• Cooperstown Ballots & PEDs

    Posted by on November 28th, 2012 · Comments (21)

    Two really good reads on this today: Tyler Kepner and Peter Abraham.

    There really seems to be two camps forming on this matter…

    Comments on Cooperstown Ballots & PEDs

    1. JeremyM
      November 29th, 2012 | 8:14 am

      Interesting reads. I agree with Pete ultimately. If integrity, sportsmanship, and character are so important than Ty Cobb should be removed immediately, and Don Mattingly should go in along with other high character guys who didn’t quite have the numbers.

    2. Ricketson
      November 29th, 2012 | 1:40 pm

      Almost complete agreement with Miller’s comments in the Kepner article; almost complete disagreement with Abraham’s article altogether. Neither article mentions the banishment of Rose, a subject which offers an interesting basis for discussion in terms of H.O.F. eligibility and induction.

    3. MJ Recanati
      November 29th, 2012 | 3:48 pm

      @ Ricketson:
      Rose’s lack of HOF eligibility is, in my opinion, as wrong-headed as denying enshrinement to players that played in the PED era.

    4. Ricketson
      November 29th, 2012 | 4:14 pm

      I think baseball has made its point by now as far as Rose is concerned.
      @ MJ Recanati:

    5. MJ Recanati
      November 29th, 2012 | 5:27 pm

      Ricketson wrote:

      I think baseball has made its point by now as far as Rose is concerned.

      One would’ve thought. But considering the grudge they’ve held against Shoeless Joe Jackson that now goes back nearly 100 years, it doesn’t seem a likely bet that MLB and Cooperstown will ever get over it.

    6. November 29th, 2012 | 6:00 pm
    7. Raf
      November 29th, 2012 | 6:25 pm

      I think the biggest difference between Rose and PED’ers is that gambling isn’t as accepted in MLB as greenies, steroids, alcohol and cocaine.

    8. MJ Recanati
      November 30th, 2012 | 10:18 am

      Raf wrote:

      I think the biggest difference between Rose and PED’ers is that gambling isn’t as accepted in MLB as greenies, steroids, alcohol and cocaine.

      My correction to your statement would be that, while gambling and PED’s are intolerable to BBWAA voters, greenies, alcohol, cocaine, virulent racism and spousal abuse are perfectly acceptable.

    9. McMillan
      November 30th, 2012 | 12:46 pm

      MJ Recanati wrote:

      My correction to your statement would be that, while gambling and PED’s are intolerable to BBWAA voters, greenies, alcohol, cocaine, virulent racism and spousal abuse are perfectly acceptable.

      “Why… does it bother anyone… that Cashman had a relationship outside of his marriage? … I don’t exactly see it as (1) my business or, more importantly, (2) relevant to the operation of the ballclub. Individuals far more important than Cashman have cheated on their spouses and have been able to compartmentalize that aspect of their lives just fine. If Cashman wants to cheat on his wife, it shouldn’t bother us at all.”

      Spousal abuse is perfectly acceptable if it is emotional or involves a M.L.B. G.M. But if it is physical or involves a player, then it is not acceptable, and the B.B.W.A.A. should be provided with background checks with their ballots to see whether or not an order of protection was ever issued, for example, against a candidate in the past. It is relevant to H.O.F. candidacy, as is the racial tolerance of a candidate.

      Individuals far less important than M.L.B. players have had addictions or issues with alcohol or drug abuse and have not been able to compartmentalize that aspect of their lives at all. If a person wants to gamble on M.L.B., or take illegal PEDs, and undermines the integrity of the game, or deprives other players such as Aaron of the proper recognition of historical accomplishments that they rightfully deserve, it shouldn’t bother us at all.

    10. McMillan
      November 30th, 2012 | 12:50 pm

      MJ Recanati wrote:

      My correction to your statement would be that, while gambling and PED’s are intolerable to BBWAA voters, greenies, alcohol, cocaine, virulent racism and spousal abuse are perfectly acceptable.

      Rose’s ineligibility has nothing to do with BBWAA voters. His ban is a form of punishment levied by the Commisioner’s Office against a player, manager, executive, or other person connected with the league as a denunciation of some action that person committed that violated or tarnished the integrity of the game. All banned people are barred from induction to the H.O.F.

    11. Ricketson
      November 30th, 2012 | 1:19 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      Rose’s ineligibility has nothing to do with BBWAA voters.

      Rose’s banishment by MLB as a “denunciation of an action that a person committed or tarnished the integrity of the game,” and the effect that PED use by players in the “Sterioid Era” has had on the integrity of the game are bases for a interesting discussion that does not take place in either article.

      M. Fulk: “Nothing has ruined the integrity of the game more than the use of PED’s… At some point, Bonds will begin a personal services contract with the.. Giants, McGwire is employed as a hitting coach with the… Dodgers and… Giambi was nearly hired as the manager for the… Rockies, yet… Rose will still need special permission to attend a game. “

    12. Ricketson
      November 30th, 2012 | 1:47 pm

      M. Fulk: “Whereas for years, I took exception to Rose’s lifelong exclusion from the game I now specifically take umbrage with the hypocrisy of MLB as the same language used to expel a player and used as re-enforcement for that decision, is no longer enforced with issues surrounding the game today…

      Giamatti… set forth the guidelines of what he [believed were] the executive powers of the Commissioner’s Office including expulsion for what he [deemed] as behavior “contrary to the interests of the game… Nothing has ruined the integrity of the game more than the use of PED’s. In this era, no record is safe and any accolades received will always be viewed with suspicion. PED’s have subjected us to falsified single season and career home run records as well as MVP and Cy Young Awards that were not earned honestly not to mention the salaries paid to those that knowingly cheated their opposition…

      My point is not to debate the impact of performance enhancing drugs but to bring about discussion on the [penalties of PED usage.]“

    13. MJ Recanati
      November 30th, 2012 | 2:11 pm

      @ McMillan:
      I’d respond to what you wrote if I had any idea what you were talking about.

    14. McMillan
      November 30th, 2012 | 2:33 pm

      MJ Recanati wrote:

      It doesn’t seem a likely bet that MLB and Cooperstown will ever get over it.

      No pun intended (“bet”)… Regrettably, not in Rose’s lifetime.

    15. Raf
      November 30th, 2012 | 4:01 pm

      MJ Recanati wrote:

      Raf wrote:
      I think the biggest difference between Rose and PED’ers is that gambling isn’t as accepted in MLB as greenies, steroids, alcohol and cocaine.
      My correction to your statement would be that, while gambling and PED’s are intolerable to BBWAA voters, greenies, alcohol, cocaine, virulent racism and spousal abuse are perfectly acceptable.

      Agreed, with the caveat that none of what we mentioned has the same cachet as gambling does in baseball. You can do anything you want in the context of MLB except gamble. It sucks, and is kinda weird, but there it is.

    16. McMillan
      December 1st, 2012 | 2:13 pm

      MJ Recanati wrote:

      @ McMillan:
      I’d respond to what you wrote if I had any idea what you were talking about.

      Spousal abuse, racial attitudes, personal addictions, etc. have no place in discussions about H.O.F. candidacy or P.E.D.s in baseball, but since you brought it up for some reason:

      I don’t understand how you (or anyone) can (or would) introduce spousal abuse into this discussion when you previously-stated that Cashman’s treatment of his wife “shouldn’t bother [fans] at all.”

      If the “Cashman affair” or scandal should not have “bothered” the organization or its fans, then why should spousal abuse “bother” the B.B.W.A.A.? Because the former is emotional, and the latter physical? Or because you choose to overlook it on the basis of who the abuser is? What is the difference?

    17. Ricketson
      December 6th, 2012 | 4:18 pm

      @ MJ Recanati:
      Barry Larkin: No cheaters in Hall

      “Ultimately, Larkin thinks the players who used performance enhancers will be kept out of Cooperstown just as Pete Rose has been denied admission because he is banned for life for gambling on the sport.

      ‘I look at what has happened with Pete Rose. Pete Rose is not a Hall of Fame player, banned from baseball. But if you go up to the Hall of Fame all of his records, his bats, everything in is represented in the Hall of Fame — 4,256 (hits),’ Larkin said. ‘I see a very similar thing happening with guys that are associated with or been accused of using steroids. I think they will recognize their accomplishments but I don’t think those players will be admitted to the Hall of Fame.’”

    18. Raf
      December 6th, 2012 | 7:27 pm

      Ricketson wrote:

      Barry Larkin: No cheaters in Hall

      Gaylord Perry?

    19. Ricketson
      December 6th, 2012 | 9:09 pm

      Ricketson wrote:

      ‘I see a very similar thing happening with guys that are associated with or been accused of using steroids. I think they will recognize their accomplishments but I don’t think those players will be admitted to the Hall of Fame.’

      In the case of PEDs and in the context of Larkin’s position, Its a strange set of circumstances: a player’s accomplishments will be recognized in the HOF, but the player will not be inducted into the HOF, in part, because the legitimacy of the same accomplishments is questioned.

    20. McMillan
      December 6th, 2012 | 9:41 pm

      Ricketson wrote:

      In the case of PEDs and in the context of Larkin’s position, Its a strange set of circumstances: a player’s accomplishments will be recognized in the HOF, but the player will not be inducted into the HOF, in part, because the legitimacy of the same accomplishments is questioned.

      Another example of how PED usage can make a mockery of the integrity of the game; a bat used to set an historic record of career accomplishment can “belong” or “have a place” in the H.O.F., but the player “not necessarily belong,” or “not necessarily have a place.”

    21. Ricketson
      December 8th, 2012 | 5:25 pm

      Andre Dawson: Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds don’t deserve spots in Hall

      “‘I can’t say how the voters are going to react in the years ahead, but they wouldn’t get my vote for the simple reason that the rules were broken… One of the criteria is integrity of the game and I think that was broken. There are probably individuals in the Hall of Fame who haven’t abided by all of the rules, but this is something that was detrimental to the history of the game and that’s the problem I have.

      ‘When I see records being shattered left and right for selfish reasons, just to make more money, that’s when I have a problem with it.’

      Dawson said that based on discussions he’s had with writers, he expects Bonds to get in eventually, but not this season. He also said he doesn’t expect Clemens or Sammy Sosa to ever get in through the writers’ ballot.”

    Leave a reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.