Sunday, February 8, 2009
Why Alex Rodriguez Still Belongs In The Hall of Fame
So here’s what we know to be fact: four independent sources confirmed to Sports Illustrated reporter Selena Roberts that Alex Rodriguez’s name was on a list of players who tested positive for steroids during the 2003 survey testing in Major League Baseball. From that point on, we have to make assumptions.
The first assumption, and it’s a fairly safe one, is that Alex Rodriguez’s name is on a list of players who tested positive for steroids during the 2003 survey testing in Major League Baseball. Wait, what? Yes, that’s an assumption, because we haven’t seen the list, nor for that matter has Roberts. But, four independent sources are confirming this, so it’s very unlikely that it’s not true. Still, it’s an assumption, not a known fact.
The next assumption is that this means that Alex Rodriguez tested positive for two banned substances during the 2003 test. This is, again, a solid assumption, though there are plausible alternatives. The least plausible is that someone tampered with the results, either switching the results or tainting the sample. Equally implausible is that the test was a false positive—it happens, but I find it highly unlikely that he would have two false positives for two separate steroids. Finally, I consider it to be very plausible, but also highly unlikely, that a clerical error resulted in A-Rod’s name being attached to someone else’s results.
Because players were tested more than once in 2003, and you didn’t want players who tested positive twice to be double-counted in the survey, it was necessary to indicate which sample belonged to which player. This was done by assigning each player a code, labeling the sample with the code, and then storing the key list in another state. Now, the key list should have been destroyed as soon as the last sample was tested, but it wasn’t, and when the government seized the results and key in the BALCO investigation, it was an easy matter to put them together.
It’s plausible that in creating the key, or in labeling the sample, an error was made and the wrong code was put in the wrong place. Again, this is highly unlikely to be the case—but if A-Rod is going to go down the denial route, this would probably be the best explanation to throw out there.
After this assumption, we move on to not unlikely, but unsupported assumptions. Was A-Rod using before 2003? Was he using after 2003? Is he still using? Has he used his entire career? These are all, at this point, completely unknowable questions. Even the “eye-test”, for what it’s worth, doesn’t tell us much. A-Rod has gotten larger over his career, but it’s been a gradual thing, so there’s no clear delineating point there.
The question I ask here is, should what we know be enough to keep Alex Rodriguez out of the Hall of Fame? I say no.
If Alex Rodriguez is on that list and tested positive for steroids in 2003, he’s still only one out of 104 players who tested positive that season. Not only that, but we can also guess that two players—Rafael Palmeiro and Roger Clemens—are not on that list, either. If their names were on the list, it’s fairly likely that Congress would have subpoenaed that information by now and charged both men with perjury.
The point is that Alex Rodriguez is not alone in what he did, that there are many, many players who did the same thing. Before Saturday morning, almost nobody considered Rodriguez a likely steroid abuser, and anyone who did was keeping pretty damn quiet about their suspicions. There are many players on the same list with Rodriguez who we were not aware had abused steroids, there are many players who are *not* on that list, who nonetheless abused steroids, and whose use we remain unaware of, perhaps forever.
If we decree that anyone who uses steroids is ineligible for the Hall of Fame, we are making a grave error. We would not be punishing players for using steroids to improve their performance, but rather for getting *caught* using steroids. Had the results of the 2003 survey tests never been revealed—and had the government not seized more than the 10 names they were allowed to in 2004, they never would have been—we would have never known that Rodriguez had used steroids. So in 15 years or so, we’d be electing a man who used steroids to the Hall of Fame on the first ballot, while patting ourselves on the back for keeping those cheaters Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens and Rafael Palmeiro out forever. Good on us.
There are those voters who have declared that they will never vote for somebody from the steroid era. The inherent problem with this is that they already have. Former pitcher Tom House admitted to using steroids in the early 70s, and says that he was not alone, not by a long shot. Perhaps it was only the borderline players who were pushing it, but that would seem to go against everything we know about professional athletes. If there were scrubs doing it, there were probably some stars doing it, too. There may have been a Hall of Famer who tried steroids, but steroids have been part of the game for far longer than the general public assumes, and the true steroid era has already had Hall of Fame inductees.
And to go even further, we can be sure that the steroid era will never, ever end. Sure, we can increase the penalties—even a lifetime ban for the first positive test—but there will always be players willing to ingest illegal steroids because it gives them a better shot at making The Show, or making the big bucks. And the players already making the big bucks will have the resources to get the stuff that we’ll never find, at least not for a while. We’ll never get PEDs out of the game. So, if you’re keeping all players of the steroid era out, then we must never elect anyone to the Hall of Fame ever again. Which is silly.
Of course we can’t just ignore what they did, but what I suggest is that we put what the players who were caught cheating did into context. Even assuming that A-Rod suffers a severe dropoff this season and gradually declines to mediocrity by the end of his contract, what we’ll still have is a player likely in the top 5 all-time in hits, top-ten in doubles, and close to or holding the records in runs scored, home runs and runs batted in. He may finish with well over 800 home runs, in fact.
Now, knowing that he has the taint of steroids, we can’t take those numbers at face value. But what if we go all-out and assume he’s been using since high school, that every number was aided by steroids? I would have to say that even an extreme estimate of what he’d have done clean all those years would still be a shortstop/third baseman with nearly 400 home runs and over 2500 hits—and an excellent defensive shortstop at that. That’s a no-brainer Hall of Famer, even deducting credit through the character clause.
By that standard A-Rod gets in, Bonds gets in, Clemens gets in. Diminishing the value of Rafael Palmeiro’s stats, even in a less brutal fashion, probably leaves him looking like a borderline case, with the character issue keeping him out. Mark McGwire very probably has the same result.
How much to discount a player’s stats would be in the judgment of the individual voter, but there’s no exit door for the Hall of Fame—when you’re in, you’re in—and it’s better to discount the accomplishments of the ones who were caught than to banish them forever while finding out later on that one you enshrined had been even guiltier, and with a worse resume.
Alex Rodriguez can never again claim to be the greatest player that ever lived (not that I felt he’d have a legitimate claim until he was an All Star pitcher), but he’s a Hall of Famer. I just don’t see a logically consistent way to keep him out.
Comments
Great post Larry (who? JK), and I’m sure most here will agree. Unfortunately, it’s the writers that vote and they won’t care. I mean, can you imagine trying to reason with Mike Lupica?
A-Rod’s #s make his case for him, if we all go forward under the assumption that when testing began collectively, and penalties were handed out, that enough cheaters were caught to make the case that A-Rod must have been clean from then on. (whew!) Understand?
Every brilliant baseball writer points to A-Rod having great seasons in 2002 & 2003, while winning his first MVP, and, oh yes, having the positive test we now know about.
Of course, they tend to artlessly omit that he had those great seasons in the hitting paradise that is Texas, that he won two more MVPs after testing began, and he had one of the greatest seasons by a righty, playing half his games in Yankee Stadium, ever in 2007. So, voters and writers, if they actually think about it, must assume that, despite getting caught in 2003, A-Rod has been lucky ever since by not getting caught and his numbers are the result of the juice. OR, that he has been clean since testing began and is still putting up freakishly good numbers anyway because he just happens to be HOF caliber.
I kind of take issue with the idea of him being on the list is an assumption. This is kind of a semantic point, but an important one I feel, because of the connotations involved.
It’s not a known fact, but it’s gone from being an assumption to being a conclusion by means of evidence. An assumption is usually a starting point - not something supported by four independent sources. It’s akin to saying that Barack Obama was elected president was an assumption. All we have are sources reporting these things - I doubt any of us have seen firsthand evidence that he actually got more votes in the relevant states, or that the relevant electors voted for him.
You don’t need to see the list for it to not be an assumption. Even if you do see the list, at that point under the “we haven’t seen the list” logic, we’re still making an assumption that the list is the real list. If we have someone of authority tell us it’s the real list, then we’re still assuming that they’re not lying to us. Etc… You never reach the “known fact” level under that logic.
I agree with the rest of your post, but using the word “assumption” here is a bit akin to how controversial statements on Wikipedia are always prefaced by “claims”, so as to artificially imply doubt. (Again, because of the connotations involved with the term).
I mean, can you imagine trying to reason with Mike Lupica?
When A-Rod gets onto the ballot, Lupica will be at least 72.
This is kind of a semantic point, but an important one I feel, because of the connotations involved.
Which is why I called it a fairly safe assumption.
We *can* look at the evidence of the election, and who the electors voted for. We know *who* the sources are that are telling us how the election turned out. We don’t have either of those things in this case. But by journalistic standards, four independent sources is really damn good, and we can assume that it’s true.
But let’s not forget that it was reported with sources that Jason Grimsley’s list of players included Roger Clemens and Andy Pettitte. It did not. We’re making assumptions on these things.
It is my suspicion that A-Rod will deny ever using steroids.
“All we have are sources reporting these things”
That’s patently false. We have an amazingly consistent dataset composed of innumerable independent pieces of information compiled over a long period of time supporting the belief that Obama is president, while at the same time many many people are deeply motivated to but haven’t (or have in fact) attempted to dispute that very fact (without any success). Beyond the always-possible “we’re all brains in jars being fed falsified signals” hypothesis (which Dennett argues against cogently, but ymmv), it’s just not in the same class as Selena Roberts and her editor say that X and Y who should be in a position to know have seen A-Rod’s name on the list but no one has gotten a rebuttal in (admittedly it’s already getting late for the last).
Re [5], I asked in the other thread if players had been informed about the 2003 data - if not, there’s a very small but non-zero probability that A-Rod believed (or believes) he hadn’t taken (didn’t take) PEDs. If players were informed, then the whole confidentiality thing seems very thin.
I suspect there could have been a simple blinding procedure that would have allowed the tests to be done and repeated without anyone actually knowing the names of the players involved - e.g., the player’s name is encoded with an algorithm based on a randomly-generated seed stored somewhere and not looked at. The tester would input the name and get a bar-coded label out; this would produce the same data for the repeat test of course. Naively it seems trivial to have both the union and the league hold independent primes that would be needed to unscramble the names. Neither would be able to alter their number because the resulting id wouldn’t have appeared before.
rilkefan: When the government seized the survey test results, the players who failed the test were informed so they wouldn’t be surprised if their name was leaked.
What happened this weekend was the entire reason that MLB and the MLBPA were furious that the government exceeded its authority in taking all the test results.
[7] Thanks, that’s intensely dramatic.
Of course A-Rod must know that even if he wasn’t aware he was on PEDs (say he was taking supplements he believed to be clean), no one will believe him if he says so now. If he had known from the start that he was on the list, he could have come forward voluntarily years ago and seemed much more credible on that basis. Or maybe he was using and doing so knowingly, and has spent the last five years worrying that there would be a leak (e.g. from the union or the lab).
The steroids that A-Rod tested positive for are administered by injection. If he had them in his system, he was knowingly taking them.
If he had them in his system, he was knowingly taking them.
What??? You mean those weren’t vitamin B-12 shots he was getting! 
Former pitcher Tom House admitted to using steroids in the early 70s, and says that he was not alone, not by a long shot.
I’ve been giving some thought to this recently. What if Hank Aaron used steriods his last few years in the league? He *did* set a personal best for What if he was just so obs
Whoops! Was editing and looked what happened. Starting after “league?”..
He *did* set a personal best for HR at the age of 37, which is unusual. What if he were just so obssessed with breaking Ruth’s record he was willing to do anything to break it? What if we find out about it in 5 years? Do we erase Aaron’s record?
Now, I don’t believe he did use steriods. But, really, what if he did? I think the main question is, do we really WANT to know?
The steroids that A-Rod tested positive for are administered by injection.
A dihydrotestosterone-based anabolic steroid that can be taken orally or injected, Primobolan was popular with baseball players because it could help to improve strength and build lean muscle without creating an exaggeratedly bulky appearance, and with fewer side effects than some other steroids. It is also detectable for a shorter period of time.
But anyway, very nice piece, Larry. Well-reasoned and well-written. I might quibble with the last few paragraphs where you go into a bit too much quick and dirty statistical adjustment for my taste, but that’s about it. Yankee-haters will call you an apologist of course, but a lot of people could learn a thing or two by reading this.
Bonds - in
McGwire - in
Palmeiro - out
and for that matter, Pete Rose - in.
His being up for vote is going to be sooooo far into the future that talk about A-Rod’s HOF chances is a tad premature. As Larry notes, the BBWAA landscape will have changed. Long gone will be many of those writers who cheerfully use double standards in ignoring the performance enhancing effects of amphetamines as they rabidly pound the pulpit on the eeeeevil of the players who dare sully the sacrosanct game of baseball with steroids. What people don’t want to hear is this: the batch of players who have used steroids are unlucky to have been players when steroids became popularized. Educate players on ‘roids in the ‘50s, and the ‘50s becomes your steroid era. It’s been said before, but it becomes increasingly clear to me that the breathless indignation and self-righteousness on the part of the media is a mask for the its own reporting sloppiness and complicity in the whole affair.
I am kind of glad that this revelation has happened. I like A-Rod, but I do believe that Bonds have been scapegoated long enough for being good enough (with steroid enhancements, to be sure) to challenge home run records.
Now that first Clemens, and now Rodriguez has been allegedly revealed to be steroid users, I think it basically says that 1) almost all types of players have benefited from having used steroids, and 2) the only thing that we know about the rest is that they have not been revealed to be steroid users. It is possible, even probable, that most baseball players were using steroids for a sufficiently long and indeterminate period of time.
Let the witch hunt stop, and baseball should make a summary statement and move on. At this point, further revelation only has the impact of titillation without adding anything constructive.
Also, I have steroid fatigue. However, I vehemently deny having ever used them.
Probably not the best venue to bring this up (being a sabermetrically-inclined blog and all), but the personal stats that drive baseball stardom, and eventually enshrinement into the HOF, makes this whole steroid mess worse.
Shawne Merriman gets busted for roids, and no one bats an eye. He’s still considered one of the best LBs in the game. Rodney Harrison’s career is safe. No one will attempt to tarnish his legend because of PEDs.
But, football is more of a team sport than baseball. Outside of quarterbacks and running backs, stats mean less when it comes to the HOF.
Frankly, I’d wish baseball would be more like football. But it’s not, and the steroid “scandal” is going to hurt baseball much worse. If I had time, I’d try a more well thought-out post, but I don’t have time during the work week.
Part of the problem is this whole sacrosanct, nation’s past-time reverence for the game of baseball. I think that’s all a bunch of BS, just sachrine sentimentality for a game that’s changed - a lot - in the past decades.
Baseball is a business, just like football, basketball and NASCAR. I don’t hear writers wax on about the sanctity of the football clubhouse like they do the baseball clubhouse (see Torre’s new book). Stats aren’t revered in NASCAR or basketball like the way they are in baseball. Joe Gibbs’ racing team got busted for cheating - the whole friggin team - but it didn’t receive one iota of the coverage that A-Rod is getting.
Damn, I wish baseball, its fans and its writers would just grow up. Get over it. People cheat in all walks of life - even in the holy game of baseball. Punish the offenders and move on.
Let the witch hunt stop, and baseball should make a summary statement and move on. At this point, further revelation only has the impact of titillation without adding anything constructive.
Is it fair, then, to the players who used and may be on a list somewhere, to not be outed, while some high profile players, are? The same was true for the Mitchell report - I didn’t agree with it then and I don’t agree with it now. Mitchell named names, and admitted that there were more names, but that he couldn’t get them all. There’s 103 other people on this list, and they should all be made public as well.
The thing that is really confusing me is how this marriage will be for the next 9 years. Is there any chance that the way ARod handles this makes him a (relatively) more “lovable” figure in the eyes of the boo-birds that give it to him after every swing and miss? For some reason, and I’ve never understood this, it seems that the masses love an apology more than anything.
Part of the problem is this whole sacrosanct, nation’s past-time reverence for the game of baseball.
I think it’s more obvious than that. Members of the media today either are, or learned from, guys who grew up when only a handful of baseball players got to 500 HR’s and 3000 hits. Now, it’s just all too common for a guy to break into the big leagues and hit 45 HRs. I see it as a way of those 1950-1960 era baseball fans to be protective over the game as they remember it. Bob Costas is a good example when describing Mickey Mantle’s triple crown year(s?).. Mantle hit 54 HR and batted .317 (in his paraphrased words) “before guys would get called up from AAA and hit 50 homeruns.”
Baseball is a business, just like football, basketball and NASCAR.
I don’t mean to pick on you, but I’m sick of hearing this from fans and especially athletes. Baseball, football and basketball (I can’t speak to NASCAR) are *not* businesses in the traditional sense of the word. They are specifically exempt from anti-trust laws because the government recognizes their special nature. MLB is MLB.. it’s part of our national history and it deserves special treatment. But to say that owners and league leadership have a right to line their pockets and are in anyway justified by doing something that is counterproductive toward creating a genuine experience and maintaining the games integrity (which, I understand, has been tarnished time and time again) is just the wrong way to look at it.
Is it fair, then, to the players who used and may be on a list somewhere, to not be outed, while some high profile players, are? The same was true for the Mitchell report - I didn’t agree with it then and I don’t agree with it now. Mitchell named names, and admitted that there were more names, but that he couldn’t get them all. There’s 103 other people on this list, and they should all be made public as well.
It isn’t fair to others. But as a parent body, MLB has to take a broader view than getting caught up in the identity of players who gets outed, and say that ultimately it is not the personal embarrassment of the players that matters. Rather, there was a whole culture of steroid usage and permissiveness, and even the very best were not immune from it. Baseball did not create sufficient disincentives to make players refrain from using them, and in that everyone was complicit. And finally, baseball has turned the page.
At that point, it may be of academic interest to know who the rest 103 are. But it really shouldn’t matter much.
I think the HOF will have to make a bright line distinction as to what their stance is on the steroid age.
Think about the upcoming induction ceremonies. Are they only going to vote in pitchers and “toolsy” middle infielders? And what about players that have so far avoided the steroid conversation, such as Jeff Bagwell and Mike Piazza… do we want the hall-of-fame voters to determine that these players were clean by using their own anecdotal evidence? And what happens if, say, an inducted player (cough, Rickey Henderson, cough) is found out to have used PEDs? Does he get booted?
They are specifically exempt from anti-trust laws because the government recognizes their special nature. MLB is MLB.. it’s part of our national history and it deserves special treatment.
But that doesn’t prevent MLB owners from pocketing super-normal profits. MLB owners are profit maximizers, just like any other business. They are perfectly justified, from a business standpoint, to avail of the opportunity to take advantage of anti-trust exemption to bolster their profits. And they do.
Your argument may be a good reason as to how it should be, but don’t expect businesses to turn down opportunities for profit.
I personally think the anti-trust exemption should go.
Actually, only baseball enjoys an exemption from anti-trust laws. Football has a limited exemption that only covers their pooling and selling of video packages to broadcast and cable entities. The NBA and the NHL are not exempt from anti-trust laws in any respect.
I don’t mean to pick on you, but I’m sick of hearing this from fans and especially athletes. Baseball, football and basketball (I can’t speak to NASCAR) are *not* businesses in the traditional sense of the word. They are specifically exempt from anti-trust laws because the government recognizes their special nature. MLB is MLB.. it’s part of our national history and it deserves special treatment.
As Johnny said, only baseball gets an anti-trust exemption. And it’s not because the government recognizes MLBs “special” nature. The anti-trust exemption came in 1922 when the USSC said MLB did not engage in interstate commerce, hence it did not fall under anti-trust laws. Obviously, things have changed; however, the USSC has said it will not repeal its 1922 decision - only Congress can do that. Also, the USSC has never given “blanket” anti-trust exemptions for MLB - only on specific issues that it has confronted.
That ruling is a big part of baseball’s problem. Don’t like the way Congress is sticking its nose in baseball’s business? Neither do I, but they will continue to do so because they have the power to strip baseball’s antitrust exemption.
Frankly, they should. There’s no reason for it. MLB is a business.
And what happens if, say, an inducted player (cough, Rickey Henderson, cough) is found out to have used PEDs?
That’s what I was getting at with Aaron. He’d be an even bigger deal, because he played his entire career in a supposedly “clean” era, and did it, “the right way”. But yeah, any HOF player will do. Jim Rice, Nolan Ryan, Bruce Sutter, etc, etc.
Is there any chance that the way ARod handles this makes him a (relatively) more “lovable” figure in the eyes of the boo-birds that give it to him after every swing and miss?
Giambi seems to have been (mostly) forgiven. Arod will need EITHER A) evidence that this has been fabricated at some level OR B) a huge, public, heart-felt apology/explanation AND C) play well. C is the most important of course.
As Johnny said, only baseball gets an anti-trust exemption.
Granted, but that doesn’t change our discussion of it’s problems which I think we agree are a problem.
I guess my point is that in the context of baseball anti-trust exempt status, Selig deserves to catch even more shit.
The anti-trust exemption came in 1922 when the USSC said MLB did not engage in interstate commerce, hence it did not fall under anti-trust laws.
Yeah, it would be interesting to hear how MLB doesn’t fall under interstate commerce any more. It would have to be more of a semantic argument than anything. I watch NY Yankees games broadcast by the YES network (I believe headquartered in NY) here in Pennsylvania. I also buy licensed Yankees’s apparel in stores here. Sure sounds like “interstate” and “commerce”. As I said, semantically you may be able to rationalize that it isn’t. But that’s just it.
I wonder if Congress doesn’t want to repeal the exemption because they feel they have more power over MLB if they don’t?
I wonder if Congress doesn’t want to repeal the exemption because they feel they have more power over MLB if they don’t?
Bingo.
I’m confused on a number of things, but one that seems easiest to answer is about A-Rod’s representation. There are a number of reporters talking about what ARod should do, and making it seem like Boras was still representing him. I thought he had fired Boras and was now represented by some marketing-type agent. Am I making that up?
I thought he had fired Boras and was now represented by some marketing-type agent. Am I making that up?
I think it’s a little more complicated than that. I think ARod has a “marketing-type agent” to handle his “image” and non-baseball activities. Boras is still his agent as far as baseball-related activities, e.g. even though ARod negotiated his last contract with the Yankees directly, Boras was still in charge of negotiating the details, etc. I’m sure that explanation is a bit simplistic as well.
Okay. Thanks for that. Starting to remember those details. Seems like the steroids thing would fall under the “image” jurisdiction.
Even the “eye-test”, for what it’s worth, doesn’t tell us much. A-Rod has gotten larger over his career, but it’s been a gradual thing, so there’s no clear delineating point there.
For whatever it’s worth, I remember A-Rod saying that he had tried to bulk up to a 3rd baseman’s size in 2006, then shed that weight for 07 after his less-than-stellar year. I haven’t heard of too many players losing weight while on PEDs, while suggests to me that he probably wasn’t juicing in 07 (and we all remember how I played that year). But I’m hardly an expert on the matter, so who knows?
There may have been a Hall of Famer who tried steroids, but steroids have been part of the game for far longer than the general public assumes, and the true steroid era has already had Hall of Fame inductees.
It always bothers me when people attack Bonds and say that Hank Aaron is the ‘true’ home run king, willfully ignoring the fact that Aaron admitted to taking illegal Amphetamines - greenies - to try to improve his numbers during a slump. Honestly, does anyone see a legitimate difference between taking greenies in the late 60s, and taking PEDs in 2003?
Actually, I already withdraw my comments about him not bulking up.
Basically, primobolan allows the user to gain muscle without changing their normal food consumption (it does this by telling your body to retain nitrogen which helps build muscle). However, the muscle gain is small which is why Primobolan is considered to be a weak steroid.
Basically, Alex Rodriguez took a steroid that made him as strong as he would have been if he were just going to the gym with the veracity that he reportedly does, with the difference being that instead of packing on pounds he was able to get bigger and remain cut. To put it bluntly, the advantage Rodriguez earned from primobolan was in sexiness, not in strength. I can’t wait to hear someone claim that sexiness leads to additional home runs.
This explanation of Primobolan is quite good:
http://www.bugsandcranks.com/the-clubhouse/steve-hulkower/how-are-so-many-people-upset-about-something-they-dont-even-understand/
Bill Madden of the NY Daily News suggests that the Yanks should send a message by cutting A-Rod and just eating his $270 million in salary.
Seriously, I’m not making this up.
No really, stop laughing.
I’m starting to think that ARod should just pull a “Costanza” and start doing the opposite of what he thinks he should do in every situation.
“My name’s Alex… I’m on PEDs and am obsessed with my image.”
“I’m Victoria… Hi!”
Bill Madden of the NY Daily News suggests that the Yanks should send a message by cutting A-Rod and just eating his $270 million in salary.
Yeah, I saw that earlier. I picked the wrong career…
start doing the opposite of what he thinks he should do in every situation
Better yet, he should watch video of Casey Stengal testifying before Congress, and start responding to questions in that manner.
Posada on his involvement in the survey testing and the possibility of being one of the 104 players:
“I hope not. I think I’ve done things right,”
That does not sound good to me. It is the post though.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/02092009/sports/yankees/derek__give_alex_benefit_of_doubt_154277.htm
“I hope not. I think I’ve done things right,”
Does this imply that the players on the list in 2003 don’t know they’re on the list?
See [7] above, which I misread as the players having been informed this weekend, not at the time the list was seized.
start doing the opposite of what he thinks he should do in every situation
Better yet, he should watch video of Casey Stengal testifying before Congress, and start responding to questions in that manner.
I love it, but who would play Mickey Mantle (“My views are about the same as Alex’s”)? The obvious answer is Derek, but I’d prefer either of A-Rod’s proteges - Cano or Melky - providing that they do it it comically broken English along the lines of Chico Escuela
“A-Rod…has been berry, berry good to me!”
Ahhh ok. So maybe it’s just a poor choice of words by Jorge.
“10. Voting: The Committee shall consider all eligible candidates and voting shall be based upon the individual’s record, ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character and contribution to the game. Electors may vote for as few as zero (0) and as many as ten (10) eligible candidates deemed worthy of election. Write-in votes are not permitted.”
http://web.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers/rules.jsp
I did not read any of the other comments yet, but I would probably make the argument that players that have been caught with steroids lack integrity, which is one of the recommended considerations.
You can only “punish” those that you catch. I wouldn’t let them off the hook because you cannot catch everyone.
Hopefully, the “punishment” will make future players less likely to use performance-enhancing drugs.
I see a huge difference between taking greenies, amphetamines in the 60’s and even a weak steroid 40 years later, leaving out the legality of either. Don’t amphetamines allow you to go about your business longer without getting tired (more of a brain stimulant) and steroids allow you to physically become stronger, which is a definite benefit when your at bat or on the mound.
So, what’s the difference then in why one is less bad than the other?
Don’t amphetamines allow you to go about your business longer without getting tired (more of a brain stimulant) and steroids allow you to physically become stronger, which is a definite benefit when your at bat or on the mound.
Amphetamines cause your brain to release chemicals which increase your bodies ability to function at a higher energy level than otherwise possible. I fail to see how this is not the same type of advantage steroids provide. In either case you are altering your body’s performance capabilities through the ingestion of chemical substances.
Well, I think the key factor is altering your body’s performance capabilities through the ingestion of chemical substances that have a reasonable chance of causing harm.
There are a lot of chemical substances that aren’t banned, and shouldn’t be.
See [7] above, which I misread as the players having been informed this weekend, not at the time the list was seized.
Whats the over/under on the number of players on that list who will voluntarily come forward and admit that they failed a test? I’m guessing its 1/2 and I’m taking the under.
You can only “punish” those that you catch. I wouldn’t let them off the hook because you cannot catch everyone.
While this moral indignation serves the Pope and his acolytes well, baseball Hall of Fame will lose relevance as a bearer of the history of the game if it leaves out some of the best players to have ever played this game if it does not induct the very best from this era.
Also, this really does not punish anybody who took steroids (except for Bonds, who lost out monetarily because no team would let him play) in any meaningful sense. If steroids helped them to a more productive and longer career, they have seen its benefits through earning more money. Most of the users probably are not going to sniff the Hall of Fame, so I fail to see where precluding a minuscule few from Hall of Fame acts as a deterrent to steroid use by new players in the game.
Well, I think the key factor is altering your body’s performance capabilities through the ingestion of chemical substances that have a reasonable chance of causing harm.
On the subject of amphetamines: Have you ever heard the dire warning that they used to give on their use: “Speed Kills”?
While this moral indignation serves the Pope and his acolytes well, baseball Hall of Fame will lose relevance as a bearer of the history of the game if it leaves out some of the best players to have ever played this game if it does not induct the very best from this era.
Like Joe Jackson and Pete Rose?
Liveblog of the ARod news conference:
http://riveraveblues.com/2009/02/a-rod-statement-liveblog-7827/#comments
And by news conference, I mean interview with Gammons on ESPN.
Re amphetamines, iirc I’ve read (from non-pro-drug-war sources) that meth is the most pernicious drug out there by far. And they’re probably more obviously useful in baseball than steroids.
Thank God he admitted it. This is one time where his daddy issues that cause him to want to please people has helped him out.
“where his daddy issues”
Or maybe he’s just, you know, doing the right thing. Or the smart thing.
I’m telling you guys.. the dark horse here is ARod becomes a real person and the fans love him for it.
He apparently admitted to knowingly taking steroids for an undisclosed duration of time while playing for the Rangers.
He said he used from 2001 to 2003, but hasn’t since.
RAB said he admitted to using it from 2001-2003, citing the pressure from his new contract as the reason he did it.
Rodriguez says he used steroids between 2001 and 2003 only and has not used PEDs since he joined the Yankees.
This is part of the explanation for the Yankees failing to get their money’s worth on so many player. Players go on PEDs, have big years and sign a big contract with the Yankees based on those years. The Yankees pay them on the basis of their PEDs aided ability but get them in non-PEDs years.
2001-2003 via the liveblog at RAB. Says he learned about the positive test from Roberts.
This is part of the explanation for the Yankees failing to get their money’s worth on so many player. Players go on PEDs, have big years and sign a big contract with the Yankees based on those years. The Yankees pay them on the basis of their PEDs aided ability but get them in non-PEDs years.
Wait.. but my friends who are Mets fans told me that every Yankee victory in the last 15 years has been fueled by steroids. You mean that’s not true?
Press reaction sounds favorable. Of course that’s from the network that got the scoop, but fingers crossed.
Like Joe Jackson and Pete Rose?
I would argue that those are different. Joe Jackson did something that risked the basic competition in the game: he agreed to lose intentionally. What Rose did could have had a similar impact if it were not dealt with harshly.
We don’t really care much about WWE because we know those are shams, right? What Jackson and Rose did strikes at the root of what is the basic essence of competitive sports.
I am willing to be convinced otherwise, as with anything else, but that is how I view them.
One thing that Hall of Fame can do re: Rose and Jackson is to have a section dedicated to them, and in addition to their personal accomplishments also record their failings. The same could be done for people of the steroids, amphetamine, segregation eras, however you may want to define them.
Press -> media.
I thought every victory during the last 15 years was fueled by my hatred for Buck Showalter.
Can he actually say that he used PEDs while being a Yankee, and get away without any legal implications?
His words will obviously beg the question: “Why did you stop using it from 2004?” Can he credibly answer that question?
If he says being a Yankee made him stop it, that sounds paying obeisance to the mystic-aura crowd, but infuriates the rest of the league.
If he says that the random testing was a wake-up call, that probably is the best possible explanation. But I doubt people will buy it.
Well, he apparently didn’t know that he was on the list until Roberts approached him this past week, so there has to be some other reason he stopped using in 2003.
“This is part of the explanation for the Yankees failing to get their money’s worth on so many players.”
Might be true for a lot of them (cough*Giambi*cough) but how much better than a couple of MVP seasons while paying less than 100% of his salary could the Yankees have hoped for?
“Well, he apparently didn’t know that he was on the list until Roberts approached him this past week, so there has to be some other reason he stopped using in 2003.”
In late 2003, the BALCO story broke and baseball instituted the mandatory drug tesiting for the 2004 season. Both good reasons to quit using.
I like the apology. I also like the amount of time that can lapse before ST starts. I would also like to see him absolutely annihilate any doubters of his ability this year. Fuck the image.. just get nasty and start embarassing people, especially the Red Sox.
Liveblog says it sounds like he stopped in response to the start of the testing regime.
Good call on the timing of the BALCO thing.
What Jackson and Rose did strikes at the root of what is the basic essence of competitive sports.
And the complete flip side of steroid use. On one side you have a player damaging the integrity of the game by possibly not attempting to compete to their ability, thus destroying, as you put it, the essence of competitive sports.
On the other side, a player is trying to do everything he can to be a better competitor. I would argue the former is way more damaging to the game than the latter.
“Rodriguez said he stopped taking substances after injuring himself at spring training in 2003 with the Rangers.
“It wasn’t a real dramatic day. I started experimenting with things that, today, are not legal,” he said, “that today are not accepted ... ever since that incident happened, I realized that I don’t need any of it.”“
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3894847
Well done Alex, breaking the omerta. These things start as a trickle, then a flood. Or so we can hope.
I think it was Rob Neyer who brought up this point, but A-Rod’s first going to appear on the ballot for the Hall of Fame on 2023 at the earliest. This is SO LONG in the future that I’m sure a lot of the older, hardline, “I’ll never vote for a steroid user” writers will soften/retire, especially as it becomes more and more evident that steroids were simply a part of the game for that era and there’s not a lot of value in pretending it was limited to a few isolated cases.
Glad to see news of A-Rod’s mea culpa. He usually handles things in the worst way possible and it’s good to see him go the Giambi/Pettitte route. Hopefully New York fans give him the same response that they gave those guys.
One thing that Hall of Fame can do re: Rose and Jackson is to have a section dedicated to them, and in addition to their personal accomplishments also record their failings. The same could be done for people of the steroids, amphetamine, segregation eras, however you may want to define them.
Wouldn’t that be a ‘Hall of Infamy’ instead?
I would also like to see him absolutely annihilate any doubters of his ability this year. Fuck the image.. just get nasty and start embarassing people, especially the Red Sox.
Sounds Bill Belichick-esque.
I was actually thinking the same thing. Perhaps now he can embrace his dark side - no, not continue PED use - but rather truly play with a “I don’t give an F” attitude. T’would be nice…...
And the complete flip side of steroid use. On one side you have a player damaging the integrity of the game by possibly not attempting to compete to their ability, thus destroying, as you put it, the essence of competitive sports.
So, the worst must be players who set a bad example like the PEDs users </b>and<b>
did not attempt to compete to their highest level of ability.
How about players like Dave Parker and Keith Hernandez who used recreational drugs while being paid to play well. Do we consider these players even more despicable than PEDs users? Why not?
“http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3894847”
They’ve got a comparison of his season stats as a Ranger vs the rest of his career. Not park- or PA-adjusted, of course.
Peter Gammons (hardly a great friend to the Yankees) was glowing about his reaction to the interview, in particular how emotional Alex was. I agree with the assessment that this whole episode will endear him with the fans.
While ARod certainly did this to himself, I feel sorry for him: it must be terrible to always live with this kind of weight on your shoulders, constantly being afraid someone might spill the beans. Hopefully now that the “monkey is truly off his back,” he can relax and hit the un-PED-enhanced snot out of the ball.
I wonder, is it possible to do some sort of park-adjusted comparison of ARod’s homerun rates through the years?
Amphetamines improve both focus and response time, whereas steroids improve the ability to recover from workout and add muscle tissue. Both have obvious implications re: performance enhancement; IMO amphetamines are at least as bad as steroids, particularly because of the improvement in response time.
Wouldn’t that be a ‘Hall of Infamy’ instead?
Perhaps. Maybe this belongs in the history section of MLB.
yankeemonkey -
At the very least we can look at his OPS+, which are park-adjusted. In Texas, his OPS+ were 160, 158 & 147. On the Yankees, they have been 131, 173, 134, 177 & 150. Overall, the trend was that his slugging percentage went down while on the Yankees, and his On-Base percentage went up. However, his absurd .645 slugging percentage in 2007 was 22 points higher than his best on Texas.
Don,t believe him for a sec. What about HGH?
How about players like Dave Parker and Keith Hernandez who used recreational drugs while being paid to play well. Do we consider these players even more despicable than PEDs users? Why not?
Well you would first have to show that they were doing cocaine, etc right before a game, or during it. You would also have to show how this was detrimental to their ability.
I think the key is in their approach to the game. With Rose and Jackson, they were perhaps intentionally tanking games. With Hernandez and co., their drug use doesn’t automatically correlate to ‘not truly playing to win.’
You see his pecs. Those aren’t workout pecs.
To clarify, when a player agrees not to play to win a game, that is instantly a detriment to the essence of the game.
However, if a player has a habit or a vice that may effect their ability, that does not come close to being as detrimental to the sport. One player may do drugs, the other may stay out late with women. While both may alter their abilities on the field, you can’t claim they are both intentionally damaging the competitive nature of the sport, at least not to the degree of losing on purpose.
If he says that the random testing was a wake-up call, that probably is the best possible explanation. But I doubt people will buy it.
But the entire freaking point of random testing with penalties is to deter players from using. You know, that whole “clean up the game” thing? If people aren’t going to buy that players who would use when their were no consequences for using just might stop if there were consequences, then why bother with testing and penalties in the first place?
They won’t buy it because it’s A-Rod, not because the start of the testing regime isn’t a good reason to quit. Not sure if “credibly” was intended to apply to the hoi polloi or us, the few.
Watch him become the Incredible Shrinking Man by the All Star break.
I dunno man, I mean if we go by career WARP3 and compare these guys..
Rice: 80.1 (now the standard bottom line of sluggers)
Palmeiro: 130
Sheffield: 123
Giambi: 90 (LOL JASON GIAMBI is more valuable than Jim Rice)
McGwire: 109 (!!!)
Sosa : 108 (!!!)
(just for muse)
Tim Raines: 130 (yeah, Raines is as valuable as Palmeiro, and this probably underscore the defensive grand canyon between the two) and he has around the same vote % as Mac ... zzzz
Stats wise, people tend to overlook that Palmeiro’s career is a lot longer than Macs (he had a wooping 2000 more career total bases than Mac), and he was a much more complete hitter than Sosa (who is the only player other than Ernie Banks to hit over 500 HR without over 1000 walks.). he gets knocked for not having truely AWSOME seasons, but almost every year in his career is VERY VERY VERY good. from a pure stats point of view. it’s hard to say he’s not heads and shoulder above Sosa and McGwire. While I agree you should get credit for extremely awsome seasons. the basis should still be your overall performances. in which Ralffy is actually a lot better than Sosa and Mac.
and if we’re going to take a discount, how MUCH of a discount should it be? the WARP3 data, while obviously have flaws, is a good hint of what sort of gorge we’re looking at , Palmerio was nearly 70% more of a player than Rice was! even with some other things considered we would essentially be saying that if your caught using roids, and your not over 50% better than Jim Rice, your not in? really?
I think guys like Giambi are definately out, despite being actually significantly better than Rice. (Jose Canseco is actually slightly better than Rice too, just to show how awful an selection that is)
Next entry: A-Rod: 'I did it'
Previous entry: So, Did You Hear About A-Rod?
There are currently 68 visitors who are not logged in.
There was a record 241 simultaneous visitors on May 2, 2011 at 11:54:25 pm.
