Terrence Moore on steroids and the Hall of Fame:
Reggie Jackson is right. So is Jim Rice, along with Rick Telander, a columnist for the Chicago Sun-Times, who joins me as a baseball Hall of Fame voter and as a hardliner who agrees with Jackson and Rice:
No steroids guys in Cooperstown.
No Roger Clemens. No Barry Bonds. No Mark McGwire. No Sammy Sosa. No Rafael Palmeiro. No Alex Rodriguez. Nobody within a syringe of evidence showing they were artificially enhanced during any portion of their playing career.
Great, Terrence. And as soon as you tell us how you're going to figure out who did and who didn't do steroids, we'll implement your plan. The greater problem with Moore's column, however, comes after he raises and then ignores the "how do we know who used" question:
That brings us back to the BBWAA, which allows Hall of Fame voters to use their own interpretation of rules that are vague but specific. The rules say each voter should consider a player's "record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played."
As a Hall of Fame voter, I'm a strict constructionist. To me, the key words in those rules are "integrity" and "character." You don't have integrity or character by using steroids. So no Hall of Fame entry for any of these knuckleheads.
Simple.
Actually, a strict constructionist wouldn't so easily latch on to two of the six criteria and ignore the other four. To the contrary, he'd be required to figure out how the character and integrity aspects of the test interact with the record, playing ability, sportsmanship, and contributions to the teams on which the player played, because those are all part of the test too.
If it were me, I'd weigh the factors against one another, and if it were a close call, I'd keep the guy out. Such an approach might counsel that you allow in a Barry Bonds, whose clear ability and performance over the years -- including the years during which even his most vehement accusers admit he wasn't using -- likely outweighs whatever boost he received from whatever substances he was taking. On the contrary, it may counsel that you keep out a Rafael Palmiero, who has a much closer Hall of Fame case and a much more nebulous drug history than that of Barry Bonds.
Or maybe you approach it a different way. I don't know. What I do know is that taking the mindless approach Moore advocates -- even calling it "simple" -- is no way to do it. Because it's not simple. It's complicated. And more importantly, it's Terrence Moore's job and the job of the other BBWAA members to deal with. If they're simply going to abdicate their responsibilities in this regard, they should give the task to someone who wont.
Leave a Comment:
Saving...
Does that mean that Sean Casey is a HOF lock to this guy? By all accounts he was overflowing with integrity and character.....
I wonder if these guys that are latching on to the integrity and character part, think that Ty Cobb shouldn't be in the hall of fame. Dude was a pretty awful person but there is no doubt that he has the talent to be included in the hall of fame. Barry Bonds may be a jerk and used steroids but there is no doubt that he has the talent to be included in the hall of fame. Why should the character clause be invoked in regards to steroid users and not in regards to anyone else?
I'm not sure Palmeiro is the right guy to use as an example of a close call guy to be left on the outside looking in to Cooperstown. If you look at his body and his swing he really didn't change much over the course of his career. Start to finish, he had a great swing. While his story of "I don't know how . . . only thing I can think of is getting a shot of vitamins from Tejada . . . " sounded laughably ridiculous at the time, it is somewhat more believable in hindsight. Still might be bs, but I'm not as convinced as I initially was at the time.
I'm not sure what to make of Palmiero, actually. He played in outrageously friendly hitters park for the majority of his career and all of his prime and DH'd a lot too, so there's an argument that you have to discount some before you even get to PEDs. As far as the PED guys go, he's certainly a tougher case than, say, Clemens, A-Rod and Bonds are. I think he's a closer call than Sosa too, actually, though not by too terribly much. Probably the most interesting of all of the PED guys in this particular conversation.
good point about having to use all six of the criteria to evaluate each case objectively. i think it is poor logic to not allow Bonds in because of only two criteria which he supposedly violated, both of which are not baseball related (the good ol' ty cobb example). although he did not admit guilt which does weaken the arguement, he did not drop dime on everyone around him to deflect the blame and take the spotlight off himself. he stands there and takes the heat which does show character in my book. i think these guys will ultimately get in. we already had a world series that didn't happen, are we going to have a few years where no one is inducted? i know this punishes the nonusers and it sucks but being that baseball is just like life, it's also unfair at times.
This is a very controversial issue in light that more players are found to use PEDs. Is it so competitive these days that players are forced to use PEDS just to keep pace in the league that they get the lucrative contracts and incentives? I am a purist when it comes to baseball but I have to be very pragmatic if I think about what is happening here. Did baseball need the 'boost' from our excitement with the McGuire-Sosa chase that Bud Selig looked the other way to raise MLB stock and TV ratings. Will Bud punish Bonds when he damn well knows that Barry was NOT the only culprit during his absence of direction and enforcement in this area? Even a child will test the limits of his environment to see what can or cannot be done. I did not say that its right but this is the reality of our own human nature.
Agreeing with other comments and the story posted that it is very hard to seperate the users from the non users. MLB already has that list of known users and thats where it should start by not letting them in cooperstown. Growing up in the backyard of Cooperstown that whole area for baseball means intergrity and dedication for the sport. If MLB lets them in the HOF then that whole bldg needs to be locked up and never opened again...it will be tainted as a while and what does that show for the youth of america that looks up to these players and wants to be like them...NOTHING BUT CHEATERS!!!. If they are allowed in the HOF then there plaques need to be moved to another section of the hall not in the plaque room they dont belong to be next to the greatest players who actually played without any kind of PED'S
What's the problem? It isn't complicated at all. If you admit to using, or you are tested positive for using steroids, verifiably. Then you are OUT. And that's the way it is.
And if you don't test positive and don't admit to cheating, like Bonds and McGwire, then you're in. For now. Simple, right?
LOL... They are OUT. They have already been proven to have used roids. Or at least enough questionable antics. See how easy that was. And YES it is simple. As of right now, close the HOF, no more entries. See how simple that was too. All the great players are past. Only good players now-a-days are on drugs. Problem solved. Next.
There IS a very simple way to separate the wheat from the chaff here. I've never been in favor of an asterisk for this PED dilemma. An asterisk means you have to refer to the bottom of the page for reference to it's meaning. In the pharmaceutical world it is common to use an Rx to denote a prescription. Simply put, a player who breaks records and who used or is strongly suspected of using PED's should not be denied HOF status. Just add an Rx to his name. Problem solved.
I believe what Moore was saying was not that he refused to consider the other categories, but rather that such blatant failure of the two he mentioned eliminates the player from consideration, in his mind. I agree.
The Ty Cobb comparison doesn't hold up. Integrity and character aren't about being a nice guy. Cobb was a typcial southerner of his era. I don't defend his behavior, but we can't hold it up to the light of post-Civil-Rights era America and expect it to pass muster. He was a racist jackass in a time when racist jackasses were everywhere.
to much talk and no action, any player who uses drugs must be thrown away
from the game no buts or excuses!!! other ways if one is permitted to get back
and be excused so all should be!!! and lets all play high on drugs and why not
share with the fans and teach kids how to use them.
couple things...
Don't forget that at the time some of these players used PEDs, it wasn't against baseball rules...and what about the cocaine users????
Also, MLB does not DIRECTLY impact who gets in the HOF...The HOF does. MLB is not keeping Joe Jackson and Pete Rose out of the HOF...The HOF is.
so if your kid obeys 4 or your six rules... are you going to let him have a new car... these guys are professionals, make millions, if they cant stay away from the drugs how to you expect kids that are looking up to these guys to stay away... they wont... you guys are making excuses for these guys like you would your best friend at a kegger... drugs (any drugs) you are OUT...
If my kids obey all my rules they aren't getting a new car. If the kid want a car they will get a job earn money and buy their own car.
Separately, I don't think people are making excuses for players who used PED's. We are saying the use was fairly widespread and it is impossible to know with any degree of certainty which players used and how much benefit was derived. The games were played the stats accumulated and it is what it is. In the years to come HoF voters will have to evaluate the careers and vote on the various candidates.
Tony is right on.....
There was a good deal of time prior to the "steroid era" where the use of uppers ("greenies") was commonplace in professional sports. These were illegal drugs used to gain an advantage and many, MANY players were using them. Are they out too? It seems like the subjective nature of the question is being lost as we try to figure out the special equation that tells us yea or nay on HOF entrance. If it were that simple as the other author implies, there wouldn't be a need for voting at all. "Add up the good and subtract the bad and if it adds up to 7, they're in." Ridiculous to water it down the way they did.