the dumbest thing I've read in 2015

[Moonlight J]

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/writer/jon-heyman/24935980/hall-of-fame-ballot-nine-who-were-great-and-clean-get-in-here

4. How can you be so against steroids yet give the greenie-takers of the 1950s and '60s a pass?
That's an easy one. Greenies were pervasive throughout the sport, are not muscle builders (sluggers of the era resembled normal folks) and they were so out in the open that it was understood the use was widespread.

Uhh...PED's were as pervasive in baseball as greenies. You were media, you either saw it or ignored it and are now retroactively punishing guys to make up for your laziness as a journalist.

30. Jeff Bagwell: A big WAR probably overrates him (is he really the sixth-best first baseman all-time, or second best postwar?), but his accomplishments are very impressive indeed and still would be good enough without the specter.

lumped him in with Piazza and Sosa because Jon is apparently a medical doctor with access to records. That, and the likes of he & Pedro Gomez are the ones creating the specter

[Judge Jude]

you forgot:

3. John Smoltz: In different seasons he was the best starter and the best reliever. Moved back and forth between those disciplines like no other, not even Dennis Eckersley. Shockingly low lifetime WAR of 38 reflects imperfection in WAR system, nothing more.

[revo]

Uhh...PED's were as pervasive in baseball as greenies. You were media, you either saw it or ignored it and are now retroactively punishing guys to make up for your laziness as a journalist.

I disagree. From what I've read in baseball books and in articles, it's pretty accurate that amphetamines were literally passed around the clubhouse and nearly every player was taking without fail. Now we've all seen PED usage estimates with some players saying it was as high as 90% usage at its apex, but I think the general consensus is less than half were. It's not like PED substances were in salad bowls in the middle of the clubhouse like amphetamines were. And I agree that amphetamines were just "pick me ups" and don't nearly have the same impact on performance that PEDs do.

And Heyman does agree that he (as well as others) were lazy about reporting PED usage during that time:
"The writers who did a poor job of investigating steroid usage through the so-called "steroid era" of the late 1980s through 2001 (which is just about everyone, and includes yours truly) probably deserve to have this dilemma on our hands."


And I also agree with Heyman that there are some players who were never outed as users but are assumed to have used, and if you're not going to vote for users, you do have to lump them in, unfortunately. I don't think an anti-PED voter wants to vote for Piazza, Sosa and/or Bags, see them get elected, and then have them admit to using 10-20 years from now. It would be the ultimate dupe. Steve Phillips and Todd Hollandsworth had this exact debate this morning on their MLB Network Radio show.

[Moonlight J]

in Piazza & Bagwell's case, there have been multiple denials.

In the end, the arbiters of who gets in are the same people that turned a blind eye to the issue and let it run rampant until Canseco opened his mouth. Now they get all high & mighty about it? It's bullshit. The HOF needs to grow a pair and give official guidance.

[The Dane]

in Piazza & Bagwell's case, there have been multiple denials.

In the end, the arbiters of who gets in are the same people that turned a blind eye to the issue and let it run rampant until Canseco opened his mouth. Now they get all high & mighty about it? It's bullshit. The HOF needs to grow a pair and give official guidance.

Exactly!

[revo]

in Piazza & Bagwell's case, there have been multiple denials.

Didn't they all deny it?

[GwynnInTheHall]

Here's something to think about. You all know I am about as big on personal accountability as anyone in here. I also rail against racism, homophobia and misogyny to name only a few of my venting subjects.

However, to give these writers shit about only NOW coming out against PEDs and their usage is unfair. Every one of us has been sitting with our friends in a group when one of our buddies or a pal of a pal tells an off color joke, be it racial, homophobic or misogynistic. Though we may not have agreed and thought it in poor taste, I highly doubt any of us jumped up and started berating the guy then and there when it happened. We may have thought it in our minds, but being in the group surrounded by others laughing at the joke, we most often went along with it even though we knew it was inappropriate. Later in life, away from the group mentality of 'the guys' we have been more assertive in defending what we believe to be right and wrong than we were previously. All of us are guilty of thinking something is wrong and doing nothing. That does NOT preclude us from eventually doing the RIGHT thing and speaking out against such things.

We should applaud these guys for doing the right thing, right now, regardless of their past inaction.

[Moonlight J]

oh, I've been giving them hell for years for using ballots as a bully pulpit for past transgressions.

[Moonlight J]

Didn't they all deny it?

Doesn't mean anyone paid attention to it. See Pedro Gomez

https://twitter.com/pedrogomezESPN/status/195018206845480960

https://twitter.com/pedrogomezESPN/status/195149963259416576

[GwynnInTheHall]

oh, I've been giving them hell for years for using ballots as a bully pulpit for past transgressions.

I don't doubt you've been vociferous about many things you feel strongly about. I'm just using the glass houses, parable in a way.

IE. I treated women like shit for years, but changed when my girls were born. Does that preclude me from railing against those who do exactly what I did all those years ago? I'd hope not.

[Hornsby]

The HOF has become totally irrelevant. I honestly couldn't care less who gets in and who doesn't anymore. I know who I think was worthy of the Hall, and that's good enough for me at this point.

[GwynnInTheHall]

The HOF has become totally irrelevant. I honestly couldn't care less who gets in and who doesn't anymore. I know who I think was worthy of the Hall, and that's good enough for me at this point.

I should change my handle to GwynnInTheTotallyIrrelevant

[Moonlight J]

good discussion here between Olney & Keri - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJsI...ature=youtu.be

[The Dane]

good discussion here between Olney & Keri - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJsI...ature=youtu.be

That was awesome. So much I agree with, including Olney's take on PEDs and the Hall and their mancrush on Votto. What was life like before Grantland?

[rhd]

So many thoughts go thru my mind when this subject comes up that I dont know where to begin. Here are some thoughts:

- As Olney and others have suggested, to determine HOF worthiness, we should judge the PED-era ballplayers against the other palyers from this era. To me, that's the only way sensible way to handle this. I think so many players used that essentially PED users were competing against other PED users. Select the best players of this era just like in any other era.

- It's unfair to make an important decision about someone w/o sufficient evidence. That's not the American way of doing things, regardless of the official standard in question. Where's the evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, against Bagwell and Piazza? Sosa to me is different because he had a peak period from age 29-34 that was significantly above what he did before age 29, which isnt normal at all. Bagwell and Piazza had age-performance curves that look relatively normal.

- One of the most important things about this subject that I never hear discussed is that there should be a distinction between performance-enhancing drugs and performance-restoring drugs. I think that was the driving force behind a lot of the PED use. was players wanting to get back out onto the field asap and help their club win. If there are no significant health risks, why should a performance-restoring drug be banned at all? Isnt that supposed to be the primary objective of medicine, to restore the patient to what he was before he got hurt or sick? If you're going to prohibit performance-restoring substances, then cortisone and even aspirin should be banned. I dont know which of the banned substances have performance-enhancing properties and which ones dont but I'll bet a lot of them are primarily performance-restoring and have little or no performance-enhancing properties. That's why we need more doctors and scientists discussing this issue instead of the yahoos we hear from most of the time.

- The most significant aspect of PEDs should not be to determine who gets into the HOF, it should be the health risks associated w them, particularly their long-term adverse effects on young athletes. This is what everyone should be focused on instead of alleged "cheats" that shouldnt be allowed in the HOF. Again, more testimony from doctors and scientists should be sought.

- I would fire all of the BBWAA HOF voters and then have a detailed interview process to hire back those that show they are competent to have the job.