John Fay Abstains from HOF Voting to Avoid Casting Votes for Bonds and Clemens

[AtomicDumpling]

Originally Posted by M2

Come on now, that's not even at 10% of my diatribe capabilities. I yawn more stridently than that.



I think the problem is that you're now randomly picking good guys and bad guys. Were the Braves clean? Supposedly yes, but maybe we just think that because their local media whistled past the PED use. And you're throwing Sosa under the bus based on what evidence?

My point is you have no idea whether PED use was concentrated on a handful of teams, let alone who those teams might have been (Philly was a glaring omission and the Yankees were a questionable inclusion). You can't make a comprehensive list of juicers. You can't even make an accurate partial list of juicers outside of guys who've been caught or admitted to juicing (and it's not just you, no one can).

I don't disagree that GMs, managers and owners tacitly, or in some cases overtly, condoned PED use, but I'll guarantee your rogues gallery is incomplete and, in cases, possibly mistaken. Maybe the winning teams in MLB were a bit like Lance Armstrong, beating out a well-medicated pack of challengers.

We don't know and I don't see how more uninformed suspicion does anything other than make the whole mess more convoluted.

Let's not pretend that we don't know which teams gained the biggest advantage from steroids. There is a ton of information out there for us to make an informed opinion. My suspicions are not uninformed at all. The Mitchell Report, Canseco's books, Caminiti's revelations, the Balco investigation, numerous court cases involving players, the Game of Shadows book, Congressional hearings and the list goes on and on. There is plenty of information out there to help us form a very complete picture of the situation. We even know exactly which drug most of them took. This is not guesswork. Do the research before you criticize someone else's opinion as uninformed suspicion.

We don't know every single player who took 'roids, especially during the later years of the steroid era when usage was widespread around the league. We do know which players were the heaviest users. It is likely that many players dabbled with PEDs and never got exposed, but the worst offenders are in the public record. My posts made no attempt to list all the cheaters because that is completely irrelevant to the point I was making. I was only giving a few examples of teams that had managers or general managers who will make the Hall of Fame.

In the early years of the steroid era the usage of PEDs was limited to a few teams, some of which had managers and general managers who are likely to be inducted into the Hall of Fame someday. They are just as guilty of cheating as the players who took PEDs because they allowed the cheating and may even have encouraged the players to cheat. My point was that those managers and general managers should be held to the same moral standard as the players.

[M2]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

Let's not pretend that we don't know which teams gained the biggest advantage from steroids. There is a ton of information out there for us to make an informed opinion. My suspicions are not uninformed at all. The Mitchell Report, Canseco's books, Caminiti's revelations, the Balco investigation, numerous court cases involving players, the Game of Shadows book, Congressional hearings and the list goes on and on. There is plenty of information out there to help us form a very complete picture of the situation. This is not guesswork. Do the research before you criticize someone else's opinion as uninformed suspicion.

That's an incredibly limited picture. We have no idea what was happening in Seattle or San Diego or Chicago (either one) or most MLB clubhouses where reporters never bothered to write about PED use. Neither nor you nor I nor anyone walking this planet has anything like a clear picture of how widespread PED use in MLB. What you're doing is acting like the limited and hazy information you have is something near complete. It isn't and the conclusions you're drawing from it are baseless.

[AtomicDumpling]

Originally Posted by M2

That's an incredibly limited picture. We have no idea what was happening in Seattle or San Diego or Chicago (either one) or most MLB clubhouses where reporters never bothered to write about PED use. Neither nor you nor I nor anyone walking this planet has anything like a clear picture of how widespread PED use in MLB. What you're doing is acting like the limited and hazy information you have is something near complete. It isn't and the conclusions you're drawing from it are baseless.

I think you need to do a LOT more research. Just because you don't know doesn't mean other people don't know either.

[M2]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

I think you need to do a LOT more research. Just because you don't know doesn't mean other people don't know either.

You just listed the pretty much the whole, pathetically small pile of what we know about PED use in baseball. The Mitchell report was a cursory overview. Game of Shadows is a great book, but it's mostly about a single guy. Canseco didn't play for every team in MLB. You're taking a sliver of information and acting like those are all the bad guys, when it is just as possible reporters either willfully or blithely ignored rampant PED use in every clubhouse in MLB. I can't do a LOT more research and neither can your nor anyone else, because the media allowed this go on right under their noses.

The point is you don't know squat about this. For all you know, MLB had 30 dirty teams. There's a handful of guys who've been caught or admitted use, or been directly implicated by teammates or clubhouse personnel. Everything else, and that pretty much encompasses most of what you've typed on this subject, is speculation.

[westofyou]

http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-tr...l-hall-of-fame

Let's focus on amphetamines for a moment, or "diet pills" as Verducci calls them. There's a reason that players took them: They enhanced performance. Whether for a hot August doubleheader, a day game after a night game at the end of a long road trip, or a season-long upper to keep players sharper and more alert for games, the idea in taking them was always to perform better than you would have without them. So if we're talking intent, amphetamines and the substances grouped under the broad heading of steroids are the same. Players want an edge, so they take 'em. Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, Mickey Mantle, and Mike Schmidt took amphetamines during their playing days. I have yet to read an argument by anyone, anywhere, advocating for kicking those four legends out of the Hall.

So we're OK with players taking substances to enhance their performance, and crossing gray areas when it comes to making themselves better. That leaves the argument that steroids are qualitatively different than other performance-enhancing substances, and that it's the specific choice of substance that should determine whether or not a player warrants induction. OK then — show us. Show us exactly how much better Barry Bonds was using performance-enhancing drugs than he would have been if he'd relied only on his otherworldly talent, hellacious workout routines, and strict health habits. I'd say do the same for Roger Clemens, except Clemens never tested positive for anything and has vehemently denied using PEDs. (We have no evidence that Mike Piazza used them other than Murray Chass's crusade to rid the world of bacne, or that Jeff Bagwell used other than that the guy lifted a lot, hit a lot of home runs in the '90s, and was bros with Ken Caminiti.)

Of course, no one can show us. Not doctors speaking in general terms about the effects of steroids without having any particular insight into these particular individuals, and certainly not baseball writers.

[Dom Heffner]

Amphetamines didn't produce the offensive output we saw. Absolutley, positivley nothing of the sort.

To compare an "upper" with drugs that altered players physical appearance and increased muscle mass...you're not playing fair. Again, look at the number of 50 homer seasons during this era: more than all of baseball history combined. You used to blame the parks, pitching...funny, same parks, same pitching, not so many 50 homer seasons. Funny how that works out.

You can throw your head in the sand and talk about Gaylord Perry or how we don't know who was doing it and who wasn't...

I would say it's safe to say that Bonds and Clemens used, wouldn't you?

[jojo]

Originally Posted by Dom Heffner

Amphetamines didn't produce the offensive output we saw. Absolutley, positivley nothing of the sort.

To compare an "upper" with drugs that altered players physical appearance and increased muscle mass...you're not playing fair. Again, look at the number of 50 homer seasons during this era: more than all of baseball history combined. You used to blame the parks, pitching...funny, same parks, same pitching, not so many 50 homer seasons. Funny how that works out.

You can throw your head in the sand and talk about Gaylord Perry or how we don't know who was doing it and who wasn't...

I would say it's safe to say that Bonds and Clemens used, wouldn't you?

Lets be as accurate as possible. I would say its safe to say that Bonds and Clemens played in an era where steroid use was rampant and counting stats were inflated. Bonds and Clemens were generational players in that culture/context. Really, what can we say with specifics that truly informs the discussion in a way that doesn't involve assumptions that are based upon very little information? The problem with such assumptions is that they might lead to grossly innaccurate conclusions.

Also, I have a hard time with the argument that rampant amphetamine abuse was boys being boys but using the PED 2.0 version suddenly tainted the game.

Define the context of the era and compare players within their proper context. IMHO this discussion gets unnecesarily muddied because the offensive production of the "steroid era" somehow taints a nostalgic romantacism of the past and that seems to be unforgivable for alot of people. Mickey is still Mickey and the Duke is still the Duke. Ruth still was an alien. Bonds just happens to be the greatest position player to play in one of the most prolific offensive environments in the game's history. Clemens was his kryptonite.

This isn't hard.

[redsmetz]

I'm always struck by Buck O'Neil's comments about steroid's in Joe Poz's book The Soul of Baseball (which, BTW, I highly recommend). Basically he said players have always looked for that extra edge and the only reason they didn't take them was because they didn't have them.

http://www.realclearsports.com/lists..._steroids.html

[M2]

Supposedly one of the big performance drags in baseball is the daily wear and tear of the game - that hammy you strained rounding second in Pittsburgh, the wrist that's hurting since you got beaned in Philly, your back which you somehow tweaked on the trip out to L.A. and then got worse when you dove for that ball in San Diego, the sun hammering down on you in day games.

Anything that picks you up and gets you past the lethargy of that daily grind is going to help your performance. During the '60s and '70s we saw a boom in 200 hit seasons, IP by starting pitchers and stolen bases. You'll also find a number of players high up the career leader boards for HR and RBI from those decades even though it was supposedly a pitching era. Do I think amphetamines helped those players play near their peak on a more regular basis? I sure do.

[RedsBaron]

In this thread Mickey Mantle, Willie Mays and Hank Aaron have all been accused of taking greenies, "red juice" and other performance enhancers to help them get through a season's long grind. However their career paths are not that unusual for inner circle Hall of Famers. Mantle had his last great season at age 32; there are dozens of players who sustained their greatness at ages older than that. Mays had his last great season at age 35. While it is more uncommon for a player to still be great at that age, a number of inner circle Hall of Famers, such as Ruth, Cobb, Ted Williams and Stan Musial were still great players at that age and older, with no evidence of any PEDS use stronger than booze. Aaron had his last great season at age 39, when he hit 40 HRs, but part of Aaron's seemingly refusal to decline was caused by park effects, with the Braves moving from a bad HR park to a great HR park when Aaron was 32 years old.
However, none of those players became markedly greater at age 35+.
Mantle's greatest seasons came at ages 24-25 and 29, about where you would expect. Yes, Willie Mays reached a career high with 52 HRs at age 34 in 1965, but he had a near mirror image season a decade earlier when he hit 51 HRs with an almost identical batting average; Willie's three highest batting averages came when he was between ages 23 and 28, again about where you would expect. Aaron was amazingly consistent, but his peak years were between ages 23 and 29. Mays was the only one of this trio to win even one MVP award in his 30's.

[RedsBaron]

Contrast Mantle, Mays and Aaron with Barry Bonds.
Through his age 34 season, Bonds had been a great player, with 3 MVP awards. At that point he had a career line of .288/.409/.559. His peak season had come at about when you would expect, his age 28 season when he reached career highs of .336/.458/.677 with a career high of 46 HRs in 539 AB and a WAR of 9.7.
At age 35 Bonds reaches a new season high of 49 HRs.
The came his age 36 through 39 seasons. 73 HRs in 476 AB, 46 HRs in 403 AB, 45 HRs in 390 AB, 45 HRs in 373 AB. A guy who had never come close to a batting title wins two, at ages 37 and 39, while hitting .328, .370, .341 and .362. A guy whose career high slugging percentage was .677 goes .863, .799, .749 and .812.
Barry Bonds did not just sustain the performance of his youth as he got past age 35. Instead he suddenly became markedly better, tremendously better, at ages 36-39. At ages when even many superstars are no longer able to sustain their greatness Bonds won four straight MVP awards and became perhaps the greatest hitter ever.
If you want to believe this unprecedented performance resulted from Bonds workouts and diet, go ahead. I don't believe that accounts for Bonds posting his three greatest WAR scores (11.6, 11.6 and 10.4 at ages 36, 37 and 39).

[oneupper]

Originally Posted by RedsBaron

Contrast Mantle, Mays and Aaron with Barry Bonds.
Through his age 34 season, Bonds had been a great player, with 3 MVP awards. At that point he had a career line of .288/.409/.559. His peak season had come at about when you would expect, his age 28 season when he reached career highs of .336/.458/.677 with a career high of 46 HRs in 539 AB and a WAR of 9.7.
At age 35 Bonds reaches a new season high of 49 HRs.
The came his age 36 through 39 seasons. 73 HRs in 476 AB, 46 HRs in 403 AB, 45 HRs in 390 AB, 45 HRs in 373 AB. A guy who had never come close to a batting title wins two, at ages 37 and 39, while hitting .328, .370, .341 and .362. A guy whose career high slugging percentage was .677 goes .863, .799, .749 and .812.
Barry Bonds did not just sustain the performance of his youth as he got past age 35. Instead he suddenly became markedly better, tremendously better, at ages 36-39. At ages when even many superstars are no longer able to sustain their greatness Bonds won four straight MVP awards and became perhaps the greatest hitter ever.
If you want to believe this unprecedented performance resulted from Bonds workouts and diet, go ahead. I don't believe that accounts for Bonds posting his three greatest WAR scores (11.6, 11.6 and 10.4 at ages 36, 37 and 39).

Whatever Bonds was doing he should have patented it.

[M2]

RB, no doubt Bonds' production after age 35 was preposterous. However, I will note that people are aging slower than they used to. Better nutrition, easier/healthier living, better medical care. At age 46 I am in way better shape and look more than a decade younger than my grandparents did at my age. My expectation is that more players will continue to flourish through their 30s and into their 40s.

[RedsBaron]

Originally Posted by M2

RB, no doubt Bonds' production after age 35 was preposterous. However, I will note that people are aging slower than they used to. Better nutrition, easier/healthier living, better medical care. At age 46 I am in way better shape and look more than a decade younger than my grandparents did at my age. My expectation is that more players will continue to flourish through their 30s and into their 40s.

True enough, but while better nutrition, healthier living, and better medical care can delay the aging process, reversing the process is another matter. My wife was diagnosed with early stage diabetes a few years ago. She started eating much better and began running. She has lost weight and looks terrific, much younger than her age, and I am tremendously proud of her---but even I have to quietly admit she doesn't look as young as she did 25 years ago.
Barry Bonds didn't just age slower and sustain what he had been as he got in his late 30s- he became ridiculously better. We should also remember that Bonds when he was younger was not a notoriously big and out of shape player who arguably became better because he finally shed 20 pounds and watched his diet.
I don't defend the use of greenies by players in the 1960s-1980s. I also do not equate the use of greenies with the Dr. Frankenstein cocktails some players took during the 1990s and beyond.

[traderumor]

Let's focus on amphetamines for a moment, or "diet pills" as Verducci calls them. There's a reason that players took them: They enhanced performance. Whether for a hot August doubleheader, a day game after a night game at the end of a long road trip, or a season-long upper to keep players sharper and more alert for games, the idea in taking them was always to perform better than you would have without them. So if we're talking intent, amphetamines and the substances grouped under the broad heading of steroids are the same. Players want an edge, so they take 'em. Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, Mickey Mantle, and Mike Schmidt took amphetamines during their playing days. I have yet to read an argument by anyone, anywhere, advocating for kicking those four legends out of the Hall.

So we're OK with players taking substances to enhance their performance, and crossing gray areas when it comes to making themselves better. That leaves the argument that steroids are qualitatively different than other performance-enhancing substances, and that it's the specific choice of substance that should determine whether or not a player warrants induction. OK then — show us. Show us exactly how much better Barry Bonds was using performance-enhancing drugs than he would have been if he'd relied only on his otherworldly talent, hellacious workout routines, and strict health habits. I'd say do the same for Roger Clemens, except Clemens never tested positive for anything and has vehemently denied using PEDs. (We have no evidence that Mike Piazza used them other than Murray Chass's crusade to rid the world of bacne, or that Jeff Bagwell used other than that the guy lifted a lot, hit a lot of home runs in the '90s, and was bros with Ken Caminiti.)

Of course, no one can show us. Not doctors speaking in general terms about the effects of steroids without having any particular insight into these particular individuals, and certainly not baseball writers.

The off the charts power numbers tell us there is a qualitatively different result from the PED epidemic and the assumption that old timers took greenies. Also, the post-steroid era and numbers returning to historical norms indicate that there is a qualitative difference. It seems to be at the level of a laborer who fudges his tax return to save a couple hundred dollars versus the million dollar ponzi scheme fraudsters. Yes, those are the same thing.