No one to the hall this year

[kaldaniels]

Originally Posted by Hoosier Red

What frustrates me is that the writers are punishing both the power hitters(and power pitcher) who they suspect used steroids because their numbers are "juiced" but they're also punishing top of the order hitters like Lofton, Trammel, and Raines because their numbers weren't out of this world great when compared to the "juiced" numbers of their contemporaries.

A lot of commenters on fangraphs are upset that Lofton got "Whitakered".

[TRF]

I'm less concerned with Biggio and to a lesser extent Piazza not getting in on the first ballot than i am that Edgar Martinez and Dave Concepcion are not in at all.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by CySeymour

You and George Anderson are right. My main point was he was a cheat and got elected, no problem. Seems like a double standard.

Only a double standard if the same people are voting.

[Yachtzee]

Originally Posted by vaticanplum

Except the very writers who built these players up when they knew they were juicing, because it behooved them to do so at the time, are now the ones taking a stance against them on moral grounds. And once again, they're doing so now because it appeases the current trend of public opinion and serves their own careers well.

Illegal? Maybe not. But it certainly doesn't sit well with me from a moral standpoint.

The job of a team owner is to run a profitable enterprise. The job of a union is to protect its members. The job of a journalist is to expose the truth. All are beholden to their own consciences in terms of where and how their value systems affect the way they do the job; I don't know what those value systems are, so I can't say who failed in that. But the way I see it, only one of those groups of people failed at the job.

Weren't baseball writers the ones who brought the whole steroid issue to light? Had it not been for journalists bringing our attention to the issue and putting pressure on MLB to deal with the issue, we might still have widespread PED use in baseball with no repercussions. Sure there were some writers who pumped up these guys and continued to marvel at them even after suspicion of PED use came to light. I seem to remember some of the earliest concerns were raised when sports writers noticed androstenedione in Mark McGwire's locker the year he was chasing Maris' record. And of course writers heavily reported the Balco investigation that brought Bonds' use to the attention of the general public. To say that writers as a whole ignored evidence of steroid use is unfair. I suspect the writers who didn't care about steroid use are the ones who actually voted for Bonds, Clemens, et. al. The union and the owners, who have clear leadership groups that dragged their feet on the issue can have joint blame placed on them. But sports writers have no such leadership and can't be taken to task as a whole because some felt steroid use was not important even while their colleages were putting more evidence out there and voicing their concerns about PED use in the game.

[dfs]

Originally Posted by RedFanAlways1966

Can it be proven (writers knew)? It is a two-way street though. Perhaps the writers did not know during those players' careers (do you have proof that says otherwise, if so please share). Of course we all hear the defenders of these players say there is no proof that they did PEDs. You say the writers knew at the time. But many fellow defenders of these players say there is no proof. Can "the defenders" have it both ways?!?

But letting the writers decide these things has always been a bad idea IMO.

FOr those claiming Piazza was never linked to PED's....
http://www.thefastertimes.com/mlb/20...hancing-drugs/

For those interested in the media's role...about half way down the page...

One of the more infuriating pieces of evidence against Piazza in his book was Pearlman’s assertion that the media-friendly player admitted to sportswriters that he used steroids:

According to several sources, when the subject of performance enhancing was broached with reporters he especially trusted, Piazza fessed up.

“Sure, I use,” he told one. “But in limited doses, and not all that often.” (Piazza has denied using performance-enhancing drugs, but there has always been speculation.)”

Pearlman continues:

“Whether or not it was Piazza’s intent, the tactic was brilliant: By letting the media know, off the record, Piazza made the information that much harder to report. Writers saw his bulging muscles, his acne-covered back. They certainly heard the under-the-breath comments from other major league players, some who considered Piazza’s success to be 100 percent chemically delivered.”

Off the website and back to me...It seems to me that big mac was outed by reporters glancing into his locker.

The entire notion of these things being legal and then into an illegal category and then having current standards back applied over prior times really makes the stew stink. For a long time it was only cheating if you got caught by an umpire...things are different now.

Biggio is the only one I really feel sorry for. I suspect even without PED protests he would not have made it in the first round.

[kaldaniels]

Originally Posted by Yachtzee

Weren't baseball writers the ones who brought the whole steroid issue to light? Had it not been for journalists bringing our attention to the issue and putting pressure on MLB to deal with the issue, we might still have widespread PED use in baseball with no repercussions. Sure there were some writers who pumped up these guys and continued to marvel at them even after suspicion of PED use came to light. I seem to remember some of the earliest concerns were raised when sports writers noticed androstenedione in Mark McGwire's locker the year he was chasing Maris' record. And of course writers heavily reported the Balco investigation that brought Bonds' use to the attention of the general public. To say that writers as a whole ignored evidence of steroid use is unfair. I suspect the writers who didn't care about steroid use are the ones who actually voted for Bonds, Clemens, et. al. The union and the owners, who have clear leadership groups that dragged their feet on the issue can have joint blame placed on them. But sports writers have no such leadership and can't be taken to task as a whole because some felt steroid use was not important even while their colleages were putting more evidence out there and voicing their concerns about PED use in the game.

Yeah that raises an interesting point.

Are we to believe that the entire baseball media world knew that players were sticking themselves with needles left and right, yet not one big story came out of it (until years later, of course).

I was younger at the time but was naive enough to think that the 90's brought on an enlightened generation of ballplayers in terms of bodybuilding and nutrition. Sure, roids were a possibility, but I drank the koolaid and was fooled. I think many in the media were too.

What I'm saying is I'm not totally on board with the "The media are hypocrites" bandwagon. Not a fan of the media, but I don't think most members would have allowed this to go on had they known the full story.

[Yachtzee]

Stupid back button on phone caused accidental repost.

[mace]

Originally Posted by TRF

Those Dodger and Met teams had some very good pitching on them. Now sure some guys drafted in the 62nd round have careers so spectacular to warrant HOF consideration... wait, that almost never happens.

I watched Piazza, grew up watching him. I'm a few months older than him in fact. He was really a bad catcher defensively, and played for teams with stellar pitching. With the bat, no doubt he was a force, though his numbers dropped significantly after 2002. And that actually lends credence to him not being a PED user. or if he was, he certainly saw the writing on the wall and quit. But as i said, i don't care if he did. My eyes say he was a bad defensive catcher and most HOF voters probably agree with that. If we are going by his bat alone, Edgar Martinez says hi.

If you're interested, these BP articles present a different side of Piazza's defense.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ar...rticleid=16439

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ar...articleid=5274

Another comprehensive piece on the subject--one that focuses entirely on Piazza--was an article by Craig Wright in the 2009 Hardball Times annual. Unfortunately, I can't link that one.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by Yachtzee

I suspect the writers who didn't care about steroid use are the ones who actually voted for Bonds, Clemens, et. al.

John Fay was on 1530 this afternoon with Mo and was talking about how he looked at the publicized ballots and it seemed to him that the "younger" guys (let's note that you need 10 years covering the game to even be allowed to vote, so "young" applies to guys who are at least 32-35 for the youngest) were the ones voting for Bonds/Clemens and it was the older guys who weren't.

[Dom Heffner]

Originally Posted by CySeymour

Are the writers calling these guys cheaters the very same writers who voted in Gaylord Perry?

Steroids isn't merely about cheating.

To equate spitballs with steroids is like comparing murder with a speeding ticket.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by Dom Heffner

Steroids isn't merely about cheating.

To equate spitballs with steroids is like comparing murder with a speeding ticket.

Care to expand on that a little bit? I am not sure that I disagree that the two things are different from each other, but I am not sure one is murder and the other is a speeding ticket.

[CySeymour]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

Care to expand on that a little bit? I am not sure that I disagree that the two things are different from each other, but I am not sure one is murder and the other is a speeding ticket.

I am tend to agree. However, if this is the case, then where is the line? What form of cheating is acceptable and which one isn't?

[Dom Heffner]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

Care to expand on that a little bit? I am not sure that I disagree that the two things are different from each other, but I am not sure one is murder and the other is a speeding ticket.

You want to compare an invisible drug, put into the body in private to a baseball that was scuffed and thrown right at an umpire?

[westofyou]

Originally Posted by CySeymour

I am tend to agree. However, if this is the case, then where is the line? What form of cheating is acceptable and which one isn't?

I guess when society deems it unacceptable, but don't expect it to stay that way forever

http://baseball.dailyskew.com/2009/0...eball-old.html

Hall of Fame pitcher Pud Galvin (364-310, 2.86 ERA, 646 complete games) was injected with monkey steroids back in 1889. Not only was this not an issue back then, it was praised by The Washington Post. Galvin took an elixir developed by Dr. Brown-Sequard. He was one of the test subjects at a medical college in Pittsburgh.

It was made from cutting the testicles of animals (in this case monkey testosterone) and mixing the contents with glycerine.

Here’s the Washington Post line:

“If there still be doubting Thomases who concede no virtue of the elixir, they are respectfully referred to Galvin’s record in yesterday’s Boston-Pittsburgh game. It is the best proof yet furnished of the value of the discovery.“

And now author Roger Abrams:

It is very old news. In researching my new book, The Dark Side of the Diamond, I found clear evidence that a Hall of Fame pitcher, Jimmy “Pud” Galvin, took testosterone injections in 1889. It did not have much of an impact on his performance as he neared the end of his career, at best a placebo effect. For our purposes it is useful to note that no one said a peep about the event. At a time when cocaine was legal and could be ordered by mail or purchased at your local store, steroid-like injections for ballplayers were just matter-of-fact.

Why then, I ask, are we so angry now at Bonds, Clemens, Tejada, et al.? We call them cheaters without proof that they did anything. If they did use these substances, we apparently don’t care if they had any effect on their performance.

[Dom Heffner]

Originally Posted by CySeymour

I am tend to agree. However, if this is the case, then where is the line? What form of cheating is acceptable and which one isn't?

Barry Bonds hit 70 plus homers in a single season and we're here talking about spitballs.

Cyclone and I used to go round about this: spitballs were effective in their era because they used to play the entire game with essentially the same ball. The thing was so dark you couldn't see it. That's why it was hard to hit.

Gaylor Perry wasn't playing with a dark ball. Everytime one was hit foul or an umpire decided to put a new one in play, he would have had to start all over scuffing it.

To compare a spitball to drugs ingested to make you physically stronger to the tune of what we saw....come on.