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

[CA-ORIOLE]

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.

Yeah this is right. They changed the ball around 1910 which led to some increase in offense until pitchers came up with scuffballs/spitballs etc.. I don't think there were any significant changes to the ball after that until WW2. I'm pretty sure balls of the 20's/30's were tested and shown to be the same from the 1910-1919 era. When the scuffballs/spitball etc. were eliminated and changing out the ball regularly (late teens/early 20's) was instituted, there weren't a lot of guys around who couldn't really pitch without the tricks. Parks/moving in fences etc I'm sure had something to do with it as well.

[Nigel Tufnel]

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.

Yeah, no doubt. There have been rule, technology, and strategy changes and they have each helped some players and hurt others. But I don't think the argument against steroid users has anything to do with the fact that offense increased, as brianod seemed to be saying. The problem is that people feel that players who "cheated" got a huge unfair advantage.

[DrungoHazewood]

Yeah this is right. They changed the ball around 1910 which led to some increase in offense until pitchers came up with scuffballs/spitballs etc.. I don't think there were any significant changes to the ball after that until WW2. I'm pretty sure balls of the 20's/30's were tested and shown to be same from the 1910-1919 era. When the scuffballs/spitball etc. were eliminated and changing out the ball regularly (late teens/early 20's) was institituted, there weren't a lot of guys around who could really pitch without the tricks. Parks/moving in fences etc I'm sure had something to do with it as well.

There was a strong belief among the players that the ball itself had been changed, even if it hadn't. You can find all kinds of quotes from Ty Cobb lamenting the end of "scientific baseball" with the advent of the jackrabbit ball. It was a big controversy at the time, basically mimicking what we saw in the 90s, with the oldtimers complaining that homers were for Neanderthals and thinking men liked steals and sac hits.

[brianod]

Yeah, no doubt. There have been rule, technology, and strategy changes and they have each helped some players and hurt others. But I don't think the argument against steroid users has anything to do with the fact that offense increased, as brianod seemed to be saying. The problem is that people feel that players who "cheated" got a huge unfair advantage.

We can't define the benefit that steroids gave players.

We don't know who was on steroids (in all cases)

The only reason to ban steroid users but not spitballers and not amphetamine users is an unproven judgment that steroid users benefitted more then other cheaters.

Rule changes and equipment changes have, at times, had a greater effect across eras then steroids.

Add all this up and there is no fair and measured way to ban players that used steroids.

I'm not defending their actions, I'm simply saying that banning some cheaters and not others is an untenable and illogical argument

[Number5]

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?

What I meant by "I pretty much stay out of the steroid/HOF issue" was that I pretty much stay out of the steroid/HOF issue. Your comment about the possibility of the balls being changed in the 1920's, though, was totally unrelated to the question of whether certain players were gaining unfair advantage by breaking the rules. 100% of players playing at the time used the same ball. There is a tremendous difference between the two situations.

[brianod]

What I meant by "I pretty much stay out of the steroid/HOF issue" was that I pretty much stay out of the steroid/HOF issue. Your comment about the possibility of the balls being changed in the 1920's, though, was totally unrelated to the question of whether certain players were gaining unfair advantage by breaking the rules. 100% of players playing at the time used the same ball. There is a tremendous difference between the two situations.

Everyone playing with a juiced ball is a fallacious argument. Every one in 1920 who played with a juiced ball had an unfair advantage. Every pitcher who pitched from a higher mound had an unfair advantage. Every steroid user had an unfair advantage. My point is you can't logically defend eliminating some unfair advantages and not others. Also, you can't justify accepting some cheaters while banning others.

[brianod]

Or, to put it another way, Clemens may have had an unfair advantage over Mussina if Mussina didn't take steroids. But, when you compete for the hall of fame, you are competing against all players from all eras. Clemens is competing against Walter Johnson, lefty grove and bob Gibson. Gibson pitched in the pitchers era, off a high mound against lineups that didn't have a dh. Clemens pitched in a hitters era against the dh, against other steroid users. So, when comparing the two, it is simplistic and wrong to say Clemens took steroids so his stats don't count. Steroids should be a negative but it doesn't disqualify imho

[24fps]

We can't define the benefit that steroids gave players.

We don't know who was on steroids (in all cases)

The only reason to ban steroid users but not spitballers and not amphetamine users is an unproven judgment that steroid users benefitted more then other cheaters.

Rule changes and equipment changes have, at times, had a greater effect across eras then steroids.

Add all this up and there is no fair and measured way to ban players that used steroids.

I'm not defending their actions, I'm simply saying that banning some cheaters and not others is an untenable and illogical argument

It looks like you're suggesting that evaluating the degree of one person's transgression should somehow be contingent on someone else's different, sometimes categorically different, transgression. I don't see why any linkage is indicated. To argue that one person's wrong action is justified by another's is an example of the tu quoque logical fallacy.

You also seem to be suggesting that because complete knowledge isn't possible, partial knowledge should be considered invalid. How does that follow?

Rule changes and equipment changes are not analogous to PED usage in any way that I can see. You're suggesting that they are, creating a false analogy IMO.

The presumptive need for a "fair and measured way" as a starting point unnecessarily clouds the issue because it's impossible to treat MLB PED abusers as a class in any practical way. What is illogical is to conclude that because some ballplayers won't get caught, we should therefore let that affect the way we treat those who do get caught.

[brianod]

It looks like you're suggesting that evaluating the degree of one person's transgression should somehow be contingent on someone else's different, sometimes categorically different, transgression. I don't see why any linkage is indicated. To argue that one person's wrong action is justified by another's is an example of the tu quoque logical fallacy.

You also seem to be suggesting that because complete knowledge isn't possible, partial knowledge should be considered invalid. How does that follow?

Rule changes and equipment changes are not analogous to PED usage in any way that I can see. You're suggesting that they are, creating a false analogy IMO.

The presumptive need for a "fair and measured way" as a starting point unnecessarily clouds the issue because it's impossible to treat MLB PED abusers as a class in any practical way. What is illogical is to conclude that because some ballplayers won't get caught, we should therefore let that affect the way we treat those who do get caught.

I don't try to justify steroid use. Nor do I condone amphetamine use. Both are harmful to the individual and the sport. My argument starts with the premise that you can't ban admitted steroid users from the hall of fame because we have already admitted other players that used other drugs. If you accept that, it all boils down to performance. If it all boils down to performance, steroid use should be factored in in some manner, much like statistical models try to factor in era of play. How much steroids should be a negative factor is debatable. The premise that admitted use is not a disqualifier is also debatable. I just think it would be a travesty to ban Bonds while admitting a marginal player who didn't get caught

[weams]

I don't try to justify steroid use. Nor do I condone amphetamine use. Both are harmful to the individual and the sport. My argument starts with the premise that you can't ban admitted steroid users from the hall of fame because we have already admitted other players that used other drugs. If you accept that, it all boils down to performance ENHANCEMENT.

I think many, including myself would indicate that steroids enhanced performance more, and in a more devastating way than any other drug use.

[24fps]

I don't try to justify steroid use. Nor do I condone amphetamine use. Both are harmful to the individual and the sport. My argument starts with the premise that you can't ban admitted steroid users from the hall of fame because we have already admitted other players that used other drugs. If you accept that, it all boils down to performance. If it all boils down to performance, steroid use should be factored in in some manner, much like statistical models try to factor in era of play. How much steroids should be a negative factor is debatable. The premise that admitted use is not a disqualifier is also debatable. I just think it would be a travesty to ban Bonds while admitting a marginal player who didn't get caught

I think a bigger travesty would be to abandon reason for expediency or worse, laziness. Why should a mistake automatically be elevated to the status of precedent? In what other avenue of life would you accept the proposition that one man's misdeed should license another's? PED's and the HOF is an issue that's so long-standing and complex that fairness across the board is no longer possible and that truly is a travesty. But complexity is merely an understandable reason for throwing up one's hands, not an excuse to do so. The attempt to apply standards in an environment where absolute success is not possible is worthwhile nonetheless.

[brianod]

I think many, including myself would indicate that steroids enhanced performance more, and in a more devastating way than any other drug use.

I agree that steroids have a larger performance enhancement effect then other drugs. So, my premise is that it should be considered as a larger negative then other drug use. But my argument remains that it should not be a disqualifier. Bonds made the hall before he started taking steroids and should not be banned because of his steroid use or the fact that he was an arrogant jerk. We have to be consistent. If we admit many players who used amphetamines without even considering that use a negative, I see no problem with admitting players that took steroids after making a large negative deduction from their stats due to that fact.

[brianod]

I think a bigger travesty would be to abandon reason for expediency or worse, laziness. Why should a mistake automatically be elevated to the status of precedent? In what other avenue of life would you accept the proposition that one man's misdeed should license another's? PED's and the HOF is an issue that's so long-standing and complex that fairness across the board is no longer possible and that truly is a travesty. But complexity is merely an understandable reason for throwing up one's hands, not an excuse to do so. The attempt to apply standards in an environment where absolute success is not possible is worthwhile nonetheless.

I would argue that my solution is the most complex and least expedient solution. I'm saying to deduct the positive performance you think a player got from using PEDs and then make the judgment. The expedient solution would be to ignore the fact they used PEDs or ban them outright.

[weams]

I agree that steroids have a larger performance enhancement effect then other drugs. So, my premise is that it should be considered as a larger negative then other drug use. But my argument remains that it should not be a disqualifier. Bonds made the hall before he started taking steroids and should not be banned because of his steroid use or the fact that he was an arrogant jerk. We have to be consistent. If we admit many players who used amphetamines without even considering that use a negative, I see no problem with admitting players that took steroids after making a large negative deduction from their stats due to that fact.

I never said ban Bonds. I said don't vote for him. He may have used before Balco, but he definitely did afterwards. I never said ban anyone. Heck I don't want Shoeless Joe or Pete banned. Just don't vote for the undeserving.

[brianod]

I never said ban Bonds. I said don't vote for him. He may have used before Balco, but he definitely did afterwards. I never said ban anyone. Heck I don't want Shoeless Joe or Pete banned. Just don't vote for the undeserving.

We are on the same page except for Bonds. I say let Pete in, let Jackson in, let Bonds in. Bonds is not undeserving, you can deduct the last 6 years of his career and he would still be deserving. When we set ourselves up as paragons of virtue who somehow know who should be in what hall of fame, we set ourselves up to fail. Laurence Taylor should be in the football hall of fame because he was a game changing, tremendous football player. The fact that he was an arrogant, obnoxious drug addict doesn't change that fact. Ty Cobb should be in the baseball hall of fame. The fact that he was a deranged bigot doesn't change the fact that he is one of the ten best baseball players of all time. The moralist argument is a slippery slope that we don't want to go down imho.