Wednesday, April 13, 2011

Who Will Stand Up For Manny?

Peter over at Cleveland Frowns has a passionate post about Manny Ramirez and the Hall of Fame, and it made me think about Lyndon Johnson. This, I suspect, gives you a pretty good idea about how my ridiculous mind works and why I didn't get many dates as a young man.

In truth, I'm reading Robert Caro's amazing and mesmerizing "Master of the Senate" about Johnson ... and so just about EVERYTHING I hear at the moment makes me think about Lyndon Johnson, which makes it hard to read children's books to the kids.*

*"And then the guy who wouldn't eat Green Eggs and Ham, um, arranged for a filibuster by promising to vote with the pork states and then raised trumped up charges of Sam I Am being a communist."



There's a great baseball story in the book, by the way ... Johnson, as you probably know, was frighteningly ambitious. I mean FRIGHTENINGLY ambitious. When he won his seat on the Senate (blatantly stealing votes to get there) he had every intention of skipping ahead, beating the seniority rules that defined the Senate, taking over the joint. But how? Well, one of his main objectives was to win over Georgia Senator Richard Russell -- Johnson had figured out early that it was Russell who wielded more power in the Senate than any other.

Russell, it seems, was a huge baseball fan. He loved the Washington Senators (of course). According to Caro, Russell had the Senators up-to-the-minute batting averages in his mind every day.

Well, as you probably guessed already, before too long Lyndon Johnson would be seen out at Senators baseball games with Richard Russell often. In fact, it happened so often that when Russell was asked about it, he explained that he liked Johnson quite a lot. "We're both baseball fans," Russell said.

The punchline? At one point, future Texas Governor and Secretary of the Navy John Connally, then a Johnson aide, said in a teasing way: "I see you've become a baseball fan." Connally knew that Johnson had never liked baseball or any other sport -- his only connection to baseball was, as a kid, owning the only good baseball in his hometown, which he would take home whenever they did not let him pitch.

Johnson smiled and said to Connally: "You know I've always loved baseball."

In any case, it seems to me that one of the overriding themes of Lyndon Johnson's life -- all his life, really, but especially his time in the Senate -- was that he bullied his ambitions through. He destroyed people. He flattered people. Sometimes he flattered AND destroyed the same people. He was outsized ... there was, best I can tell, no gray area with Lyndon Johnson and no tact with Lyndon Johnson and no subtlety with Lyndon Johnson. He wanted something, he went after it with almost cartoon-like fury. That to me is one of the real revelations of the book ... and of power. In sports, we talk about one team wanting something more than another. It's a cliche in sports and I think it's only occasionally true. But in politics, I think it tends to be true pretty often. Lyndon Johnson always wanted things more than his opponents. He was always willing to go a little bit deeper, a little bit meaner, a little bit edgier. And he won.

Manny Ramirez is one of the greatest hitters in baseball history. I wrote a quick column on him when he retired, and made note of the fact that Manny Ramirez is the only player in baseball history to hit .310 or better with 525 homers and 525 doubles. You can always have fun with numbers ... like so:

Only player to slug .650 or better: Babe Ruth.

Only player to have .480 or higher OBP: Ted Williams.

Only player to hit 140 triples and 500 home runs: Willie Mays.

Only player to score 2,000 runs, drive in 2,000 runs and get 3,000 hits: Hank Aaron.

Only player to hit 400 homers and steal 400 bases: Barry Bonds.*

*He's the only member of 500/500 club too.

Only player to hit 700 doubles, 150 triples and 400 home runs: Stan Musial.

Only player to hit one homer with 300 runs and 250 RBIs: Next Poscast guest Duane Kuiper.

And so on. Every player is unique in some way. Still, the 525 homer, 525 double club is pretty exclusive -- there are only five members (Aaron, Bonds, Palmeiro, Frank Robinson and MannyBManny). Raise the career average to .300 and there are only two -- MannyBManny and Hank Aaron. Raise the average to .310 and Manny stands alone.

And, convoluted as the numbers may be (and as much as they say about the offensive era when he played), they numbers do say SOMETHING about how hard Ramirez hit baseballs for 17 or so years. He was a great hitter ... one of the greatest right-handed hitters in baseball history. By OPS+ he is tied for 11th on that right-handed hitters list with Frank Robinson. By runs created, he's eighth on the all-time list, just behind A-Rod. By WAR Runs, he's seventh between Albert Pujols and Robinson. The guy could hit like few in baseball history.

Of course, nobody denies that. The question being asked a lot is what Manny Ramirez's legacy should be ... more specifically: Should he go into the Baseball Hall of Fame?

I'm not as interested in the question as I am in something else ... the LJF ... the "Lyndon Johnson Factor." Because it seems to me there are two sides to the MannyBManny argument, but there's really only side being argued passionately.

Side 1: Manny Ramirez was a great baseball player and, as such, should be inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame.

Side 2: Many Ramirez tested positive for PEDs twice and is an embarrassment and a sham and should definitely not be inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame.

Even as I express the basic viewpoints of each side, you probably noticed something ... there's a whole lot more passion on Side 2. There's a clarity, a focus, a rage to the anti-Manny crowd that is simply not there on the pro-Manny crowd. Best I can tell even the people who think Manny absolutely belongs in the Hall of Fame tend to hem and haw a bit (which is why I like Peter's piece because there's no hemming ... no hawing). Nobody, except maybe Steve Phillips, wants to come out as pro steroids in today's world.

So the LJF here leans HEAVILY anti-Manny (and the other PED candidates). If you have two guys in a room, and one thinks Manny Ramirez belongs in the Hall and the other thinks he doesn't, the second almost unquestionably will be louder, more forceful, more certain. The second almost unquestionably will go deeper, meaner, edgier. The second will hammer home that steroids are wrong, that cheaters do not belong in the Hall of Fame, that it would set a terrible example for kids, that it would be disgraceful ...

You could counter these arguments, of course, counter perhaps that the "steroids are wrong" argument is fraught with contradictions and illogical turns, that there are plenty of cheaters prominently and proudly in the Hall of Fame (cheating has long been a celebrated part of baseball), that the bad-example-for-kids argument is lazy and is the one people tend to go to when they've mostly run out of ideas. But none of those counters has much punch -- nuance doesn't have much punch. When Lyndon Johnson was destroying Leland Olds in a confirmation hearing, he kept saying: "I want a simple yes or no answer." Olds replied that the question was too complicated for a yes or no. Olds was technically right. But Lyndon Johnson won.

So ... who will stand up for Manny? Who will stand up for Mark McGwire? Who will stand up for Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens and Rafael Palmeiro, not to mention the players who have never been accused of steroid use except through shadowy whispers? They all have different stories, different levels of likability, their Hall of Fame cases feature different shades of gray, but who will stand up for all of them?

Who will come out and say that baseball is a game, played by imperfect men who since the very beginning have pushed the boundaries and broken the rules to win? Who will shout passionately that the Baseball Hall of Fame should be a place where the very best baseball players are enshrined? Who in this Viagra commercial world, in this side-effects-include-death-and-dismemberment country, in this play-to-win-or-face-the-wrath culture, who will say that using steroids or HGH to become a better, healthier, wealthier, more powerful baseball player is cheating but also maybe not worthy of lifelong excommunication.

Who? Nobody. Not now. The passion is on the side of the accusers. The sense of purpose is on the side of the righteous. To the true believers go the spoils.

Manny Ramirez was a great hitter, and he was a notable figure, and he was one of the most colorful and talked about players of his time. He inspired as many thrills and shouts and laughs and barroom discussions as any baseball player of the last 20 years. He led the Cleveland Indians to a resurgence fans had waited 40 years to feel and Boston to a World Series that had passed by three generations of New England fans.

And there is talk, serious talk, that he might not even get the 5% necessary to stay on the Hall of Fame ballot (forget him actually getting INTO the Hall through the writers). The argument against Manny Ramirez is being made daily and furiously and with the sort of political conviction that eliminates opposition. Lyndon Johnson used to say, when faced with an important vote, "I don't want to guess how it will turn out. I want to KNOW." With MannyBManny, we know.

But ... who will stand up for Manny?

92 comments:

  1. Okay, Joe, you've convinced me. I'll read "Master of the Senate."

    Seems like the politicians who are willing to scream the loudest and push the hardest are often not the people we really want in positions of power. What a crazy system that requires such qualities to achieve a leadership position.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Manny Ramirez is the Rube Waddell of our generation.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I KNEW it was gonna be Kuiper.

    ReplyDelete
  4. He won't get in by the writers, that's for sure, but what about the Veterans Committee?

    It is possible in 20 to 25 years from now the rage against past steroid use will have abated somewhat. If that is the case, how do you NOT elect Manny (or Bonds, McGuire, etc.)without looking completely ridiculous?

    MARK IN LAS VEGAS

    ReplyDelete
  5. I always loved Manny, but in my opinion, he's probably the first guy who should be kept out of the Hall of Fame based on steroids. My case:

    http://replacementlevel.wordpress.com/2011/04/12/mannys-hall-of-fame-math/

    ReplyDelete
  6. Who will stand up for Manny? You might as well ask "Who will stand up for Jefferson Davis?" Maybe some southern apologist for the lost cause, but to paraphrase another President (Grant), it was the worst cause that ever was. Manny, as a person, will have to come to his own terms on this. Having been caught three times (2003, 2009, 2011), he seems, of all the roiders, singularly unapologetic and unrepentant. The steroid cause is not worth it, Joe. Manny, personally? He doesn't lend himself to a lot sympathy in the public square at the moment. He burned a lot of bridges along the way. Time will tell.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I completely agree with the post by Frank. The steroids cause is not worth it, end of story. He did hit baseballs pretty hard... and we know how he did.

    Sure, sure, go on about how there's no proof that PEDs improved performance. The guys who took the PEDs clearly thought they did, or they wouldn't be taking them. He's a cheat. It's sad, but it's true.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I'll stand up for Manny!

    *stands*

    Manny should be in the Baseball Hall of Fame when he's eligible!

    *sits*

    Standing is hard work.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I never understood the moral sermonizing. He is a cheat and that is the end of the story. Except that it is not and never is. Using spitters, scuffing the balls, corked bats, greenies are all against the rules and therefore cheating. Some of those activities were demonstrated to have no or minimal effect on performance but guys still did it because it gave them confidence or something else. We elected a bunch of them to the Hall of Fame (every sport has their fair share of cheaters). Manny has to be dumb to caught twice or maybe it is simply that he thought he could not succeed without them and was trapped (who knows as he will never talk about it). Baseball players are such creatures of habit that they sometimes cannot live without that habit. Take away Nomar's batting glove routine, Bogg's whatever you call it and many others. It takes a skill that no steroid could give that would allow Manny to do the things he did with hitting a baseball. If it did, all those other player's caught would be hitting that way. They could not. He belongs in the Hall (standing).

    ReplyDelete
  10. @stonedog -- I've been thinking the exact same thing. The similarities between Manny and Rube Waddell are striking.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I think there's a difference between using PEDs pre-2005 and getting busted when testing began. When MLB implemented the drug testing policy, there could no longer be any ambivalence about what constituted 'cheating'. Regardless of Manny's numbers and whether or not they were helped by PEDs, he was suspended for 50 games for violating the rules. It should not be ignored.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Manuel Ramirez was the laziest good player in baseball history. Worthless teammate. Addicted to performance enhancing drugs. Could not avoid detection because of ignorance and incompetence. Went to high school in Manhattan and could not be interviewed in the English language. Outfield defense was risible.
    He could hit, hit with power, and could not really run for effect, field or throw. He was a two tool player with dramatic and profound (and pathetic) drug enhancement issues. How does this even make the HOF?

    ReplyDelete
  13. I love pretty much everything Joe writes, including this post. However, a pet peeve of mine is ranking hitters by handedness, e.g., "one of the best right-handed hitters of all time." I guess I could see the appeal in this approach from a sort of trivia perspective, as in "who are the best players born in South Dakota." But when evaluating a career, what's the point in even discussing handedness (or switch hitting, for that matter)? To me, it seems like a very arbitrary way of making a hitter look better than he actually was (of course, it's kind of splitting hairs talking about being the 13th best right handed hitter vs. the 25th best hitter regardless of handedness).

    ReplyDelete
  14. Maybe all the anti-Manny vitriol is good news for the other PED-implicated players of the Selig era. It seems like many of the arguments against Manny for the HoF (for example, Phil's above) seem to bring in the fact that Manny's case is egregious because he was caught multiple times *after* the league's new policy was put in place. In some quarters, this sounds to me like the beginning of rethinking the HoF cases of those that were caught/had their names leaked/were generally suspected *before* the league started putting an emphasis on PEDs.

    Maybe Manny, someone who already has a bad rap from many sportswriters for quitting on his team or faking injuries, is going to be the lightning rod that draws righteous anger away from the likes of Bonds, Clemens, ARod, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Abysmal outfielder, atrocious baserunner. Led the league in homers once. Never finished higher than third in MVP vote. Hits lots of homers and drove in lots of runs in an era when everyone did that. I wonder, even we did ignore that "other issue" would his Hall candidacy really be so slam dunk? I guess we could say he was a feared hitter...

    ReplyDelete
  16. 1. Loved the first two books in that LBJ series and when I got to Master of Senate I couldn't get far -- LBJ was just such a MF'r.

    2. Duane just might win a Ford Frick Award. He certainly oughtta start occurring to the nominators soon.

    3. When he got 50 doubles and 50 HRs in a season Albert Belle put "50-50" on his shoes, prompting Eddie Murray to ask him "'50-50' what's that for, your fielding?"

    ReplyDelete
  17. Frank:
    "Who will stand up for Manny? You might as well ask 'Who will stand up for Jefferson Davis?'"

    Hall of Fame member Kennesaw Mountain Landis would...

    ReplyDelete
  18. "Using spitters, scuffing the balls, corked bats, greenies are all against the rules and therefore cheating...We elected a bunch of them to the Hall of Fame"

    When did all of these actually go into the rulebook? I was under the impression that greenies were prevalent back before there were rules against them. Same thing with spitters and scuffing the ball.
    Does anyone have any examples of people getting caught doing these things when they were banned and yet still making it into the Hall of Fame?

    ReplyDelete
  19. I am sure you have heard this, but just in case you have not, it is LBJ ordering some pants:

    http://whitehousetapes.net/clip/lyndon-johnson-joe-haggar-lbj-orders-some-new-haggar-pants

    ReplyDelete
  20. Doctoring the ball, 1920 -- Gaylord Perry.

    ReplyDelete
  21. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  22. So...who ARE we putting in the Hall? Eckstein? Or are we just gonna hang out for fifteen years and wait for the smoke to clear?

    This is ridiculous. About .5% of players are so great that, for a sustained period of time - say, 5-10 years - you go out of your way to see them when they come to your town (and you make sure you're never, ever off getting a beer when they're up to bat). If that can be said of Player X, then, short of pulling an O.J., or cheating in a demonstrably WORSE fashion than his peers, Player X is a Hall of Famer.

    RANDY VELARDE was on steroids. They ALL were. And your favorite player when you were a kid was probably what we would now call a speed freak or a meth addict. If you want fairy tales, go watch Field of Dreams again. But I'm a Yankees fan, and Manny is a Hall of Famer.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I liked you before Joe, and I fing love you now. The Robert Caro books are an obsession of mine. My mom always had this saying about Lyndon Johnson that I always appreciated:

    "He was a son of a bitch....but he was *our* son of a bitch"

    ReplyDelete
  24. Manny deserves to be in the hall because he played the game with joy, played great, and he played with freedom.

    Bonds/McGuire/Clemons/Sosa all made the game a bore, they played to get somewhere, they played to the rules and they broke rules and they made the game about rules.

    Manny unapologetically used steroids. He never signed up to play anyone else's game. It is his honesty that I most respect. There are very few honest athletes, when they come along, you have to take them or leave them, baseball is much better with Manny.

    Manny should be in the hall. Don't worry, everything will be ok.

    Frank

    ReplyDelete
  25. @marshall

    Because it's harder to be a right handed hitter, all else being equal.

    ReplyDelete
  26. To expound: worse fielders on the right half of the infield, more same handed pitchers, less triples (pull field is left). His numbers are slightly more impressive considering hes a righty.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I love Joe Posnanski's writing. I was particularly struck by this sentence, "The passion is on the side of the accusers. The sense of purpose is on the side of the righteous." I wonder, why should it be otherwise? If your passion is on the other side, why not just be passionate about inducting steroids into the hall of fame. They surely deserve the induction. They've been just as impactful as anything else. Steroids have gotten more hits than Pete Rose. They've hit more home runs than Hank Aaron. They made Brady Anderson an MVP candidate for blank's sake. Manny was just along for the ride. Celebrate him if you choose, but induct baseball's all-time performance enhancing champion - Steroids. Once that's done, we can get back to baseball.

    ReplyDelete
  28. @ Stephen @ 7:13pm - And if I'm not correct, LBJ comes out looking better than he could have had someone other than Robert Caro had been his chief biographer.

    I wonder just how perceptive of a man was Senator Russell? There is no way you spend more than a few innings with a colleague at a live baseball game before you know whether the guy knows and truly loves the game or is there only to enjoy the occasion of having a beer while noticing grown men throwing and batting a white ball around a diamond of dirt and grass.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I like Manny. Can't really explain why but I would always root for the guy, even if he sauntered up to the plate with a needs sticking out of one of his ass cheeks.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Maybe soon the BALCO lab will become MLB's Steroid Hall of Fame. It'll be a helluva lot easier for fans to get to than that lovely little place in upstate New York and it looks like if you've played professional baseball extremely well the past 20+ years it's the prime location for a majority of it's players to be celebrated.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Another great post Joe.

    I thought you were going to take the Manny/LBJ comparison in another direction, though: like Manny, LBJ cheated in order to get to the top.

    Robert Caro spent most Means of Ascent focusing on the depths to which Johnson sunk in order to capture the Democratic primary nomination over legendary Texas governor Coke Stevenson. Johnson bought off numerous South Texas bosses and secured an 87 vote victory in an election that, if he lost, would have signaled the end of his political career.

    Also like Manny, LBJ has a Manichean legacy. He is the president who shut down Washington in 1964 in order to pass the Civil Rights Bill and secured the franchise for African Americans the next year with the Voting Rights Act. He enhanced the welfare state with Medicare and Medicaid. But he also got America embroiled in Vietnam, escalated our involvement there, and couldn’t get us out. For many (most?), the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans in Southeast Asia will be his legacy.

    Right now, most baseball fans are focusing on Manny’s PED use and many talking heads believe he has no chance to get into the Hall of Fame. Of course, his steroid use will be a black mark on his sterling career.

    But when I think of Manny, I’ll remember how excited I was when he stepped to the plate. He had a presence at the plate and hit the ball as hard as anyone I’ve ever seen.

    So yeah, I’ll stick up for the PED users. Manny deserves to be in the Hall. So do Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, and Alex Rodriguez. The Hall of Fame is a museum that chronicles the history of baseball. The Steroid Era is an important part of that history and Manny, Barry, Roger, and Alex were the best players of the 1990s and 2000s: so their plaques should be in Cooperstown along with the other greats in baseball history.

    Thanks for your observations.

    P.S. Wouldn’t it be a treat to get Robert Caro on your PosCast?

    ReplyDelete
  32. One of the reasons I read the commentary on this blog is that people seem to make salient points, sometimes injected with humor, about whatever they are discussing, mostly without the rage mentioned above.

    It is not surprising, however, that the loudest voices elsewhere are those who seem angry.

    On a societal level, this country has gone through a fundamental change in my lifetime.

    When I was young, people wanted to know what you stood for, what you believed in, what do you fight for?

    Now it is What do you stand against? What pisses you off? Who (or what) do you want to keep down?

    The anti anything, rage against the whatever mentality is prevalent in every issue, even sports.

    The self righteous indignation of people angrily shouting "NO!" always seems to overwhelm a quiet reasoned discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Figures. Joe writes a reasonable, nuanced account and people write that he's espousing the 'steroid cause.'
    Brilliant.
    By the way, Joe, if you like biographies of unpleasant people try 'The Talented Miss Highsmith' by Joan Schenkar.

    ReplyDelete
  34. "They used to do it" is not a valid argument for someone to get into the Hall of Fame, for two reason.

    First, two wrongs do not make right. Second, while doctoring the ball is illegal in baseball it is not in United States law.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I'm not a steroids fan, but I don't know how you can punish someone for PED use before they were banned in 2002. For that matter, the early penalties were a joke. Just as the NFL glorified helmet to helmet hits (before they didn't), so too MLB and MLBPA sold the big boppers and the long ball. But there did come a point where they were explicitly banned, with real teeth to the penalties, and, in all fairness to the guys who didn't use, you have to draw a line. If it's wrong to criminalize, after the fact, behavior that was not banned, it's also wrong to grant retroactive amnesty for behavior after that line was clearly drawn. Baseball isn't just a game of absolute statistical accomplishments, it's relative performance we care about, and incidentally, it's also relative performance that the most modern stats focus on. We can talk about what a great hitter he was-and he was-but the fact is that Manny crossed that line, apparently serially, and is retiring in shame. This is all going to have to be sorted out over by the voters over the next 10-15 years. But, for us, we should ask ourselves, is the Hall an honor, or is it just recognition for statistical accomplishments, no matter how they were achieved? How much is too much cheating?

    ReplyDelete
  36. Manny was an unbelievable ballplayer--more specifically a hitter. It was pure joy to watch him hit. The dominance he displayed in the batters box over more than 15 years is equaled only by a few, and usually for much shorter periods of time.

    Manny also made the game better to watch--people stopped what they were doing to watch this man hit. I don't think the writers understand that baseball is about joy and passion and Manny brought joy and passion to the game and aroused joy and passion in millions and millions of fans.

    Hall of "fame"--there is no doubt that a baseball hall of "fame" could not exclude this man from its ranks. He's one of the best players of all time and one of the most prominent players of the last 25 years. Hall of "people who fit the image of a 'good and proper ballplayer who has good manners and is appropriately deferential to writers' as that image exists in them minds of a bunch of stodgy old writers"--well, I guess you can count Manny out.

    Cooperstown, the town, is hard to get to. It has no factually-based connection to baseball history. It only matters because fans go there and care about the players inducted into the HOF. The HOF is becoming an increasingly irrelevant little museum in an increasingly irrelevant little town in New York. And its irrelevance is constantly increasing because a whole generation of baseball players will be excluded. And they are excluded in part because the writers are using steroids as an excuse. The generation of the 1990's and 2000's was probably the most talented generation of baseball players ever. Look at the all time greats: Griffey, Bonds, Clemens, Maddux, Randy Johnson, Manny, A-Rod, Piazza, Bagwell, Frank Thomas, Pudge Rodriguez, Pedro, Pujos, Mo Rivera, Vlad Gurrerro, Roy Halladay, Ichiro, Jeter. Never has there been so many great players to watch at one time. But the old writers refuse to believe that there could ever be a generation of players better than whatever "golden era" the remember from childhood or were told about by their dads and uncles.

    But because our great players tried to get better by taking chemical substances (oh wait, I thought players were supposed to try and get better...I'm so confused) rather than by excluding blacks and Latinos or taking addictive amphetamines (which are much worse for you than steroids, which may not be bad for you at all), all of the players we grew up rooting for will be kept out of the hall. This is garbage, complete and total garbage.

    And don't tell me that steroids is cheating--getting bigger, stronger, and faster does nothing, absolutely nothing, to impugn upon the integrity of the game. When lots of players take steroids we still have two teams of men doing everything possible before the game to prepare themselves to play, and deciding the outcome through athletic competition during the game. It's not like gambling, where one team may stop trying to win. It's not even like spit-balls or corked bats, which happen between the white lines. And no one has ever explained to me why taking steroids is different than weight lifting, protein powder, creatine, better vitamin supplements, or even Gatorade—all of these are science-based ways to make people better athletes that have been developed or come into prominence in the past 40-50 years.

    The old timers needed an excuse to paint the players of today--who are better than the players of 50 or 75 years ago--as bad people who cheated the game. They do this to artificially preserve the “legacy” of the halcyon days of yesteryear. And that they’ve tricked so many people into believing them sickens me.

    ReplyDelete
  37. A quote from Adam: "[W]hy not just be passionate about inducting steroids into the hall of fame. They surely deserve the induction. They've been just as impactful as anything else. Steroids have gotten more hits than Pete Rose. They've hit more home runs than Hank Aaron."

    This is crazy talk, but we hear it all the time from fans and sportswriters. Fact is, you can say it about almost anything.
    -- Why not induct better nutrition--look at how poor kids from the Dominican get stronger when they go to baseball academies and eat well?
    -- Why not induct weight lifting--look at how much stronger players are today who lift weights?
    -- Why not induct airline travel--do you know how much more rested players are because they don't have to take trains and buses?
    -- Why not induct video cameras--it's much easier to improve your pitching mechanics or swing when you can watch yourself on tape?
    -- Why not induct surgery--where would Nolan Ryan be without Tommy John?
    -- Why not induct Advil--you think it was easy for Ruth to get over those aches and pains using alcohol as his primary pain reliever?
    -- Why not induct modern grounds-keepers--you think those fields in the 1930's and 40's were easy to play on?
    -- Why not induct Nike--do you know how much wear and tear you save on your joints with good shoes?
    -- Why not induct good sunglasses?
    -- Why not induct modern massage therapists?
    -- Why not induct antibiotics?
    -- Why not induct protein powder?
    -- Why not induct creatine?
    -- Why not induct nutritionists?
    -- Why not induct Gatorade?
    -- Why not induct weight trainers, hitting coaches, better gloves, better batting gloves, batting helmets, better bats, better balls, and the higher salaries paid to baseball players that allow them to rest and train all off-season (rather than working odd jobs to pay the bills)?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Funny, I've never had a problem working up a full-head-of-steam, tabasco-in-the-eyes level of fury toward the gutless moralizers, the two-bit Pharisees, who bloviate about grown-ass men choosing to ingest chemicals in the hope of doing what they do a little bit better. I reserve my deepest contempt for the grandstanding fools in congress and the US Attorney's office who chose to spend countless millions of dollars trying to fling shit at the best hitter the game has seen in at least half a century because he was surly and a bad example to the doe-eyed moppets. A bunch of carrion-birds shoveling out the ten-minutes-hate to a bunch of nobodies who want to feel self-righteous.

    And yeah, I know I come off as exactly the kind of rage-filled jerk I'm decrying. I tell myself that somebody needs to be out there giving the Nancy Graces of the sports page the message that there will be no freebies.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Also, too: Hartzdog. What he said.

    ReplyDelete
  40. There's a train coming and someone's on the tracks. However, the surprise for the BBWAA is that someone is not the steroid era players they won't elect, but themselves.

    I would put the over/under for the HOF yanking the voting privileges away from the BBWAA at 15 years. That is, unless there is a sea change in the collective attitude of the BBWWA to the steroid era players. I don't think most of the writers understand that many fans (like Hartzdog above) will not accept a HOF that doesn't include an entire era of players in it.

    The HOF, in the past, has gone to great measures to ensure that groups of people are not left out (the two different Negro Leagues panels are the best example). I don't doubt that they will make another adjustment eventually if the BBWAA is too pigheaded to change their minds on Bonds, Clemens, etc.

    Besides, the BBWAA as the elective body is an anachronism anyway. In 1939, it was probably true that the most knowledgable group of people about baseball history was the writers. I don't think we could say that today.

    Brent

    ReplyDelete
  41. There are some Manny haters here who have no idea what they're talking about, which I guess is Joe's point. Manny loved to play baseball. Sure, it most showed in his batting, and EVERY team mate he ever had said Manny's work ethic and approach to hitting was second to none. But I remember a fielding play, where Manny went deep to left center to catch a ball jumping up against the fence in an important game. He caught it, and while up there (you probably remember this) he gave a fan hoping to catch a home run a high five, and the grin on Manny's face was enormous. Anybody who has and shows that much joy playing the field loves more than just swinging the bat, even though it was clearly swinging the bat that generates all of Manny's HOF argument.

    So he's a two tool player. Ozzie Smith couldn't hit, and deserves to be in the HOF. Sandy Koufax could only throw, but did it well enough to be in the HOF*. There are plenty of limited tool HOF members.

    * (I suspect that if it was major league tee ball, Greg Maddux would have found a way to be in the HOF).

    Do I think Manny belongs in the HOF. I'm still undecided. But I hate people lying to bolster their case (like Jon Kyl saying well over 90% of what Planned Parenthood does is abortions when the actual number is 3%).

    ReplyDelete
  42. A quote from Timmy: "Second, while doctoring the ball is illegal in baseball it is not in United States law."

    First, betting on baseball is also not illegal under the laws of the United States. This is about integrity of the game, not about what's illegal or not.

    Second, not all MLB players are from the U.S. or train in the U.S. And not all MLB teams are based in the U.S.--and my understanding is that possession of anabolic steroids are legal in Canada.

    [What is also illegal under United States law is collusion--something Bud Selig and every other baseball owner was guilty of in the 1980's. So let's not pretend that it's just players who might break the law to get ahead.]

    ReplyDelete
  43. These Hall of Fame arguments have become so tiresome that the Hall of Fame itself has become for me one of the absolute least fun things about being a baseball fan.

    Manny was a must-watch hitter for over ten years and a cornerstone of one of the most exciting and charismatic teams of my lifetime. Whether a bunch of writers want to hang a plaque with his name on it in a museum could not possibly matter less to me. I don't know who finds these debates enjoyable or thinks they add to the fun of being a baseball fan.

    ReplyDelete
  44. As long as I'm commenting: Barry Bonds definitely deserves to be in the HOF, for the gold glove fielding 400-400 that came before steroids made lesser players better than he was.

    Mark McGwire is close, because as a skinny injury prone youngster he still hit a lot of homers. I am convinced beyond all unconvincing that he started steroids to stay healthy, not to take his game to the next level. But I think I'd vote no.

    Sammy Sosa is a Hall of Very Good player to me without steroids.

    Manny is the first HOF candidate with true HOF credentials who might have been juicing his entire career, and the dropoff from MannyBJuiced to MannyBClean is enormous. We'll never know how much of that is age related, of course. I loved watching him play, and everybody else I loved watching play is in the HOF. So I reluctantly stand up, and tomorrow I may decide differently.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Greed is what caused the abrupt retirement. Manny wanted a final multi year contract after this PED fueled season. He figured the risk of being caught was worth it because he had already been caught. His option year with he Red Sox drove him insane. He was selling weber grills on ebay. The guy is obsessed with the dollar.

    ReplyDelete
  46. And to follow Hartzdog, for all you sanctimonious anti-steroid users, consider these two situations:

    Player 1: Gets a cortisone (steroid) injection from his doctor to reduce inflammation so he can be a better player. HOF legal.

    Player 2: Gets a steroid injection from his trainer so he can lift more weights without inflammation so he can be a better player. Not HOF legal.

    Why not? If a twenty year old man with good but not great hitting skills and no other talents of note came to me and said, "Doc, it's either stay in the gangs and probably get killed or imprisoned, or take steroids to get good enough to make the big leagues for me. Oh, and by the way, I also have lots of older relatives and perhaps a baby or six who'd like me to be able to support them." For the medical well being of that young man and his family, it probably makes sense to prescribe lots and lots of steroids. Now it's all legal.

    And as long as we're inducting, why not contact lenses and lasix surgery? Should we kick the poor seeing out of baseball? What if a guy gets lasix to see 20:10?

    ReplyDelete
  47. Dinky,
    Cortisone is a corticosteroid. What Manny, Bonds, et al took were anabolic steroids. They are both classified as steroids, but they have very different functions.
    Anabolic steroids build muscle mass. Corticosteroids are anti-inflammatories.

    The argument has been made here before by others that if a drug helps a player perform better, even if it's tylenol helping a player feel less pain, it's a performance enhancer by definition.

    But anabolic steroids, for whatever reason, has crossed the PED line in baseball.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Here's the link to Manny high-fivin' the fan after his catch:

    http://www.viralthis.com/131/manny-ramirez-high-five-catch.html

    ReplyDelete
  49. The best part of that high five is he found a Boston fan at an away game and still managed to double the runner at first...

    ReplyDelete
  50. I've been a member of the anti "roid rangers in the HOF" for a fair amount of time. Particularly with Bonds and Clemens. ;)

    Lately, I've been having a change of heart, largely for a reason already mentioned; the large number of cheaters in Cooperstown already. Gaylord Perry was legendary for the crap he did to the ball, MLB essentially let him do it (find it hard to believe they were unaware), and he was voted in. Whitey Ford spent a fair portion of his career throwing mud balls and maybe the original "cutter," and yet he is in the HOF. Then there are the bat doctors...

    If MLB is going to allow these sorts of things go on in the game, the roid rangers have to be accepted as well. Even Bonds and Clemens. :)

    ReplyDelete
  51. As Manny once said, "I didn't kill nobody, I didn't rape nobody." He belongs in the HOF, no doubt.

    ReplyDelete
  52. To my previous comment, include Manny in the Bonds and Clemens list. :)

    ReplyDelete
  53. @Hartzdog --

    With the possible exception of Nevada, it is not legal to bet on baseball in the United States. In fact, all gambling in the United States is illegal, except for thoroughbred racing and government-sponsored gambling (e.g., lotteries).

    I am curious as to what makes you think otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  54. I will stand for Manny. If we are going to recognize the best players of all time, then Clemens, Bonds, Manny, et al need to be included. Steroids or no, Manny (and Bonds) were absolutely PHENOMENAL hitters. Anyone who ever played with Manny will gush about his preparation, his mind games with pitchers that began in spring training and lasted all season, and the absolute terror he inspired in them. Even when you take into account steroids and his defense, Manny Ramirez is an upper-level Hall of Famer, one of the best hitters to ever step into a batter's box. I would far rather see a Hall of Fame with Manny Ramirez in it than one without him, but with Rabbit Maranville.

    ReplyDelete
  55. It seems that support for inducting at least some known or suspected PED users into the Hall of Fame depends on your answer to three questions:

    1) "What percentage of players do you estimate used PED's during the Steroid Era?"
    The higher the estimate, the more likely you will be to believe some PEDers belong in the Hall.

    2) "Are you aware of the amphetamines, scuffed balls, and corked bats relied on by previous Hall of Famers"?
    The more conversant you are on the dirtier details of current HOFers, the more likely you are to look past the dirt of the Steroid Era.

    3) "How sabermetrically inclined are you?"
    The more you view stats of every era as needing some sort of adjustment, the more likely you are to believe some Steroid Era players belong in the Hall.

    ReplyDelete
  56. It is interesting that in post about Manny Ramirez, you discuss LBJ and his noted farther than other politicians to come out on top. I find this interesting because, to me, Manny seemed to embody that ideal, and reject it at the same time. Here was a baseball player that clearly loved to hit. I think he had it in his mind that he could be one of the best hitters in the history of baseball, and he definitely wanted that. He has tested positive for steroids at least twice; he has likely been on steroids for years. He was willing to take that extra step, be a little bit dirtier than some other players because being a great hitter was important to him.

    But at the same time, being a great baseball player was never important to him. Manny always seemed to go out of the way to be as bad a defender as one can possibly be. It was a clear flaw in his game, but he never really took steps to improve in this area. I always thought that his obsessive focus on hitting led to his inability to play defense. Did he not care enough, or did he just care too much about hitting?

    I admit that I have never been a fan of Manny. Sure, he could hit the ball really hard, but there was something about the “Manny being Manny” trope that was insulting. Whenever that phrase was invoked, it was usually to cover up his shortcomings as a baseball player. Manny made a terrible defensive play? Just Manny being Manny. Manny carried a bottle of water out into the field? Just Manny being Manny. Manny went into the green monster scoreboard to pee? Just Manny being Manny. Manny quitting on his team in the middle of the season to provoke a trade? Just Manny being Manny.

    But what Manny actually was – what he really wanted to be – was a great hitter. When you think back on all those hard line drives sprayed all over the field, that, even if fueled by steroids, was the culmination of Manny’s ambition. Was that Manny being Manny, or Manny being LBJ? All those other times that the press pulled out the “Manny being Manny” card, they were wrong. Manny wasn’t being Manny, he was just being so many of us – a person without the natural skill to be great and without the drive to achieve greatness regardless.

    ReplyDelete
  57. If Manny "didn't kill nobody" and "didn't rape nobody" that means he did kill and rape somebody.

    Anyways, I was expecting there to be at least a paragraph about Tiger Woods. Very disappointed.

    ReplyDelete
  58. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  59. TimSchultz: Nice observation.

    I think this is something that sports have to consider. What about parents aggressively pushing HGH on their kids to increase their size and strength and thus probable athletic earnings later on? What about forcing stricter training regimens? Surgery for better vision? Drugs to improve fast muscle twitch? We don't really have those yet, but plenty of greenies have gone down the gullet over the years. Why are these drugs banned but these others allowed?

    I feel that the correct long term solution is 1) Every treatment should be legal if monitored; 2) Using without monitoring bans you for life; 3) Doctors must all adhere to the same standards of side effects. You, Mr. McGwire, don't seem to be suffering, so you get a revitalized career (until you finally retire). You, Mr. Clemens, seem to be having roid rage; time to cut you off. Mr. Bonds, sorry, nobody's head should be so large.

    Is that fair? Steroids don't make you better directly, they just enable you to recover quicker so you can workout more; you still need to do the work. Was it fair that Ted Williams had freakishly good eyesight, or that Rickey Henderson could run faster than almost everybody else? Ability to tolerate steroids combined with the work ethic to benefit from them is probably as genetically uncontrollable as vision or speed or Ozzie Smith's balance and reflexes. So why do we tolerate one mutation (deviation from the norm of humanity) and not another. Almost everybody in the NBA is a height mutant judged by the standards of society as a whole, and a whole lot of NFL players. I say embrace the mutation, let OPS+ allow us to compare across eras, and let Barry Bonds break 1,000 homers.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Interesting how this story played out. Halfway through, I thought you were going to say that Manny was a great hitter despite lacking LBJ's passion.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Joe, I am not angry. I just don't think Manny Ramirez or any other steroid user should be in the Hall of Fame. And I am really unpersuaded by the "everybody does it" argument.

    And the title of this piece: "Who will stand up for Manny?" Are we supposed to feel bad for him? Really? He is an adult. He knew steroids were against the rules and he knew he would be tested and he took them anyway. And now he is suffering the consequences. We can have a lively discussion about whether or not he should be in the Hall of Fame. But now I'm supposed to feel sorry for him?

    ReplyDelete
  62. No, don't feel sorry for him. Feel sorry for baseball, that for so many years denied it had a (drinking; cocaine; steroids) problem. Feel sorry for fans, denied historical perspective from an era because of steroid users. Feel sorry for pitchers, abused by steroided muscles, and hitters who could not stay in the majors because they looked inadequate by legal comparison.

    Manny chose to use PEDs when the only repercussions were personal. Then he chose to continue using PEDs when the repercussions became professional (suspensions). He earned many millions of dollars for those decisions. I suspect that if I were talented enough to where PEDs could be the difference between being a AAA ballplayer or utility infielder and being rich for life, I'd have chosen the money as well. I suspect most Americans would have found that decision easy. I mean, Faust is a classic example and he was risking all of eternity for a better life on earth. What was Manny risking? Possible side effects.

    So don't feel sorry for Manny. And don't stand up for him, even though others might (or would). But unless your favorite ballplayer of the past decade is clearly 100% clean, don't be hypocritical about it.

    Can you imagine the offensive juggernaut that would have been Ozzie Smith on steroids? OPS of .800, anybody?

    ReplyDelete
  63. I’m a little late getting back to this, but good lord. I think I’ll avoid sarcastic exaggeration on this, because I would hate for anyone to get bogged down comparing steroids to sunglasses or Gatorade. I also will not get Tabasco™-in-my-eyes enraged that it has been inferred that criticizing steroid use in baseball makes someone a “gutless moralizer.” My point is this: Steroid use is not worthy of our celebration. I am not concerned with the moral implications of steroid use. There are many reasons to do steroids. I don’t think people should go to jail for steroids. But we should not be holding out our highest honors for people who do them. To do otherwise is to accept a tragic lowering of the standards. And I fail to see why anyone, including previous posters, care to do that. Maybe some are so desperate for a hero to worship that anything goes. But I think that mindset cheapens the Hall of Fame. I think it cheapens baseball. And if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to start a petition to get antibiotics banned from baseball. They’re clearly a dangerous performance enhancing drug.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Interesting stuff, although I don't really get the LBJ connection (other than LBJ also being a fascinating story).

    Tarhoosier had it right. Manny was not that big a deal. No Hall of Fame. And especially, he lived off the PED most of his career.

    NMark makes an interesting point. If Russell was really a baseball fan and Johnson was not, Russell would have recognized Johnson as a phony.

    The most interesing part about LBJ is that he was a souther racist and generally bad buy, but for explained reasons (at least as far as I know), he did the great thing of securing passage of the Civil Rights Act. I don't know that there has even a greater dicotomy in American political life.

    The CRA in turn led to affirmative action which in turn led to an affirmative action baby being elected president of the U.S. -- quite a story.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Joe,

    Funny you would mention how what someone is reading affects other things they do. I'm a voracious reader with a penchant for political biographies. A couple years ago I recall introducing James Polk to conversations despite very minimal connection to the conversation at hand.

    BTW, I'll stand up for Manny.

    Also, for the guy who didn't understand why it matters to emphasize that a player is best right handed hitter it matters mainly because success from right side is limited. We would not acknowledge a right hander winning batting titles if it happened all the time.

    ReplyDelete
  66. @Kansas City:

    1) LBJ secured passage for the CRA because he realized it was the right thing to do (esp. as part of his Great Society reforms, alongside the Voting Rights Act as well)--and in so doing lost Russell's support, and the South as a Democratic bastion to boot. Kind of complicates Joe's first points here about his ruthlessness and etc., but hopefully he'll get to those later events in later reading.

    2) Nah, I don't think "affirmative action baby" quite describes W. Bush--"legacy baby," "Paris Hilton with less going for him," "Fake Texan Via Greenwich, CT," those would all work better, I think.

    Thanks,
    Ben

    ReplyDelete
  67. "Master of the Senate" puts you in the right frame of mind. Reading through all these posts, it seems we have a partisan standoff. The never-wills and the "roids for everyone" crowd seem to have made up their minds. The moderates have to come up with a nuanced personal set of rules, walk into the voting booth, and go with their gut. My gut (after a few years of making them wait) puts in Bonds and Clemens (surly boors they may be notwithstanding) for really exceptional performance before steroids were banned. McGwire I could go either way on, Sosa and Palmerio, probably not. Then there's Manny, the three time loser. Does he get a pass for just being Manny? Is there a "goofball" exception? Come back to me in ten years.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Manny should absolutely be a part of the A-Rod, Bonds, Clemens (and probably McGwire) Hall discussion, where his incredible career overshadows his steroid use. The careers of Palmeiro, Sosa, etc. don't hold that same level of greatness. Manny did the EXACT same thing that McGwire and Rodriguez admitted to doing (well, maybe not the exact same drug, but you catch my drift), and he's much closer to A-Rod on the hitter spectrum than he is Big Mac. Yet Manny's the one in danger of not even staying on the ballot, all because Bud Selig arbitrarily decided to feign indignation and horror at his players in the mid-2000s. To me, they committed the same moral act, they made the same choice, and Manny shouldn't be punished differently just because he got caught, rather than come clean after retirement or on ESPN when the story is about to be broken.

    ReplyDelete
  69. My thoughts:

    1. Using steroids is wrong, and MLB was in the right (though very very late) to get them out of the game. Like it or not, ballplayers are role models for little kids.

    2. Blatantly cheating at baseball in other ways is also wrong - spitballs and corked bats come immediately to mind. Some other things have a lot of gray, like leaning into pitches and whatnot.

    3. There's a lot of things a baseball player can do that aren't technically cheating but are still wrong, like sliding into second cleats up.

    3. The Hall of Fame is not the Hall of Morality. If you're one of the greats of your time, you belong in the Hall UNLESS you've been banned for life from baseball, like Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe. (However, banned for life doesn't mean banned forever. Joe should be in, and Pete should get in after he's gone from the world.) Manny was one of the greats of his time, as were Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, Sosa, etc.

    Anyways, that's how I feel. I doubt anyone here cares that much :)

    ReplyDelete
  70. Ben, I think the question isn't about Manny's on the field offensive accomplishments, which clearly put him in the Hall. He's not Bonds, but he certainly can be put in the discussion with ARod and Clemens, and I think he's better than McGwire. But, of the entire group who either admitted to steroids or showed up on the 2003 list, he's the only one who flunked a test afterwards, and he did it twice. That puts Manny in a class by himself (I'm sure the irony is unintentional). Manny is retired. He's got five years before he can be voted on. Who knows where the voter's heads will be at then.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Mike, I totally get that, I do. But the way I see it, the act was the same, and if you think it was immoral, then it was immoral both before and after 2003. If you think it was OK, at least OK enough that it shouldn't keep someone out of Cooperstown, then it was OK both before and after 2003. He's clearly ignorant and dumb for continuing to use steroids after the testing was put in place, but to me, his stupidity doesn't make what he did any different from the pre-testing users.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Basically my beef is with the people who are going to use this as a strictly anti-Manny platform. Buster Olney has already said that he will not vote for Ramirez, but continue to vote yes for McGwire, a clearly inferior player who is equally guilty of using performance enhancers.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Ben, I really think there are many fair-minded people are struggling with the entire era, trying to find a model they can use. They don't know where to draw the line. Most of the players who we consider Hall-worthy are either recently retired or near the end of their careers, so they straddled the pre-penalty and post penalty period-McGwire is a notable exception. You can't toss the whole era out, if for no other reason that you punish everyone (the clean with the dirty). What Buster Olney is trying to do is draw a line acceptable to him-if you did it before steroids were banned, then you can't be charged with a crime that didn't exist. You could easily extend that to people who seemed to have used, but never failed a test after the rule was in place, or even to those people who used, but not after MLB showed they were half serious by stiffening the penalties past the "confidential counseling" nonsense of the early years. There's plenty of hair-splitting to go around. I think, if you are a voter you do the best you can and try to remain consistent.

    ReplyDelete
  74. I think the writers are particularly heinous hypocrites in decrying steroids now. During the steroid era, while it was happening, many said nothing. Barry Bonds was under the shadow of PEDs while they voted for him to be MVP 7 times.

    This is aside from the Inquisition tactics that are now used. If you say nothing, you were a user. If you deny it, that is a statement of guilt. If you admit it, you can't get in. If there is no evidence you are as guilty as a lot of evidence. No answer can save a player from this era. The only insurance a player has is if they didn't hit a lot of home runs. Then you are absolved of any guilt.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Almost all the comments here are about Manny, but the greatness of Joe's piece was its use of sports to identify and clarify a significant truth about the world-- here, it was about the importance of passion in winning a debate or achieving an outcome in our society. That's a lot more important than Manny is!

    Joe accomplishes this sort of turn all the time.

    I think Joe's talent and destiny isn't really to be a "mere" sportswriter, but instead to teach such truths through his writing. He does this brilliantly through this blog, which he writes in addition to the work he does in his day job.

    I think Joe deserves to receive the Pulitzer Prize for Commentary.

    Because of this, I was a bit disappointed to hear that Joe had decided to spend so much time writing a book about Joe Paterno. When all is said and done, that might wind up being just a book about Joe Paterno. Joe, I know you often read these comments-- so I say to you that surely you have earned the right to do whatever project you want to, without answering to me. But if it were up to me, you'd instead focus on this sort of piece. It's your destiny!

    ReplyDelete
  76. I think this is more cut-and-dry, actually, than most folks think, and it would start by us looking in the mirror.

    Manny, Bonds, etc. cheated. They cheated at their job to perform better, when you boil it down to its essence. Now, we can go into the purity of the game, etc., but that should easily be covered by the greenies, scuffball, etc. counter-arguments that have been made before. The cheating has been done in different ways, it's just the steroid-way seems the most repellant because so many still have visions of Russian weight-lifters sticking needles in themselves.

    But here's the rub. We cheat, too. And we do it every day.

    - Feeling a bit sleepy still in the morning? Grab a cup (or three) of coffee.

    - Still not peppy heading to that midday meeting? Grab an energy drink.

    - Not sure what kind of format to use for that spreadsheet your boss asked you to make? Research it on Google.

    - Too much pressure on that job? Search for a new one. Oh, this job sounds good, but that's not quite my skill set...okay, let me alter my resume.

    Now, this is dangerous ground, because many people will either: 1) claim they don't do these things, 2) claim it's "totally different", or 3) close their mind and just re-state their arguments, only more loudly.

    But for a select few, they may come to realize, athletes or not, aloof personalities or not, virtually all of us look for some type of advantage in order to maintain/increase what would be our normal productivity at work via artificial means.

    Glass houses, stones, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  77. I'll stand up for Manny and the rest. Joe makes a great point that cheating - and getting away with it - is a huge part of the baseball tradition. Banning cheaters from the HOF is nothing like banning gamblers or people who throw a game. Players cheat because they want to win so badly they will go to any lengths to do that, like Johnson himself. The onus shouldn't be on them for cheating, but on Baseball for not catching them.

    If Gaylord Perry can throw spitters and get away with it, great for him. It made him a great pitcher who won a lot of games. It's up to umpires and opposing team managers and coaches to catch him. If they catch them, then they get taken out of the game. Same with steroids. If they get caught, sure, suspend them, even ban them eventually for multiple violations.

    If Manny had been caught and banned years ago, before he put up these numbers, then we wouldn't be having this conversation. But he wasn't caught, and he did play incredibly well, he put up HOF numbers and won lots of games for his teams, and that all been done and can't be taken away. Same for McGuire, Bonds, Palmiero and the rest.

    Is this rewarding cheaters? Hell yes it is. But more importantly, it's punishing baseball for not enforcing the rules and catching cheaters. You can't punish players for wanting to win and play better and make money and breaking the rules to do that if you don't actually enforce the rules.

    In fact, if you don't enforce the rules there's no way to know who was cheating and how much, and who wasn't. How much of Manny's success was due to steroids? We may never know. How often did he take them? Only occasionally, when injured, or all through his career? Know way to know. We could ask him, and knowing Manny, who doesn't much care what people think, he might just tell us the unvarnished truth. But we'd never know it. Because Baseball never cared enough to catch PED users.

    cont.

    ReplyDelete
  78. cont.

    The idea that Baseball's HOF is filled with honorable men who played by some honor system is sheer hogwash. What other game has the concept of a "stolen" base, for example? The whole idea of baseball is to steal whatever advantage you can get, all the time, any way you can. If you have rules but don't enforce them, why on earth should anyone play by them? If the strike zone changes because umpires are fickle, why shouldn't players take advantage of that? If they give the batter the inside of the plate to work on, why shouldn't they work it? If they don't actually test for PEDs, why shouldn't players use them, at least until they start getting caught?

    Is that an unfair advantage? No, it's not. No more than working the inside of the plate is an unfair advantage as opposed to those who don't do it. It takes guts to break the rules and not get caught, and if caught to take one's punishment, or in Manny's case just retire. We aren't talking about endangering anyone's well being, other than the player's own health (and even that's debatable, if PEDs are used properly).

    The fact is, however he got there, Manny was a great hitter, and Bonds was unbelievably good. It doesn't matter how much PEDs helped them, any more than how laser surgery or Tommie John surgery or new training techniques helped players. Whatever happened off the field, their performance on the field is what mattered. They did whatever they did in order to play better and win games. They didn't get caught until years later. It doesn't change the fact of how great they played. One can certainly argue that their natural abilities weren't as great as their performance abilities, but that's all part of the game - working to make oneself better than one started out.

    Rules are made to be broken, and if they are not enforced, they might as well not exist. Baseball has not taken responsibility for the PEDs scandal, and if baseball writers really want to punish anyone for the PEDs scandal, it shouldn't be the players, it should be those who didn't enforce the rules. And the best way to punish those who didn't enforce the rules is to put Manny and Bonds and McGuire and all the great PEDs players into the hall as a giant FU to the owners and commissioners and so on who stood by and tacitly allowed these rules to be broken for over a decade.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Ben:

    Bush could be described a "legacy baby."

    Obama is clearly an affirmative action baby. Whether affirmative action is, or at one time was, justified is a complicated question. It long ago should have been switched from based on ethnicity to based on economic disadvantage. The success of Obama under affirmative action was fine until the American people made the inexplicble decision he was qualified for and the best person to be president - in a campaign where he again benefited tremendously from affirmative action in the form of fawning media coverage. It is likely he will be defeated in 2012 (38% re-elect number and 65% wrong track number), but unfornately, what should have been the great event of electing a black president likely will set race relations back in this country. Oh well, the life of a country is complicated.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Broken Yogi -

    Fabulous take. I never looked at the question that way.



    Mark in Vegas

    ReplyDelete
  81. Debates like these have inspired me to formulate the following scientific laws:

    1. The “Besides” Theorem

    Whenever the word “besides” is used it the middle of an argument, it should be translated as “Everything I just said a moment ago is a load of crap.”

    Examples?

    “There’s no proof that Pete Rose ever bet on baseball. Besides, he only bet on the Reds to WIN.”

    “There’s no proof that Pete Rose ever bet on baseball. Besides, what’s so terrible about gambling?”

    “There’s no proof that Barry Bonds ever used steroids. Besides, he was already a Hall of Fame caliber player before he started using them.”

    “There’s no proof that Roger Clemens ever used steroids. Besides, there was no rule against steroids when he took them.”


    2. The “And Anyway” Corollary

    Whenever the words “And anyway” appear in an argument after the appearance of the word “besides,” they should be translated as “Everything I just said and everything I’m about to say is a load of crap, and I KNOW it as well as you do.”

    Examples?

    “There’s no proof that Pete Rose ever bet on baseball. Besides, he only bet on the Reds to win. And anyway, what’s so terrible about gambling?”

    “There’s no proof that Barry Bonds ever used steroids. Besides, he was already a Hall of Fame caliber player before he started using them. And anyway, the pitchers were all using steroids, too.”

    “There’s no proof that Roger Clemens ever used steroids. Besides, there was no rule against steroids when he took them. And anyway, steroids probably don’t really help THAT much.”


    3. The Iron Law of “Ty Cobb Was a Racist”

    After using both “besides” and “anyway” in a lame argument, a debater will inevitably resort to trashing star players from another era.

    To wit:

    “There’s no proof that Pete Rose ever bet on baseball. Besides, he only bet on the Reds to win. And anyway, what’s so terrible about gambling? And Ty Cobb was a racist, which is much worse than gambling.”

    “There’s no proof that Barry Bonds ever used steroids. Besides, he was already a Hall of Fame caliber player before he started using them. And anyway, the pitchers were all using steroids, too. And Hank Aaron used greenies, so what’s the big deal?”

    “There’s no proof that Roger Clemens ever used steroids. Besides, there was no rule against steroids when he took them. And anyway, steroids probably don’t really help THAT much. And Babe Ruth was a drunk, so there.”

    ReplyDelete
  82. @ John: Well said and I would add that when you close your argument with an emphatic "so there!" the opposing side may as well throw up their hands and go home. A "so there" finish can not be emphasized enough but don't use it too often because your opponent will then somehow learn to come up with the extremely effective comeback of "Oh, Yeah?!" Damn I hate when that happens...

    ReplyDelete
  83. John is on to something. Baseball is like politics-it's OK when your guy does it, and if it isn't quite ok, it's a different set of facts than the other party's guy (who is clearly a bum), and if it isn't really ok, and it isn't really a different set of facts, well, your guy manfully repented and was given forgiveness. Poz was right-we can close the circle by going back to Lyndon Johnson

    ReplyDelete
  84. Joe, you said you voted for McGwire, you'd vote for Pete Rose and there is a chance you'll vote for Manny. Then why not Palmeiro? What's the difference from your point of view?

    ReplyDelete
  85. Here's an interesting oddity about Palmeiro, and you can draw your own conclusions. There are 25 players who have hit 500 or more home runs. 24 of them hit 40 or more home runs in a year at least once. The 25th was Eddie Murray, the ultimate compiler, who had 504 and never hit more than 33. Palmeiro didn't hit 40 until he was 33, and then did it four times in 5 years-from his 33rd to 38th birthday. None of the other 23 players was anywhere near that old for first time. Ted Williams did it just once, at 30. The average age of the rest of them was 24 1/2-and that includes the known juicers, who, on average, started later. Of the other greats from the past-Mantle, Mays, Aaron, Ruth, Ott, Foxx, Matthews, Banks, Killebrew-none of them was older than 25 (and that was Ruth, who started as a pitcher).

    ReplyDelete
  86. John, I don't get where you came up with this gem: "There’s no proof that Pete Rose ever bet on baseball."

    Maybe you don't follow baseball much but Rose wrote a book about it, admitted it in a million interviews, and will sign memorabilia apologizing for it.

    ReplyDelete
  87. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Matt D. -- I don't think John was speaking for himself with that quote about Pete Rose.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Matt, I agree that Pete Rose's guilt is largely a dead issue (though there are still a few guys, like Bill James, who lack the simple decency to admit how utterly wrong they were), but I used the Rose case because Rose's defenders so perfectly illustrated my point. Rose's defenders made numerous contradictory arguments on behalf of their hero. Indeed, their arguments were so OBVIOUSLY contradictory that even the stupidest Rose defender had to know how ridiculous he sounded.

    It was fine to insist "Pete was innocent." It was fine to argue "But gambling isn't really that bad." It was fine to insist that Pete ONLY bet on the Reds to win. But no sane, logical person could make ALL THREE claims, wouldn't you agree? And yet, I OFTEN heard fans and commentators make all three arguments, back to back.

    It's not just in sports that we see this, of course. In ANY field, people are quick to argue that "Joe Schoeaux is innocent, and besides, he was RIGHT to do what he did, and anyway, it was really somebody else's fault, and hey, YOUR hero was probably a scumbag too."

    A few years back, Bush administrations apologists said (in effect) "The US doesn't torture prisoners, and besides, there's no clear definition of what constitutes torture, and anyway, torture yields positive results. And hey, what about Chappaquiddick?"

    That's more serious than (but just as stupid as) baseball fans who try to claim "Shoeless Joe Jackson didn't take money to throw the World Series, and besides, he tried to give the money back, and anyway, it was only because Charley Comiskey was so cheap."

    ReplyDelete
  90. interesting to me that people really only care about steroids when it comes to Home Runs. they say - like, whatever, when confronted with the greatness of roiders like alex sanchez, manny alexander, ryan franklin, miguel tejada - sort of the same as shrugging off roid use by football players, as long as they aren't quarterbacks

    tons of people feel like steroid use is a MORAL outrage and is a worse crime than betting on baseball

    ReplyDelete
  91. Hey Joe,

    I wrote this column that turned in to a pro-Manny argument for the Daily Cardinal a couple weeks ago. I'm not wild about how it turned out, but I think there is a case to be made about the Hall of Fame being a place to preserve generations of baseball and not simply individual achievements.

    http://www.dailycardinal.com/sports/despite-his-drug-use-manny-deserves-a-spot-in-the-hall-of-fame-1.2161289

    ReplyDelete