How do we make sense of the steroid effect on baseball? Well, the HOF voters have apparently
spoken volumes by shunning Mark McGuire. The message is that even without proof the mere appearance of involvement with steroids will keep you out of the Hall.
That’s at first glance however. McGuire has a career .263 BA with only 1,626 hits. It’s his gaudy HR’s (583) that give him consideration for the Hall. Should residing in the top ten HR hitters of all time automatically get you in? You could make a case that he shouldn’t get in. This same argument will be coming for Sosa and Palmeiro soon.
If you ask a number of sportswriters (HOF voters) why they didn’t vote for McGuire, guarantee that this first year is “punishment” for his performance in front of Congress. Instead of giving the guy some credit for trying to do the right thing (and not incriminate himself), they punished him. Remember too that there is no proof, only speculation.
That being said, it’s fairly obvious he had some “help” in the form of steroids and performance enhancing drugs. The argument is when and how much did it help. We’ll never know the answer to those questions. He did hit 49 HR’s in his first full season back in 1987, but his real power surge was between 1996 thru 1999. You can make an educated guess about his stats, but what do you do with them?
How do we view the rest of the players in the steroid era (which will be how the 90’s and early 2000’s will be named)? Isn’t it reasonable to assume that pitchers had the same advantage? By all accounts, more than 50% of players were using some type of enhancement during this stretch. You hate to give Canseco any type of credit, but it appears he was dead on in his book. There was never any punishment while coaches, management, and MLB all turned a blind eye. In that type of environment where 
performance equals dollars it’s a wonder most athletes weren’t using. While it certainly is not a valid excuse, this was the world they were living in. The ultimate question is how to quantify stats and achievements from this era. If a pitcher and batter are both using, does that negate the effect? So even if you were able to narrow down the who and when it’s still a baffling dilemma.
The Hall Effect…
The HOF voters are an odd bunch. Each has his own view of what is proper and what characteristics have more weight than others. Some change their minds about voting for the same player. There are no standards or criteria, but there are biases and personality conflicts that get in the way. It’s all subjective. Players who were downright nasty to reporters (and everyone else) also seem to get penalized. How else would you explain Albert Belle only getting less than 20% of the vote, while a player like Jim Rice (similar #’s with 500 more at bats) get over 60%? Now that the steroid era has been “exposed” do we now hold players before this era to the higher standard of stats within it? Do we discount the stats from the players from this era?
The good aspect is that players will be judged on an individual basis. Don’t expect the “steroid blanket” to affect all players in the same way. You’d hope that Palmeiro would be treated more harshly than others. He lied to Congress and threw a teammate under the bus after testing positive. Giambi admitted to taking them to a grand jury. Sheffield and Bonds both used the “I didn’t know what I was taking” defense. Bonds also tested positive for amphetamines in 2006 and said he got them from a teammate’s locker. See a pattern here?
By the way, did you miss the whole “players only get reported for a second amphetamines fail” thing?
Pete Rose bet on baseball, but he didn’t cheat. Why is that worse? Anyone testing positive for steroids or enhancers should also be banned from the Hall, no? How about failing the test twice and you’re out? Now that’s a good deterrent and satisfies the “false positive” crap.
Where does this leave us?
Unfortunately in a precarious position. As with many MLB awards there are inherent flaws and therefore snubs. Now we’ve been thrown the steroid curveball to further muddy the waters.
We can’t control any of it which is the most frustrating part. We are at the mercy of the bitter, jaded, cynical, overbearing, and homers called sportswriters. At least that’s what they are when things don’t fit our viewpoint. That will never change, and neither will the current system.
The only question is whether anyone associated with steroids will ever get into the Hall. Will the most prolific HR hitter ever not get in? A few in the top ten? We’ll see. Let’s just hope karma has a hand in it.
spoken volumes by shunning Mark McGuire. The message is that even without proof the mere appearance of involvement with steroids will keep you out of the Hall.That’s at first glance however. McGuire has a career .263 BA with only 1,626 hits. It’s his gaudy HR’s (583) that give him consideration for the Hall. Should residing in the top ten HR hitters of all time automatically get you in? You could make a case that he shouldn’t get in. This same argument will be coming for Sosa and Palmeiro soon.
If you ask a number of sportswriters (HOF voters) why they didn’t vote for McGuire, guarantee that this first year is “punishment” for his performance in front of Congress. Instead of giving the guy some credit for trying to do the right thing (and not incriminate himself), they punished him. Remember too that there is no proof, only speculation.
That being said, it’s fairly obvious he had some “help” in the form of steroids and performance enhancing drugs. The argument is when and how much did it help. We’ll never know the answer to those questions. He did hit 49 HR’s in his first full season back in 1987, but his real power surge was between 1996 thru 1999. You can make an educated guess about his stats, but what do you do with them?
How do we view the rest of the players in the steroid era (which will be how the 90’s and early 2000’s will be named)? Isn’t it reasonable to assume that pitchers had the same advantage? By all accounts, more than 50% of players were using some type of enhancement during this stretch. You hate to give Canseco any type of credit, but it appears he was dead on in his book. There was never any punishment while coaches, management, and MLB all turned a blind eye. In that type of environment where 
performance equals dollars it’s a wonder most athletes weren’t using. While it certainly is not a valid excuse, this was the world they were living in. The ultimate question is how to quantify stats and achievements from this era. If a pitcher and batter are both using, does that negate the effect? So even if you were able to narrow down the who and when it’s still a baffling dilemma.The Hall Effect…
The HOF voters are an odd bunch. Each has his own view of what is proper and what characteristics have more weight than others. Some change their minds about voting for the same player. There are no standards or criteria, but there are biases and personality conflicts that get in the way. It’s all subjective. Players who were downright nasty to reporters (and everyone else) also seem to get penalized. How else would you explain Albert Belle only getting less than 20% of the vote, while a player like Jim Rice (similar #’s with 500 more at bats) get over 60%? Now that the steroid era has been “exposed” do we now hold players before this era to the higher standard of stats within it? Do we discount the stats from the players from this era?
The good aspect is that players will be judged on an individual basis. Don’t expect the “steroid blanket” to affect all players in the same way. You’d hope that Palmeiro would be treated more harshly than others. He lied to Congress and threw a teammate under the bus after testing positive. Giambi admitted to taking them to a grand jury. Sheffield and Bonds both used the “I didn’t know what I was taking” defense. Bonds also tested positive for amphetamines in 2006 and said he got them from a teammate’s locker. See a pattern here?
By the way, did you miss the whole “players only get reported for a second amphetamines fail” thing?
Pete Rose bet on baseball, but he didn’t cheat. Why is that worse? Anyone testing positive for steroids or enhancers should also be banned from the Hall, no? How about failing the test twice and you’re out? Now that’s a good deterrent and satisfies the “false positive” crap.
Where does this leave us?
Unfortunately in a precarious position. As with many MLB awards there are inherent flaws and therefore snubs. Now we’ve been thrown the steroid curveball to further muddy the waters.
We can’t control any of it which is the most frustrating part. We are at the mercy of the bitter, jaded, cynical, overbearing, and homers called sportswriters. At least that’s what they are when things don’t fit our viewpoint. That will never change, and neither will the current system.
The only question is whether anyone associated with steroids will ever get into the Hall. Will the most prolific HR hitter ever not get in? A few in the top ten? We’ll see. Let’s just hope karma has a hand in it.
2 comments:
Peyton is God!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I read this article it says that, message is that even without proof the mere appearance of involvement with steroids will keep you out of the Hall it is quite interesting.Steroids require respect,because they are very powerful and they can harm just as fast as they can help. A lot of self-made "experts" hurt themselves and others... and families suffer. This isn't cool.To know more on this visit
steroids
Post a Comment