right field that 12-year-old fan Jeffrey Maier pulled into the stands after reaching over the right field wall. Garcia ruled it a home run, but after seeing a replay admitted that he had made a mistake after the game; the Yankees won the game in 11 innings and would go on to win the series.[7][8]

Another call by Garcia that was questioned by some media members came in Game 1 of the 1998 World Series.[9][10] Padres pitcher Mark Langston appeared to have struck out Tino Martinez on a 2–2 pitch with the bases loaded and two outs in the 7th inning with the game tied at 5-5. Garcia, however, called the pitch a ball, and Martinez hit Langston's next pitch for a grand slam.[9]

Garcia took part in the 1999 Major League Umpires Association mass resignation which was engineered by Richie Phillips, the union's executive director. When the strategy backfired, Garcia lost his job because his resignation was one of the 22 accepted by Major League Baseball. After working as a consultant for the baseball commissioner's office, he was hired as a MLB umpire supervisor in 2002.[11] On March 8 of that year, the Daily News (New York City) disclosed that in 1989 he and National League umpire Frank Pulli had associated with Florida-based bookmakers who were known drug dealers. Three days later on March 11, the Boston Herald reported that, according to information collected from federal wiretaps, both umpires had problems paying off their gambling debts. The punishment MLB had applied to Garcia and Pulli at the time was only two years' probation.[12] Garcia, along with fellow supervisors Marty Springstead and Jim McKean, were ousted on March 6, 2010 as a result of a 2009 postseason which was plagued by various high-profile questionable calls that drew a firestorm of criticism from fans and the media.[13]"

An umpire has a greater chance to influence the outcome of a game than a player. When an umpire is found - through a federal investigation including wiretaps - to have serious gambling debts and is known to have had trouble repaying them, how can baseball justify giving him a slap on the wrist, while banning players for life? I can't put into words how angry I was when this came out in 2002, knowing that Garcia should have been fired in 1989 and never would have been the right field umpire that had a clear view of a fan interference, yet did not make the call. No one can tell me that was an honest mistake. No one. For that guy to later be made a supervisor of umpires compounds that travesty even further.

Sorry, rant over.

I agree 100%!

[brianod]

In 1920, Babe Ruth hit 54 homeruns. Before that time, the all time record was 29. The 1920s is an era famous for a juiced baseball. The juiced baseball had more of an effect then steroids. So, there is no logical way to exclude steroid users as you include stars from the 20s imho

[radar303]

I think that he will be let in AFTER he dies.....and for a guy like Pete that is the worst punishment of all. I think that other than making money... he wishes he could put HOF after his

name in Autograph sessions.

Also getting back to the "greenie" part of the thread... I recall a pitcher(80's) who would be ticked off that guys wouldn't "bean up" when he pitched a day game after a night game. His

name escapes me.... Help!

[Number5]

In 1920, Babe Ruth hit 54 homeruns. Before that time, the all time record was 29. The 1920s is an era famous for a juiced baseball. The juiced baseball had more of an effect then steroids. So, there is no logical way to exclude steroid users as you include stars from the 20s imho

I pretty much stay out of the steroid/HOF issue, as I think baseball or the Hall needs to lay out a policy for the voters, rather than leave them in limbo on what to do. I do, however, see a difference between the 2 circumstances you are comparing - and it is a big one, IMO. And that is that the players in the 20's broke no rules.

[Moose Milligan]

The big issue for me is the difference between how a player found to be involved in gambling and an umpire found to be involved in gambling are treated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Garcia

"Controversies

In 1996, Garcia made a controversial call during Game 1 of the American League Championship Series between the Baltimore Orioles and the Yankees; he was umpiring in right field. In the 8th inning, the Yankees tied the game 4-4 when Derek Jeter hit a fly ball to right field that 12-year-old fan Jeffrey Maier pulled into the stands after reaching over the right field wall. Garcia ruled it a home run, but after seeing a replay admitted that he had made a mistake after the game; the Yankees won the game in 11 innings and would go on to win the series.[7][8]

Another call by Garcia that was questioned by some media members came in Game 1 of the 1998 World Series.[9][10] Padres pitcher Mark Langston appeared to have struck out Tino Martinez on a 2–2 pitch with the bases loaded and two outs in the 7th inning with the game tied at 5-5. Garcia, however, called the pitch a ball, and Martinez hit Langston's next pitch for a grand slam.[9]

Garcia took part in the 1999 Major League Umpires Association mass resignation which was engineered by Richie Phillips, the union's executive director. When the strategy backfired, Garcia lost his job because his resignation was one of the 22 accepted by Major League Baseball. After working as a consultant for the baseball commissioner's office, he was hired as a MLB umpire supervisor in 2002.[11] On March 8 of that year, the Daily News (New York City) disclosed that in 1989 he and National League umpire Frank Pulli had associated with Florida-based bookmakers who were known drug dealers. Three days later on March 11, the Boston Herald reported that, according to information collected from federal wiretaps, both umpires had problems paying off their gambling debts. The punishment MLB had applied to Garcia and Pulli at the time was only two years' probation.[12] Garcia, along with fellow supervisors Marty Springstead and Jim McKean, were ousted on March 6, 2010 as a result of a 2009 postseason which was plagued by various high-profile questionable calls that drew a firestorm of criticism from fans and the media.[13]"

An umpire has a greater chance to influence the outcome of a game than a player. When an umpire is found - through a federal investigation including wiretaps - to have serious gambling debts and is known to have had trouble repaying them, how can baseball justify giving him a slap on the wrist, while banning players for life? I can't put into words how angry I was when this came out in 2002, knowing that Garcia should have been fired in 1989 and never would have been the right field umpire that had a clear view of a fan interference, yet did not make the call. No one can tell me that was an honest mistake. No one. For that guy to later be made a supervisor of umpires compounds that travesty even further.

Sorry, rant over.

Whoa. Wow, I had no idea about any of that. Mind blown.

He was what he was. From 1980-on he was a below-replacement player with no power and -5 defense playing first base. Can you imagine the outcry if the O's signed a 5' 11", 40-year-old first baseman with a .650 OPS and -5 defense and then played him every single day for three or four years so he could break a record? My goodness, when BJ Surhoff came back as a reserve outfielder for a year we assumed management was a bunch of baffoons.

Well in 1980 no one had any idea what OPS and -5 defense were

[DrungoHazewood]

In 1920, Babe Ruth hit 54 homeruns. Before that time, the all time record was 29. The 1920s is an era famous for a juiced baseball. The juiced baseball had more of an effect then steroids. So, there is no logical way to exclude steroid users as you include stars from the 20s imho

To tell the truth I'm not 100% sure they juiced the ball in 1920 or so. I think a couple other things happened: 1) Ruth basically gave a big middle finger to all of the managers and coaches who "knew" that swinging for the fences was counter-productive, proved his way worked, then a bunch of other players followed suit. And 2) they banned the spitball and started putting new balls in play all the time. Prior to the spitball ban you pretty much gave up in the late innings when you were trying to hit a soggy, misshapen, black baseball. It's no wonder Walter Johnson pitched 400 innings a year. Half of them were throwing a ball that looked like your pit bull just mauled it, to 5' 6", 140 lb singles hitters who choked up six inches.

If they juiced the ball that was just one of several factors that ended the dead ball era.

[Three Run Homer]

I have no problem with MLB banning players who gambled, or with these players being kicked out of the Hall of Fame. Gambling almost destroyed major league baseball in 1919. It makes sense to have a bright line banning players who gambled.

But steroid abuse can be argued to be just as serious to the integrity of the game as gambling. Steroid use not only gives some players an unfair advantage over others, but (unlike spitballs) it causes long-term health damage, and puts all players (including young amateurs) in an impossible prisoner's dilemma situation where they have to choose between damaging their health or putting themselves at a competitive disadvantage.

If I were running MLB, I would make steroid abuse just as bright of a line as gambling. I would ban steroid users from baseball and make them ineligible from the Hall. I suspect the only reason MLB hasn't done this is that certain owners were complicit in turning a blind eye towards the abuse that they knew was happening.

[DrungoHazewood]

If I were running MLB, I would make steroid abuse just as bright of a line as gambling. I would ban steroid users from baseball and make them ineligible from the Hall. I suspect the only reason MLB hasn't done this is that certain owners were complicit in turning a blind eye towards the abuse that they knew was happening.

The other reason is that it's impossible to ban steroid users. You can only ban people who have failed a drug test. Which leads to the situation we have now where people who have been caught are cheats, and anyone who hasn't (including many users) are just normal players. Except in your scenario you'd be banning the people who weren't good/rich/lucky/smart enough avoid detection, and bestowing great honors on those who were but still used.

It would be like giving out Awesome Driver Certificates to everyone who hasn't gotten a speeding ticket in the last year, knowing that much of the differentiation was just luck or a better radar detector.

[brianod]

I pretty much stay out of the steroid/HOF issue, as I think baseball or the Hall needs to lay out a policy for the voters, rather than leave them in limbo on what to do. I do, however, see a difference between the 2 circumstances you are comparing - and it is a big one, IMO. And that is that the players in the 20's broke no rules.

How about amphetamines? We don't ban those guys because the effect on performance wasn't as great as the effect of steroids. But, they broke the rules. So, the logic simply doesn't add up. Baseball has periodically adjusted rules/equipment that, at times had a greater effect then steroids. Players that had their stats balloon under those circunstances are golden. Guys that cheated with spitballs are ok. Guys that cheated with uppers are ok. But, guys that cheated with steroids and saw improvement from steroid use are not ok?

[Nigel Tufnel]

In 1920, Babe Ruth hit 54 homeruns. Before that time, the all time record was 29. The 1920s is an era famous for a juiced baseball. The juiced baseball had more of an effect then steroids. So, there is no logical way to exclude steroid users as you include stars from the 20s imho

Wait, that doesn't make any sense. Everybody used the new balls - the complaint against steroids is that certain players got an unfair advantage.

[DrungoHazewood]

Wait, that doesn't make any sense. Everybody used the new balls - the complaint against steroids is that certain players got an unfair advantage.

Everyone used the new balls, but the most advantage was given to players who fit what we now call the modern game - guys with tons of batspeed and uppercuts. The guys who used 44 ounce bats and dropped the bathead into the zone and just tried to not strike out... well, the main effect the jackrabbit ball had on them was that their Texas Leaguers and dying quails ended up in outfielders' gloves. Not that I'm saying changing the ball is just like cheating or anything like that, but whenever you change the conditions the game is played in you're picking winners and losers.

[brianod]

Wait, that doesn't make any sense. Everybody used the new balls - the complaint against steroids is that certain players got an unfair advantage.

Everyone used the baseballs but everyone from other eras didn't. When you compete for the hall of fame you are competing against all players from all eras. There is the real fallacy. I would argue that 500 homeruns in the 60's is a hell of an accom

[brianod]

Everyone used the baseballs but everyone from other eras didn't. When you compete for the hall of fame you are competing against all players from all eras. There is the real fallacy. I would argue that 500 homeruns in the 60's is a hell of an accom

Bottom line is the hall of fame voting is an art, not a science anyway. If a guy is a clear hall of famer, he should be in. The most I could see is to not vote for close calls if steroid use is proven.