steroids - kick them all out of the Hall of Fame

[dawgfan]

The NFL Hall of Fame that is...

Article by Jim Caple here (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=caple/050823)

A good look at how there seems to be a double-standard when it comes to the public judging steroids and sports between baseball and football.

[albionmoonlight]

Kick no one out is what I say. Place no asterisks by their names say I. Just let the truth come out about who used and who didn't and let the public judge how credible your sport's records are.

I have always seen the idea of the asterisk as working to the benefit of the league. Say for MLB--we will turn a blind eye to steroids because the 1994 homerun chase is so good for ratings. Then, if shit gets too out of hand, we can always clean up the mess post hoc and preserve some level of dignity with our records.

Same thing with the NFL, or any other league. To the extent that you knowingly or negligently allowed players to compete all juiced up, you should live with the cartoon numbers they put up and whatever credibility that takes from the history and tradition of your league.

[Huckleberry]

That is the worst Caple article I've ever read.

[dawgfan]

That is the worst Caple article I've ever read.

I thought he did a great job of capturing the mood of the sporting public with regards to steroids and showing the double-standard in how a similar era in the NFL is given a free pass.

[Huckleberry]

No, he did a horrible job of writing and an even worse job of making a point.

First, let's address his concluding sentence, which I assume was his effort at making his grand statement:

After all, if it never bothered you in one sport, why should it bother you in another?
There are plenty of things wrong with that. One answer to the question is that I don't give a shit about the NFL compared to baseball. That applies to many. Another is that NFL fans don't admire and hold sacred the sport's stats and records like baseball fans do. Which any fan of either sport knows.

More importantly the entire article comes across as nothing more than a whining plea for people to give the baseball guys a break. And it blatantly misrepresents the opposing viewpoint.

All the fans, columnists and radio talk-show hosts are right. Steroid use taints every statistic in the book.
Even if we assume the word "All" really only means the ones that disagree with this article, this is a joke. I'm not sure how many people have claimed every statistic in the book is tainted, but it certainly isn't everyone. Not a good start.

He then goes through a random list of big names and record holders. To make my urge to gouge my eyeballs out with an icepick even stronger, he throws out a bunch of crappy one-liners along the way, e.g., "the last chopper out of Canton is leaving and your names are on the flight manifest."

And the entire article acts as though the baseball steroid hunt is being perpetrated by a public that wants to see everybody's records thrown out and everyone out of the Hall of Fame. The baseball steroid (witch?)hunt is about identifying users and later cheaters and punishing them. Not about all the numbers in the book. But that didn't stop Caple from crying about it.

At least Jayson Stark's maudlin pleas for everyone to be nice to the baseball guys can be understood within the context of Stark's nose in their ass. This is just out there. And my original post was based on my opinion of Caple's usual work.

[dawgfan]

Well, if you don't give a rat's ass about football then his comparison obviously isn't going to do much for you. I'll give you the point about baseball fans holding baseball stats in greater reverence than football fans football stats, but to claim that football fans don't place value in the stats of the sport is faulty - they may not care quite as much as baseball fans, but they do care. Big-time fans of the NFL place a ton of value on the stats of the game - witness all the hoopla over Peyton Manning's assualt on various passing stat records last year, or whenever a modern player approaches and passes a career mark.

Maybe you haven't heard people talking about throwing out all the records of the past decade in baseball and keeping all of the players out of the Hall, but I have and obviously Caple has as well. Maybe it's just the frothing masses that call in to sports radio, and maybe it's further confined to the frothing masses in Seattle, but I've heard that talk and Caple, also from Seattle, has probably heard it as well. Is it the consensus viewpoint? No, it's an extreme, but that's what he's arguing against - taking an extremist view of the steroid mess.

I don't think his point is to defend the steroid users in baseball, it's to point out the vastly different reactions in the sporting public to steroid use in baseball vs. the history of steroid use in the NFL. Witness the breathless speculation on who might be using in baseball and the rush to assume guilt - this is the attitude he's decrying and he uses the comparison with the NFL as a means of illustrating it.

[Young Drachma]

I thought he did a great job of capturing the mood of the sporting public with regards to steroids and showing the double-standard in how a similar era in the NFL is given a free pass.

Agreed. I think the article was rushed, but maybe he had a different article and then something happened (maybe a debate with someone) that made him want to just write something to get his message out, since he got tired of hearing about all the baseball double standard talk.

[ISiddiqui]

Kick no one out is what I say. Place no asterisks by their names say I. Just let the truth come out about who used and who didn't and let the public judge how credible your sport's records are.

I have always seen the idea of the asterisk as working to the benefit of the league. Say for MLB--we will turn a blind eye to steroids because the 1994 homerun chase is so good for ratings. Then, if shit gets too out of hand, we can always clean up the mess post hoc and preserve some level of dignity with our records.

Same thing with the NFL, or any other league. To the extent that you knowingly or negligently allowed players to compete all juiced up, you should live with the cartoon numbers they put up and whatever credibility that takes from the history and tradition of your league.
100% agreed.

Btw, I thought the article was great as well in capturing the double standard.

[Buccaneer]

dawgfan, you're not going to bring up your stupid "greenies" point again?

[ISiddiqui]

dawgfan, you're not going to bring up your stupid "greenies" point again?
You mean the great "greenies" point again. It's only stupid to those who can't deal with the fact that performance enhancers have been in baseball (and all sports) for decades.

[Buccaneer]

Seriously, football is much more of a team sport than baseball where it's you against the pitch and the fence. Individual records mean much more in baseball than they do in football and performance enhancers have a direct impact on that (as oppose to uppers, hangover cures and trying to stay alert type drugs).

[Buccaneer]

Clarify, I know greenies are a controlled substance and illegal and their widespread use in the past and now prevent any real drug testing. But I have always contend there is a difference. Here's the best summary I can come up with: "Amphetamines are not considered performance enhancers that give players a competitive advantage but rather performance enablers that get them through some games on little sleep."

[ISiddiqui]

Clarify, I know greenies are a controlled substance and illegal and their widespread use in the past and now prevent any real drug testing. But I have always contend there is a difference. Here's the best summary I can come up with: "Amphetamines are not considered performance enhancers that give players a competitive advantage but rather performance enablers that get them through some games on little sleep."
Or rather allows players to recover from soreness and fatigue quicker (especially important in a 162 game season), therefore giving them a competitive advantage over those who did not.

[dawgfan]

dawgfan, you're not going to bring up your stupid "greenies" point again?

What's so stupid about it?

Greenies, aka amphetamines were used by a large percentage of baseball players from at least the '60's onward and are still used to a certain extent today. They were illegal like steroids, but not explicitly banned from baseball, again like steroids.

They no doubt have a different performance enhancement effect than steroids, but like steroids, we really don't know exactly what the effect is and how effective they are at providing whatever that enhancement is.

Here's the best summary I can come up with: "Amphetamines are not considered performance enhancers that give players a competitive advantage but rather performance enablers that get them through some games on little sleep."

If they provide a performance enhancement, i.e. an ability for one player to get by on less sleep than another player not taking greenies, then by logical conclusion they are providing a competitive advantage.

[Buccaneer]

Or rather allows players to recover from soreness and fatigue quicker (especially important in a 162 game season), therefore giving them a competitive advantage over those who did not.
That's true for both enablers and enhancers but it's not so much as how much you play but what happens when you do play.

[dawgfan]

That's true for both enablers and enhancers but it's not so much as how much you play but what happens when you do play.

Anything that allows you to recover quicker and play more is providing a competative advantage for those that take it over those that don't.

[ISiddiqui]

That's true for both enablers and enhancers but it's not so much as how much you play but what happens when you do play.
I think you are making a silly distinction so you can say one is better than the other.

And the primary effect of steroids seems to be that it allows you work out more, to recover quicker and thus allow you to build more muscle quicker. Taking steroids without working out really won't do anything for you.

[gstelmack]

The problem here is that the NFL DOES something about its steroid problem, and has for a while. Baseball did their darndest to avoid doing anything about it. He's also comparing an era where drug use was an accepted part of the daily lifestyle to today where the dangers are known and documented. What a horrid analogy.

[Buccaneer]

What's so stupid about it?

Greenies, aka amphetamines were used by a large percentage of baseball players from at least the '60's onward and are still used to a certain extent today. They were illegal like steroids, but not explicitly banned from baseball, again like steroids.

They no doubt have a different performance enhancement effect than steroids, but like steroids, we really don't know exactly what the effect is and how effective they are at providing whatever that enhancement is.



If they provide a performance enhancement, i.e. an ability for one player to get by on less sleep than another player not taking greenies, then by logical conclusion they are providing a competitive advantage.
You don't buy that figure that 85% the of players pop them?

Look, I watched baseball throughout all of the 1970s. I saw mostly overweight, slow players with porn stashes with an occassional good hitter and pitcher. Nowadays, I see baseball players that could pass for football players in the 70s with POWER being the driving force.

[dawgfan]

You don't buy that figure that 85% the of players pop them?

Look, I watched baseball throughout all of the 1970s. I saw mostly overweight, slow players with porn stashes with an occassional good hitter and pitcher. Nowadays, I see baseball players that could pass for football players in the 70s with POWER being the driving force.

I don't know what the figure is. What I do know is that many players from that era have come forward to talk about how common popping greenies was among their contemporaries, starting with Jim Bouton in Ball Four.

I'll grant you that baseball players by and large weren't in as good a shape in the 1970's as they are today, but they weren't predominantly fat slobs either. And steroids aren't the reason that baseball players are much stronger and more muscular today - that was a weight-lifting revolution that finally took hold in the game once it became clear that the old adages about lifting necessarily reducing your flexibility were laid to rest, with guys like Brian Downing proving to be trailblazers.

Regardless, that's irrelevant to the point at hand, which is greenies providing a competitive advantage for those that used them. The players that were popping them obviously thought so, otherwise why take them?

[dawgfan]

The problem here is that the NFL DOES something about its steroid problem, and has for a while. Baseball did their darndest to avoid doing anything about it. He's also comparing an era where drug use was an accepted part of the daily lifestyle to today where the dangers are known and documented. What a horrid analogy.

I think this is the only good point against Caple's argument, which is that people are more likely to give the NFL a pass on the steroid issue since they addressed the problem much sooner than did baseball.

[Buccaneer]

Regardless, that's irrelevant to the point at hand, which is greenies providing a competitive advantage for those that used them. The players that were popping them obviously thought so, otherwise why take them?
To stay alert, to keep playing though hurt and get over hangovers? I'd rather have players then and now do that instead of bulking up and making a mockery of HR records - even though I would not have either. I guess drugs and booze are part of the game, always have been and always will. What we have seen the past 10 years was a different animal and one that is quickly backtracking in the minds of officials, players and the public. Meanwhile, there will still be poppers.

[clintl]

The problem here is that the NFL DOES something about its steroid problem, and has for a while. Baseball did their darndest to avoid doing anything about it.

Baseball didn't have the problem until recently. If you look back, it took the NFL just as long to deal with its steroid problem after it became apparent as it did MLB to deal with its problem. Baseball didn't even have a steroid problem yet at the time the NFL dealt with its problem. Widespread use of steroids in baseball was still nearly a decade in the future.

[dawgfan]

To stay alert, to keep playing though hurt and get over hangovers? I'd rather have players then and now do that instead of bulking up and making a mockery of HR records - even though I would not have either. I guess drugs and booze are part of the game, always have been and always will. What we have seen the past 10 years was a different animal and one that is quickly backtracking in the minds of officials, players and the public. Meanwhile, there will still be poppers.

Bucc, you don't seriously believe that steroids are the only reason for players bulking up do you? Players are going to continue to lift weights and work out, because it gives them a competitive advantage, and so long as they don't take any banned substances it will be a legal advantage. The HR records were destined to fall with or without illegal supplements - the baseball weight-lifting revolution, the smaller ballparks, the advances in bat technology and the shrinking strike zone all were enough to ensure that result. Even this year, with everyone making a big deal about home runs and scoring being down - it's still within the normal range of data we've seen for the last 5 years.

As testing continues (and hopefully gets more stringent) we'll probably see some slight decline in hitting, but I really doubt it's going to be anywhere near as significant as much of the public seems to assume.

We don't know for sure all the effects greenies have on improving performance, but whatever edge they provide is a competitive advantage, and one gained with illegal drugs that are banned by baseball. Are the advantages greenies provide as significant as steroids? Probably not, but it's hypocritical to ignore one while screaming about the other.

[Blackadar]

That is the worst Caple article I've ever read.

Agreed.

[KWhit]

The issue with steroids in baseball is all about the HR records falling.

The focus and reverence for the HR records are like nothing found in the NFL.
Peyton's record(s) last year got very minor coverage compared to the circus that surrounds the pursuit of a baseball record. The sanctity of records in baseball cannot be compared to that of football.

Think about some of the greatest moments in baseball history. Yes, many of them are about World Series games, great defensive plays, etc. but a huge % are about records falling.

I can rattle off a number of baseball records (past and present) off the top of my head:
755-Aaron, 714-Ruth
73-Bonds, 70-McGwire, 61-Maris, 60-Ruth
56-Dimaggio

To a true baseball fan, I didn't even have to include the names there and you would have known who each stat belonged to and what record it represented. These records are sacred. The breaking of any one of these records (hell, even the pursuit of one of them) is as historic as anything else in baseball.

I can rattle off all of these stats from memory, but I can't remember how many championships the Yankees have - 27? 28? It's almost like the individual stats are as important or exciting as actual championships.

Now the records (at least the HR ones) are falling rapidly and look tainted to a lot of fans. Who wants these records to be held by "cheaters"?

[Buccaneer]

How's this for a simplistic reply?

Career HR Leaders
1. Hank Aaron+ 755 R - extended career by greenies

2. Babe Ruth+* 714 L - The Babe is god

3. Barry Bonds* (39) 703 L - weights, greenies and major juice

4. Willie Mays+ 660 R - pure talent and probably some greenies

5. Frank Robinson+ 586 R - definitely greenies

6. Mark McGwire 583 R - weights, greenies, juice and andro

7. Sammy Sosa (35) 574 R - just pure juice

8. Harmon Killebrew+ 573 R - telent and probably some greenies

9. Reggie Jackson+* 563 L - definitely greenies

10. Rafael Palmeiro* (39) 551 L - weights, greenies and juice

11. Mike Schmidt+ 548 R - talent and probably some greenies

12. Mickey Mantle+# 536 B - every concoction known at the time but mostly talent

13. Jimmie Foxx+ 534 R - pure talent

14. Willie McCovey+* 521 L - don't know

Ted Williams+* 521 L - see "Ruth, Babe"

16. Ernie Banks+ 512 R - don't know

Eddie Mathews+* 512 L - talent

18. Mel Ott+* 511 L - talent

19. Eddie Murray+# 504 B - drugs, major greenies and other shit

20. Ken Griffey* (34) 501 L - shit, who knows


Season HR Records

1. Barry Bonds* (36) 73 2001 L - juice-fueled cheater

2. Mark McGwire (34) 70 1998 R - juice-fueled cheater

3. Sammy Sosa (29) 66 1998 R - juice-fueled cheater

4. Mark McGwire (35) 65 1999 R - juice-fueled cheater

5. Sammy Sosa (32) 64 2001 R - juice-fueled cheater

6. Sammy Sosa (30) 63 1999 R - juice-fueled cheater

7. Roger Maris* (26) 61 1961 L - luck and a groove

8. Babe Ruth+* (32) 60 1927 L - talent and a live ball

9. Babe Ruth+* (26) 59 1921 L - talent

10. Jimmie Foxx+ (24) 58 1932 R - talent and a live ball

Hank Greenberg+ (27) 58 1938 R - talent and a live ball

Mark McGwire (33) 58 1997 R - juice-fueled cheater

13. Luis Gonzalez* (33) 57 2001 L - juice-fueled cheater

Alex Rodriguez (26) 57 2002 R - what's the word on him?

15. Ken Griffey* (27) 56 1997 L - same here

Ken Griffey* (28) 56 1998 L

Hack Wilson+ (30) 56 1930 R- talent and a live ball

18. Ralph Kiner+ (26) 54 1949 R - talent

Mickey Mantle+# (29) 54 1961 B - talent

Babe Ruth+* (25) 54 1920 L - talent


The "mockery" I was referring to is #1 - #6 on the latter list. While some of the vintage numbers on the former list was probably a little higher than it should, the single-season list stands out like something went horribly wrong during those years.

[John Galt]

I still don't think there is ANY good evidence that:

1) Steroids help hitters more than pitchers.
2) Steroids help more than greenies.
3) Steroids, even if they help, are the cause for the HR records, as opposed to other explanations.

Do I believe steroids have had an effect? Yes. Do we know what that effect has been? I'm doubtful.

Until we know more, it seems silly to say baseball records are the result of steroids.

[dawgfan]

I still don't think there is ANY good evidence that:

1) Steroids help hitters more than pitchers.
2) Steroids help more than greenies.
3) Steroids, even if they help, are the cause for the HR records, as opposed to other explanations.

Do I believe steroids have had an effect? Yes. Do we know what that effect has been? I'm doubtful.

Until we know more, it seems silly to say baseball records are the result of steroids.

Exactly what I've been trying to say for a while now. Good summary.

[Klinglerware]

One could also add "limited pitching pool", and "outrageous field dimensions" to some of those pre-WWII players. The RF line at Yankee Stadium was at 280 for chrissakes!

[Blackadar]

How's this for a simplistic reply?


2. Babe Ruth+* 714 L - The Babe is god


Didn't play against black players.

[rkmsuf]

that article was teh suck

[Buccaneer]

Didn't play against black players.
Wouldn't have mattered, there weren't that many great black pitchers. Besides, having better black teammates would've made his numbers even higher (runs, walks, rbis).

[dawgfan]

Wouldn't have mattered, there weren't that many great black pitchers. Besides, having better black teammates would've made his numbers even higher (runs, walks, rbis).

???

What's your evidence for this? What makes you think the amount of good black pitchers relative to the number of major league players total was any less so during Ruth's era than today?

[Buccaneer]

Bill James, somewhere (I can't find his list that combined both). I think his list had a couple? My list would be Satchel Paige, Bullet Joe Rogan, Smokey Joe Williams, Willie Foster andSlim Jones. (I am not including the "black Cubans".) There aren't that many good black pitchers now (in comparison to other positions) so I don't know if it would have been less or more back then.

[clintl]

One could also add "limited pitching pool", and "outrageous field dimensions" to some of those pre-WWII players. The RF line at Yankee Stadium was at 280 for chrissakes!

And both lines at the Polo Grounds were around 250, although it did also have the 490' CF. There were lots of cheap HRs hit down the lines there.