Topic: Hall of Fame, Steroids, Legacies, and "other" players who have been indirectly affe

gregmo32

Here is the topic:

If we assume (and we have no choice but to assume) that many/most of the biggest name players of the past fifteen years are guilty of abusing performance enhancing drugs,

then

what does this EVENTUALLY mean for the players that were very very good players during this era who were overshadowed by the presence of the cheaters? Will the HOF, especially if they exclude players like Palmeiro, Mcgwire, Sosa (which I think is at least a real possibility), eventually reconsider players with lesser numbers who would have seemed like superstars without the steroid users?

How has this era's dark cloud ruined the legacy of the non-cheaters? For example, without Mcgwire and Sosa and Bonds -- how much more would Ken Griffey Jr have seemed like an all time great? And what other, lesser known players seem to be "non-cheaters" and have lost out on recognition to some extent?

How will this eventually affect card values of the players on both sides of this fence?

Anyway, a lot of questions I know, but many of the other threads have been getting hijacked by this type of discussion so i thought I would start one just for the topic....

ajw

<< <i>Here is the topic:

what does this EVENTUALLY mean for the players that were very very good players during this era who were overshadowed by the presence of the cheaters? >>



Why do you believe that only the great players have cheated? Have you seen the list of positive tests? There's a bunch of pitchers and a whole spectrum of players included.

baseballfanatic

And just think how much longer Fred McGriffs career would have lasted if he ddnt take the time to endorse Tom Emanski videos...

mikeschmidt

There will be no definitive way to ever know who precisely did or did not cheat.

That, my friend, is the problem. So it thus tarnishes the entire era...

ToppsCo1lector

<< <i>There will be no definitive way to ever know who precisely did or did not cheat.

That, my friend, is the problem. So it thus tarnishes the entire era... >>



Exactly.

storm888

2003 SI story:

"MLB said of 1,438 anonymous tests this season,
between 5 and 7 percent were positive."

//////////////////////////

So. "No," there will not be any looking-back for
players who did not "cheat," on the HOF front.

On the card val front, the "cheaters" cards will
be depressed during the lifetime of the suspect
players. Long after they die, the cards will have
some val.

Some of the suspected folks will be in the HOF,
some will not.

The main roadblock to the suspects HOF admission
is going to come down to the Pete Rose issue.
The voters (and, thus, MLB) are going to have a
REALLY hard time explaining why "drug addicts"
are OK, but "recreational gaming enthusiasts"
are not OK. This is especially true now that
"Texas Hold 'Em" has been mainstreamed into
the avearge living-room.

(There IS a technical difference between being
"banned for life," and "suspected/caught"
cheating. But, a huge bunch of older fans want
Rose in.)

Maybe there will just have to be a fairly long
hiatus in the induction of big groups of players.
After enough time passes, if the "cheating"
stops, they can make up for lost time and
raise the annual number of inductees; if
on-field performance warrants it.

It is important to remembr that the HOF hype
is pretty critical to advertisng MLB and filling
seats. Less hype also equals less TV revenue;
MLB cannot allow that to happen. (Maybe they
think they can get as much steam out of the
"keeping it clean" campaign as they can out
of unwarranted inductions.)

The "stats" upon which MLB was built are
destined to go into the toilet, if the "cheating"
turns out to have been more widespread than
"suspected." That means that in out-years, the
star-players are not going to be churning out
the kind of "records" that paying fans got used
to for the last 15-years.

Playground baseball produced most of the
star players. I never see any kids playing
"unorganized baseball." They ALL have
soccer balls in their arms. BB could be in
BIG trouble down the road. LL and college
baseball is still pretty hot, but I dunno if
that is going to produce what the shrinking
fan base has come to expect.

As someone who likes to tell folks that, "I
learned everything I needed to know about
life, playing baseball;" EVEN I now only care
about the POs and the WS.

Bodes bad.

storm

tkd7

Unless a person has been specifically punished as using illegal means to achieve their athletic success, I have to judge their accomplishments at face value. If a "performance enhancing substance" was used but the action wasn't caught, punished, stopped, or even illegal, I have no reason to discount a players performance. My opinion is that science and medicine have made significant advances over the history of sports that have allowed modern players advantages that weren't available to their predecesors. Pain killers, antibiotics, non-invasive surgery, and Tommy John surgery are examples of these. HGH and steroids are other examples. Unless something specifically wasn't allowed, I don't hold it against a player.

I realize that my opinion is probably the minority, but I'm not going to make moral judgements against players and their performance. I will take all the statistics at face value.

I will take into account popular opinion when buying cards and memorabilia, knowing that I don't want to spend a lot of money for a Barry Bonds jersey or autograph when his marketability is on the decline. That being said, check out the prices on T206 cards of Hal Chase and the Black Sox. These guys wouldn't have the same popularity if it wasn't for their infamy.

lostdart58

<< <i>And just think how much longer Fred McGriffs career would have lasted if he ddnt take the time to endorse Tom Emanski videos... >>



i hope he still gets royalties................the original video ( and the McGriff footage) was from 1991!!

onlyanumber

I think pretty much all players from the steroid era, save a few like Clemens, Maddux, Ripken, and Gwynn will have a tough time with the writers over the next 10-20 years. Any doubt in their natural abilities will be considered when the writers are voting. On the flip side, I think a lot of the stars from the 70's and 80's who have been overlooked will get stronger consideration now.

MooseDog

It's pretty clear that the past 15 years or so have been "tainted". In regards to superstars with HOF eligibility, only Palmeiro has actually been caught. It's going to be pretty hard to keep some of the suspected steroid users out of the HOF short of voter conspiracy.

I for one still consider Griffey to be the best player of the era, and more so because I believe he's "clean".

But I will say this...if Mark McGwire gets into the Hall, then there is NO WAY IN HELL that there is any justification for keeping PETE ROSE out. Sure, Rose is an admitted gambler, but did not admit to throwing games and there is no evidence to that. Baseball can ban him from the ceremonies if they want, but he deserves to have a plaque on the wall.

baseballfanatic

What about players like Brian Roberts who are using the new contacts made by addidas or nike to be able to pick the ball up better while batting? I couldnt believe this when I heard about it, but if you need contacts I guess I would choose ones that would actually help me in some way. Rather than just improving my sight I might as well improve me hitting.....

onlyanumber

same can be said for all the guys who got lasik

storm888

Re: Rose

"Baseball can ban him from the ceremonies if they want,
but he deserves to have a plaque on the wall."

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Right or wrong, the current interpretation of "banned"
means that the commissioner can decide (has decided)
that the ban includes "anything to do with MLB;" thus,
it has been decided that the HOF is part of "anything."

If a big movement started to "modify the ban to exclude
the HOF," it would be hard for the commissioner to ignore,
but not impossible. More time and more commissioners
may need to pass b4 it can happen.

One obstacle is that MANY people want the steroid guys
in the HOF. If Rose is let in, those people will turn my
question around on us: "If you let corrupt gamblers in,
why won't you admit the guys who used modern scientific
discoveries to make the game more exciting?"

In any event, to more clearly answer the thread question:

"A lack of qualified candidates will not make the writers look
at less skilled players more liberally."

storm

onlyanumber

<< <i>In any event, to more clearly answer the thread question:

"A lack of qualified candidates will not make the writers look
at less skilled players more liberally."

storm >>



Well said!

MorrellMan

<< <i>what does this EVENTUALLY mean for the players that were very very good players during this era who were overshadowed by the presence of the cheaters? Will the HOF, especially if they exclude players like Palmeiro, Mcgwire, Sosa (which I think is at least a real possibility), eventually reconsider players with lesser numbers who would have seemed like superstars without the steroid users? >>



Who are you thinking of here?

gregmo32

I think "less skilled" is not the most accurate way of describing the players I am thinking of. I hesitate to use names of players in this argument, but I am thinking of a "type" of player, similar to those that onlyanumber mentioned. For example, it wasn't more than 20 years ago that EVERY SINGLE player with 400 HR's was in the HOF. To my recollection, Dave Kingman and Darrell Evans were the first to not be inducted with 400. Certainly, no one really thinks they are HOF worthy. But there are players who would have been shoo-ins at one time based on statistics (like it or not, some players are voted in on stats alone). For example, Andre Dawson or Jim Rice or Fred Mcgriff. Do these guys eventually get "reconsidered" based on the fact that many of the players who surpassed them statistically have become at least stained (if not technically caught) by their use of roids or HGH? ANy other players

storm888

The numbers are the numbers. If the "bar"
has been raised too high because of "cheating,"
it can only be lowered over time.

They will not substitute the # 400 for the number
500, just to "get back to reality." But, during the
next 10 or 15 years, if the numbers naturally go
backwards, some adjustments could certainly be
made.

I think we are all assuming facts not in evidence.
We do NOT know that the "cheaters" are going to
be "excluded." There is a lot of evidence that they
will not be excluded. They ARE the stars and their
numbers are the current "baseline numbers"
required to be considered. MLB has already made it
pretty clear that "adjusting the numbers" is not
on the table; they even bristle at the "asterisk
suggestions."

I will not be shocked - but sorry - to see McGwire
in b4 Rose. Sosa brought excitement, too. Bonds
probably "saved bb," in the minds of many owners.
With only one or two "suspects" caught pretty much
dead-bang, MLB may just ignore the drug thing
on HOF issues. (The writers vote, but the folks
who run the show have tremendous "influence"
on the outcomes. Nothing is allowed to happen
that will "hurt the promotional elements required
to enhance revenues.")

storm

GDM67

<< <i> For example, Andre Dawson or Jim Rice or Fred Mcgriff. Do these guys eventually get "reconsidered" based on the fact that many of the players who surpassed them statistically have become at least stained (if not technically caught) by their use of roids or HGH? >>

I hope so. I think all three of those guys has a good argument.

That said, Andre getting stiffed this last year, with a relative paucity of available candidates, makes me think that argument hasn't penetrated the writer's psyches, at least not yet.

ralstonpurina

Hard to even think about, but Jeff Kent. His numbers not only match up, but exceed the last to second basemen that have gotten in. And kent is still going. Prior to this year .289 lifetime, 331 HR, 1312 RBIs. This year .273, 9 hrs, 43 RBIs. Compare to Sandberg and Morgan the last two secondbasemen to get in.
Morgan .271 avg, 268 hr, 1133 RBIs
Sandberg .285,, 282 hr, 1061 RBIs

Of course, Sandberg and Morgan were leaders, and good team mates. Kent also had the benefit of hitting in front of, or behind, the biggest of the steroid goons during a good chunk of his career, so he saw a lot of good pitches because of steroids. A plus for Kent is he hated Bonds, which could make him popular with fans

gregmo32

Another "type" of player I am thinking of is Roberto Alomar or Mark Grace. While I would think Alomar is a sure fire HOFer, think how much better he would have seemed if his 18-20 HR seasons (combined with his five tool ability) were not dwarfed by the 50,60,70 HR seasons of others. And this type of players relative lack of power would not have seemed quite so lacking in different era. But for the most part the knock on certain players was their lack of power, despite the other three or four tools being present.

ColleSystem

I am sure glad Mike Schmidt wasn't tarnished by this junk/era, as he never hit more than 50 in a season. I'd take a schmidt card over any current player.

storm888

"....And this type of players relative lack of power would
not have seemed quite so lacking in different era. But
for the most part the knock on certain players was their
lack of power, despite the other three or four tools being
present.""

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

All likely true.

However, those waiting for the HOF/MLB to move into an age
of "relativism" will have a VERY long wait. ONLY player performance
in out-years will bring the "equity" results the questions seem to
be looking for.

Mere suspicion of wrongdoing by current/past "possible" candidates is
not going to widen the door for players with "lower stats." I do not
know if it should or not; I just know that it is not going to.

Additionally, MOST fans still like the "suspects." A lot of "backlash
sympathy" has accrued to the benefit of the "suspects" as a result
of the "rude behavior" exhibited by a relative few in-person fans at
the ballparks. The sports-writers are aware that, to put it simply,
"Everybody does NOT hate the suspects."

MLB is responsible for "skewing" the numbers. They are the ones
that tried to "revive" the game by overlooking/ignoring the facts
about the rash of "super-players." MLB is not going to admit that
they messed-the-pooch (the stats upon which bb is based) when
they "sanctioned" the suspects stardom.

I know that this is not a thread about "right/wrong," but I can
tell you that MANY sports-writers are not "absolutely certain" that
the use of performance enhancers is "clearly cheating." Many
have a public position that is in contradiction to their private
feelings; those private feelings will have an impact on relevant
future votes cast.

storm

gregmo32

Great points. I think that is the crux of my question: If the voters and the baseball culture at large eventually DO ostracize those who used the perfromance enhancers to increase (primarily) power numbers, will the four and five tool players of the era who did not abuse them eventually be more likely to receive enshrinement?

storm888

"If the voters and the baseball culture at large eventually DO
ostracize those who used the perfromance enhancers to increase
(primarily) power numbers, will the four and five tool players of the
era who did not abuse them eventually be more likely to receive
enshrinement?"

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

IF they DO, absolutely.

I just have a hard time seeing MLB "admit" that the last 15-years
have been "a fraud." It is easier for them just to move forward,
and allow the player-stats to gradually decline.

On the "card value front," collectors of high-val modern cards
could get harmed if the entire era is brought under suspicion.
Singling out bad-apples may not work in terms of "re-habing"
the era.

If there is no "contrition/admission" on the part of the suspects,
the entire era could be at risk. If we cannot "prove" wrongdoing
on the part of a few, how does the collector market vindicate
the remaining players?

A quick review of 1919 shows that "fans" had a hard time
differentiating between the caught and the innocent. They,
in large part, thought of the scandal as an element of the
"caught and the uncaught." That could well happen again
if MLB does not handle the current mess with great
discretion. Navigating the line between coverup and
"discretion" is the challenge that MLB faces today; if they
mess it up, modern cards tank, vintage cards soar.

If ONLY the greed of MLB and the players' union had not
created an environment where "great performances" were
required to "save the business," we would not now be forced
to contemplate ANY of these issues.

storm

80sJunkie

Built
On
New
Designer
Steroids.


Hope he breaks a leg this season. would somebody just pitch at his knees