They’ve Left Cooperstown Barren, Uninteresting and Illegitimate
January 26, 2022 2:39 PM Subscribe
This is a museum of baseball history. What purpose does that museum serve when it purges entire pieces of history from its walls? You’ve ripped the guts out of the thing and left it as not only a dry branding exercise, but a culturally irrelevant one. Only the weirdos who file FCC complaints about vulgarities during the Super Bowl halftime show would ever want to visit it. from By Leaving Out SF Giants Legend Barry Bonds, the Baseball Hall of Fame Finally Signs its Own Death Certificate by Drew Magary
8 Wild Barry Bonds Stats After MLB Legend Was Snubbed by Baseball Hall of Fame [BleacherReport]
Is Barry Bonds’s Hall of Fame banishment a tragedy or a shame? How about both? [WP]
Barry Bonds timed out on the BBWAA Hall of Fame ballot — and now it’s about to get really messy [The Athletic]
If Barry Bonds isn't a Hall of Famer by the end of the day, it's a failure by the Hall of Fame [ESPN]
Game's controversial greats fall off Hall ballot [MLB]
I Investigated Bonds and Clemens. Yes, They Belong in Cooperstown. [NYT]
8 Wild Barry Bonds Stats After MLB Legend Was Snubbed by Baseball Hall of Fame [BleacherReport]
Is Barry Bonds’s Hall of Fame banishment a tragedy or a shame? How about both? [WP]
Barry Bonds timed out on the BBWAA Hall of Fame ballot — and now it’s about to get really messy [The Athletic]
If Barry Bonds isn't a Hall of Famer by the end of the day, it's a failure by the Hall of Fame [ESPN]
Game's controversial greats fall off Hall ballot [MLB]
I Investigated Bonds and Clemens. Yes, They Belong in Cooperstown. [NYT]
You put them in, but with an *
posted by Bee'sWing at 2:48 PM on January 26, 2022 [4 favorites]
posted by Bee'sWing at 2:48 PM on January 26, 2022 [4 favorites]
Cooperstown and MLB, if they were smart about this, would respond by saying that the BBWAA had abdicated their responsibility, and as such would no longer be tasked with voting on players for admission. (They should have done this a few years back when the BBWAA refused to nominate anyone.) But of course they won't, and they will continue to wonder why baseball fandom is in decline.
posted by NoxAeternum at 2:58 PM on January 26, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by NoxAeternum at 2:58 PM on January 26, 2022 [2 favorites]
You build an asshole wing, put Clemens under the rotunda. Plus "Hall of A-holes" has a pleasing ring.
posted by Keith Talent at 2:59 PM on January 26, 2022 [11 favorites]
posted by Keith Talent at 2:59 PM on January 26, 2022 [11 favorites]
You build an asshole wing, put Clemens under the rotunda. Plus "Hall of A-holes" has a pleasing ring.
You could have either 35 or 37 players.
posted by maxwelton at 3:03 PM on January 26, 2022 [3 favorites]
You could have either 35 or 37 players.
posted by maxwelton at 3:03 PM on January 26, 2022 [3 favorites]
You build an asshole wing, put Clemens under the rotunda. Plus "Hall of A-holes" has a pleasing ring.
They could call it Cobberstown.
posted by escabeche at 3:05 PM on January 26, 2022 [2 favorites]
They could call it Cobberstown.
posted by escabeche at 3:05 PM on January 26, 2022 [2 favorites]
Because Barry Bonds’ career, good and evil, is a necessary part of baseball history. One that should be documented and put on display.
This is a great argument for including Bonds in a Museum of Baseball History, but not a Hall of Fame.
Nobody learned a goddamn thing from any of this, which is antithetical to the mission of the Hall of Fame. This is a museum of baseball history.
Oh, I see; the problem is the Magary doesn't understand the difference between a museum of history and a hall of fame. They are not, in fact, the same thing. "Preserving history" does not require "glorifying utter fuckwads", as anybody who has ever even dipped a toe into the discussion about removing Confederate statues should know. This is that same discussion, writ small and petty. If Cooperstown is actually just a history museum, than they can just set up an exhibit about the steroid era and tell that story, in its full context, without having to declare any of those players Hall-of-Fame-worthy.
It's not like Barry Bonds or Roger Clemens are going to be forgotten about, just because they're not in the Hall of Fame. That's ridiculous. And if you do put them in the Hall of Fame, you are telling every current and future player: "It doesn't matter if you cheat. It doesn't even matter if you're an absolutely awful human being. If you can put up the numbers, you, too, can be a Hall of Fame player." I would much rather that current and future players of the game understand the opposite message - that it doesn't matter what numbers you put up or how well you play the game, if you try to dope and cheat your way to success you'll never be a Hall of Fame player. Incentives matter.
Honestly, there's a better argument for letting Pete Rose into the HOF, but I'm not shedding any tears over his exclusion, either.
posted by mstokes650 at 3:07 PM on January 26, 2022 [42 favorites]
This is a great argument for including Bonds in a Museum of Baseball History, but not a Hall of Fame.
Nobody learned a goddamn thing from any of this, which is antithetical to the mission of the Hall of Fame. This is a museum of baseball history.
Oh, I see; the problem is the Magary doesn't understand the difference between a museum of history and a hall of fame. They are not, in fact, the same thing. "Preserving history" does not require "glorifying utter fuckwads", as anybody who has ever even dipped a toe into the discussion about removing Confederate statues should know. This is that same discussion, writ small and petty. If Cooperstown is actually just a history museum, than they can just set up an exhibit about the steroid era and tell that story, in its full context, without having to declare any of those players Hall-of-Fame-worthy.
It's not like Barry Bonds or Roger Clemens are going to be forgotten about, just because they're not in the Hall of Fame. That's ridiculous. And if you do put them in the Hall of Fame, you are telling every current and future player: "It doesn't matter if you cheat. It doesn't even matter if you're an absolutely awful human being. If you can put up the numbers, you, too, can be a Hall of Fame player." I would much rather that current and future players of the game understand the opposite message - that it doesn't matter what numbers you put up or how well you play the game, if you try to dope and cheat your way to success you'll never be a Hall of Fame player. Incentives matter.
Honestly, there's a better argument for letting Pete Rose into the HOF, but I'm not shedding any tears over his exclusion, either.
posted by mstokes650 at 3:07 PM on January 26, 2022 [42 favorites]
mstokes650, doesn't that mean that the Hall Of Fame is already a bankrupt institution?
I think the argument he's making is that their baseball achievements warrant inclusion in the HoF, whereas all the information about how shitty some of the players were should be in the Museum of Baseball History.
posted by sagc at 3:21 PM on January 26, 2022 [4 favorites]
I think the argument he's making is that their baseball achievements warrant inclusion in the HoF, whereas all the information about how shitty some of the players were should be in the Museum of Baseball History.
posted by sagc at 3:21 PM on January 26, 2022 [4 favorites]
Ray Ratto's piece on this is an absolute thing of beauty.
Gloriously written.
posted by Gadarene at 3:24 PM on January 26, 2022 [8 favorites]
Gloriously written.
posted by Gadarene at 3:24 PM on January 26, 2022 [8 favorites]
I found out several years ago that my brother rode with Lance Armstrong's practice squad. I asked him, "So what's the real deal". His response that Armstrong won his races in training. He was not going to stand by and let the other riders get away from him. Doping was everywhere. My brother implied that Armstrong was maybe too good. Too noticeable. He had more bile for the fans who elevated him to the stratosphere.
I heard the same argument with Bonds. When Sosa and McGwire began taking off he wasn't going to be let behind.
I think his basic argument was that the competitiveness of these athletes border on insanity. For me, it is obvious in the athleticism of any athlete in any sport. None of these guys are ever going to lay down...or be left behind.
That primal urge is too strong
And to imply that the game is pure is a joke. I think Bouton changed that in "Ball Four"
To me, sportswriters take themselves way, way, way too seriously. Sorry, guys. When a game is over, a game is over. You're unnecessary, even more so now with social media. Same with you, sports radio jocks, who are probably some of the most condescending people on the planet.
If you can catch a baseball, catch a baseball. If you can't, become a sportswriter!
posted by goalyeehah at 3:34 PM on January 26, 2022 [10 favorites]
I heard the same argument with Bonds. When Sosa and McGwire began taking off he wasn't going to be let behind.
I think his basic argument was that the competitiveness of these athletes border on insanity. For me, it is obvious in the athleticism of any athlete in any sport. None of these guys are ever going to lay down...or be left behind.
That primal urge is too strong
And to imply that the game is pure is a joke. I think Bouton changed that in "Ball Four"
To me, sportswriters take themselves way, way, way too seriously. Sorry, guys. When a game is over, a game is over. You're unnecessary, even more so now with social media. Same with you, sports radio jocks, who are probably some of the most condescending people on the planet.
If you can catch a baseball, catch a baseball. If you can't, become a sportswriter!
posted by goalyeehah at 3:34 PM on January 26, 2022 [10 favorites]
And if you do put them in the Hall of Fame, you are telling every current and future player: "It doesn't matter if you cheat. It doesn't even matter if you're an absolutely awful human being. If you can put up the numbers, you, too, can be a Hall of Fame player."
Here's the thing - that boat done sailed already. We've already said that given the bigots, cheats, and abusers already in the Hall. The "character clause" is and has been bullshit for decades now - arguing for it as justification to keep Bonds and Clemens out is purely a debate of cookware albedo.
posted by NoxAeternum at 3:35 PM on January 26, 2022 [14 favorites]
Here's the thing - that boat done sailed already. We've already said that given the bigots, cheats, and abusers already in the Hall. The "character clause" is and has been bullshit for decades now - arguing for it as justification to keep Bonds and Clemens out is purely a debate of cookware albedo.
posted by NoxAeternum at 3:35 PM on January 26, 2022 [14 favorites]
Gadarene
All That said, Ratto and Lowell Cohn were the only writers I could read
posted by goalyeehah at 3:35 PM on January 26, 2022 [3 favorites]
All That said, Ratto and Lowell Cohn were the only writers I could read
posted by goalyeehah at 3:35 PM on January 26, 2022 [3 favorites]
I’m a baseball observer who doesn’t give a shit about the HOF. I’m guessing there are a lot of not nice people with statues in that building. I have plans never to set foot inside. I’m guessing I’m not alone.
posted by MorgansAmoebas at 3:48 PM on January 26, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by MorgansAmoebas at 3:48 PM on January 26, 2022 [1 favorite]
Bonds was with one my of local teams, the Giants, and I hated the guy for various reasons. I was kind of happy that when he shattered the single season HR record people found an excuse to most ignore it, unlike the Sosa/McGwire race that captivated the nation.
The moral of this story is that I was an asshole.
Bonds had an HOF career before he plausibly started taking steroids. He was probably late to the game with the steroid use, competing against other hitters also using them, and on that playing field still stood head and shoulders above everyone else. And he had an adversarial relationship with the press and fans, so unlike the collective agreement to just ignore McGwire's well known androstenedione use when he was rocking it ("it's not technically illegal!") Bonds got pilloried.
The timing did matter too. After a decade of glorifying the results of PEDs the MLB and sports writers decided it went too far so they had to perform extra special outrage.
We decide what rules are important. Gaylord Perry is in the hall of fame, totally uncontroversially. And he tried to get a contract endorsing Vaseline!
This is a great argument for including Bonds in a Museum of Baseball History, but not a Hall of Fame.
He took steroids late in his career. It's not like he led armies to support treason and defend slavery.
posted by mark k at 3:52 PM on January 26, 2022 [10 favorites]
The moral of this story is that I was an asshole.
Bonds had an HOF career before he plausibly started taking steroids. He was probably late to the game with the steroid use, competing against other hitters also using them, and on that playing field still stood head and shoulders above everyone else. And he had an adversarial relationship with the press and fans, so unlike the collective agreement to just ignore McGwire's well known androstenedione use when he was rocking it ("it's not technically illegal!") Bonds got pilloried.
The timing did matter too. After a decade of glorifying the results of PEDs the MLB and sports writers decided it went too far so they had to perform extra special outrage.
We decide what rules are important. Gaylord Perry is in the hall of fame, totally uncontroversially. And he tried to get a contract endorsing Vaseline!
This is a great argument for including Bonds in a Museum of Baseball History, but not a Hall of Fame.
He took steroids late in his career. It's not like he led armies to support treason and defend slavery.
posted by mark k at 3:52 PM on January 26, 2022 [10 favorites]
Being an awful human being in private has never particularly been an obstacle. The Hall may be about more than numbers, but it’s entirely about how the players played the game. The argument that the excluded players played the game wrong sort of makes sense in a vacuum, but it doesn’t contend with the reality of an era of widespread doping, or the difficulty of delineating when steroid use actually became common or who was actually using them, or of how to figure in other potentially performance-enhancing drugs that are known to have been popular in the past. It’s just taking everything out on a short list of players who were both a.) among the biggest stars of their era and b.) caught.
posted by atoxyl at 4:02 PM on January 26, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by atoxyl at 4:02 PM on January 26, 2022 [2 favorites]
It just blows a big hole in the historical value of the Hall, which otherwise manages to represent several eras of the game which are difficult to compare directly, all to make somebody, somewhere feel righteous about an issue that the sport was actually totally unable or unwilling to address back when it mattered. Not until after a bunch of people had made a bunch of money off it, anyway!
posted by atoxyl at 4:06 PM on January 26, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by atoxyl at 4:06 PM on January 26, 2022 [2 favorites]
And c. Not willing to play nice with sports journalists.
posted by ursus_comiter at 4:07 PM on January 26, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by ursus_comiter at 4:07 PM on January 26, 2022 [1 favorite]
Ty Cobb is in the Baseball Hall of Fame. Any subsequent morals clauswitzian justifications for keeping anybody else out are utter bilge.
posted by ivan ivanych samovar at 4:10 PM on January 26, 2022 [11 favorites]
posted by ivan ivanych samovar at 4:10 PM on January 26, 2022 [11 favorites]
And c. Not willing to play nice with sports journalists.
Yeah, this is key. Bonds was actually generally loved by his teammates, for what it's worth. Nominated for a few of those Man of the Year awards on behalf of the team, if I recall correctly (whatever the MLB version is of the NFL's Walter Payton award).
posted by Gadarene at 4:11 PM on January 26, 2022 [4 favorites]
Yeah, this is key. Bonds was actually generally loved by his teammates, for what it's worth. Nominated for a few of those Man of the Year awards on behalf of the team, if I recall correctly (whatever the MLB version is of the NFL's Walter Payton award).
posted by Gadarene at 4:11 PM on January 26, 2022 [4 favorites]
Bonds cheated, then lied about cheating, then lied under oath about cheating, then was found guilty of doing so. (It was overturned on procedural grounds.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Bonds_perjury_case
National Baseball History Museum? Sure. Build one right next to the Hall of Fame.
Hall of Infamy? Could build that instead.
posted by andreaazure at 5:00 PM on January 26, 2022 [5 favorites]
National Baseball History Museum? Sure. Build one right next to the Hall of Fame.
Hall of Infamy? Could build that instead.
posted by andreaazure at 5:00 PM on January 26, 2022 [5 favorites]
I mean sure, the unrepentant bigot who made sure that a generation of Black players would never be allowed in the major leagues is enshrined in the Hall as the architect of modern baseball, but we're going to demonstrate the moral character of this place by going after one player who was hated by the sportswriters because he wouldn't jump through their hoops.
At this point, trying to argue against Bonds' entry on "character" just shows a profound ignorance of the Hall. Either admit that the "character clause" has meant nothing for decades - or if you want to make it meaningful, let's fire up the smelter and start reducing some plaques back into ingots.
posted by NoxAeternum at 5:48 PM on January 26, 2022 [9 favorites]
At this point, trying to argue against Bonds' entry on "character" just shows a profound ignorance of the Hall. Either admit that the "character clause" has meant nothing for decades - or if you want to make it meaningful, let's fire up the smelter and start reducing some plaques back into ingots.
posted by NoxAeternum at 5:48 PM on January 26, 2022 [9 favorites]
Just found on another thread...
"Why go to a museum when you could go to a ballpark?"
posted by goalyeehah at 5:53 PM on January 26, 2022 [1 favorite]
"Why go to a museum when you could go to a ballpark?"
posted by goalyeehah at 5:53 PM on January 26, 2022 [1 favorite]
or if you want to make it meaningful, let's fire up the smelter and start reducing some plaques back into ingots.
100% on board with this. But "we've screwed up in the past, therefore we should just stop trying altogether" is some real weak sauce justification for putting these guys in the Hall of Fame.
posted by mstokes650 at 6:00 PM on January 26, 2022 [6 favorites]
100% on board with this. But "we've screwed up in the past, therefore we should just stop trying altogether" is some real weak sauce justification for putting these guys in the Hall of Fame.
posted by mstokes650 at 6:00 PM on January 26, 2022 [6 favorites]
100% on board with this. But "we've screwed up in the past, therefore we should just stop trying altogether" is some real weak sauce justification for putting these guys in the Hall of Fame.
There is the issue that inconsistent enforcement of commonly ignored rules is a very common mechanism for punishing people arbitrarily and enforcing existing power structures.
White guys with absurd racism on their CVS don't fail the character clause, but a black guy who engaged in doping which was endemic and largely ignored if not accepted, well now, this is obviously where we should start putting the hammer down.
I'm sympathetic to arguments for having a character clause. I'm not sympathetic to this being the case where we suddenly start applying it after decades of not doing so.
posted by Dysk at 6:43 PM on January 26, 2022 [11 favorites]
There is the issue that inconsistent enforcement of commonly ignored rules is a very common mechanism for punishing people arbitrarily and enforcing existing power structures.
White guys with absurd racism on their CVS don't fail the character clause, but a black guy who engaged in doping which was endemic and largely ignored if not accepted, well now, this is obviously where we should start putting the hammer down.
I'm sympathetic to arguments for having a character clause. I'm not sympathetic to this being the case where we suddenly start applying it after decades of not doing so.
posted by Dysk at 6:43 PM on January 26, 2022 [11 favorites]
IIRC all the horrible stories about Ty Cobb that everyone thinks they know come from one hatchet job biography by an author with an agenda. I’m too lazy to go find it but my source here is one of the anniversary editions of the Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract. For what it’s worth.
posted by badbobbycase at 6:57 PM on January 26, 2022 [6 favorites]
posted by badbobbycase at 6:57 PM on January 26, 2022 [6 favorites]
For me, this is the SFGate article that matters (CW: abuse)
posted by miguelcervantes at 7:41 PM on January 26, 2022 [3 favorites]
posted by miguelcervantes at 7:41 PM on January 26, 2022 [3 favorites]
Ben Lindbergh, The Ringer: The Uniquely Confounding Career of Curt Schilling
Interesting piece that goes beyond Schilling's baseball card numbers (which obviously would merit inclusion in the HOF were he not a trash fire of a human being) and into how he was involved in three of the fifteen most lopsided MLB trades ever.
(Schilling previously on MetaFilter.)
posted by tonycpsu at 7:51 PM on January 26, 2022 [1 favorite]
Interesting piece that goes beyond Schilling's baseball card numbers (which obviously would merit inclusion in the HOF were he not a trash fire of a human being) and into how he was involved in three of the fifteen most lopsided MLB trades ever.
(Schilling previously on MetaFilter.)
posted by tonycpsu at 7:51 PM on January 26, 2022 [1 favorite]
Bonds cheated, then lied about cheating, then lied under oath about cheating, then was found guilty of doing so. (It was overturned on procedural grounds.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Bonds_perjury_case
By your own link, it wasn't a lie; and it was overturned on a 10-1 vote for reasons that weren't just "procedural":
posted by mark k at 8:01 PM on January 26, 2022 [2 favorites]
By your own link, it wasn't a lie; and it was overturned on a 10-1 vote for reasons that weren't just "procedural":
A short per curiam opinion characterized Bonds' statement as "a rambling, non-responsive answer to a simple question" and found that there was "insufficient evidence" that the statement was material to the investigation, requiring reversal of the conviction.So he didn't answer a question that was irrelevant to a case.
posted by mark k at 8:01 PM on January 26, 2022 [2 favorites]
There is the issue that inconsistent enforcement of commonly ignored rules is a very common mechanism for punishing people arbitrarily and enforcing existing power structures.
White guys with absurd racism on their CVS don't fail the character clause, but a black guy who engaged in doping which was endemic and largely ignored if not accepted, well now, this is obviously where we should start putting the hammer down.
I'm sympathetic to arguments for having a character clause. I'm not sympathetic to this being the case where we suddenly start applying it after decades of not doing so.
David Ortiz got into the Hall of Fame on his first ballot. Mark McGwire, meanwhile, is not going to the Hall of Fame. Roger Clemens, not going to the Hall of Fame. Curt Schilling? Not going. You might need to look a little deeper than just laying it all on systemic racism here.
posted by mstokes650 at 8:31 PM on January 26, 2022 [3 favorites]
White guys with absurd racism on their CVS don't fail the character clause, but a black guy who engaged in doping which was endemic and largely ignored if not accepted, well now, this is obviously where we should start putting the hammer down.
I'm sympathetic to arguments for having a character clause. I'm not sympathetic to this being the case where we suddenly start applying it after decades of not doing so.
David Ortiz got into the Hall of Fame on his first ballot. Mark McGwire, meanwhile, is not going to the Hall of Fame. Roger Clemens, not going to the Hall of Fame. Curt Schilling? Not going. You might need to look a little deeper than just laying it all on systemic racism here.
posted by mstokes650 at 8:31 PM on January 26, 2022 [3 favorites]
Bonds, A-Rod, McGwire, Clemens, Sosa, Palmeiro, Manny, all dopers not elected to the hall.
But then Ortiz, who also got caught for something in year they were testing but not enforcing, gets voted it. Why? He was an affable guy who got along with the same press who vote for the hall, so he's in on personality.
And if the press is punishing dopers, what about those who hit at nearly the same level with no accusations or suspicions? They'd vote for them instead, right? Nope. McGriff was never close to being voted in. Delgado was blackballed for refusing to stand for the anthem 15 years before it became a national issue and got so few votes he was dropping off the ballot in his first year of eligibility. Jeff Bagwell got in but on his 7th try. So they aren't enshrining non-dopers (that we know of) instead.
This is entirely down to the media voting in who gave them time and good quotes and feel-good stories. The same reason voters count "clutch" more than actual statistical analysis.
posted by thecjm at 10:03 PM on January 26, 2022 [5 favorites]
But then Ortiz, who also got caught for something in year they were testing but not enforcing, gets voted it. Why? He was an affable guy who got along with the same press who vote for the hall, so he's in on personality.
And if the press is punishing dopers, what about those who hit at nearly the same level with no accusations or suspicions? They'd vote for them instead, right? Nope. McGriff was never close to being voted in. Delgado was blackballed for refusing to stand for the anthem 15 years before it became a national issue and got so few votes he was dropping off the ballot in his first year of eligibility. Jeff Bagwell got in but on his 7th try. So they aren't enshrining non-dopers (that we know of) instead.
This is entirely down to the media voting in who gave them time and good quotes and feel-good stories. The same reason voters count "clutch" more than actual statistical analysis.
posted by thecjm at 10:03 PM on January 26, 2022 [5 favorites]
Relevant
Chart Party: What if Barry Bonds played baseball without a bat?
posted by Joey Michaels at 10:27 PM on January 26, 2022 [9 favorites]
Chart Party: What if Barry Bonds played baseball without a bat?
posted by Joey Michaels at 10:27 PM on January 26, 2022 [9 favorites]
Steroids weren't banned from baseball until 2005, which left Bonds and Clemens with only three partial seasons playing under the ban, but Oritz with 11. HGH wasn't banned until 2011, after Bonds and Clemens had retired, Bonds having been accused of using HGH, never actually playing while it was a banned substance in MLB.
The use of steroids, HGH, anphetemines, and other performance enhancing drugs was not only known but implicitly encouraged by MLB ownership for the boost in ratings chasing records intitially provided. I knew there was rampant performance enhancing drug use in MLB as early as the late eighties and I'm no one, just a guy who read about baseball at the time. The showboating Congressional investigation into steroids permitted excuse by MLB ownership to deny knowledge of what was readily apparent to anyone paying close attention and create a set of scapegoats to protect the ownership from blame.
The implicit approval of drugging for the boost in viewership created a work environment that pressured players into using, as they might lose their jobs to someone else who used if they were a marginal player, or see their competitive level suffer relative decline compared to the users, which would have an effect on game play, the likelihood of winning, and salaries. The history of cheating is long and largely anecdotal for not being something MLB wishes to highlight, but there are strong suggestions of it in the statistical record, including Ortiz's "remarkable" longevity as a top flight hitter at the more recent end being just one of a great many cases, which that anecdotal evidence supports. I don't care about the Hall of Fame as such, but the systemic bullshit involved in all of this is ugly.
posted by gusottertrout at 11:42 PM on January 26, 2022 [7 favorites]
The use of steroids, HGH, anphetemines, and other performance enhancing drugs was not only known but implicitly encouraged by MLB ownership for the boost in ratings chasing records intitially provided. I knew there was rampant performance enhancing drug use in MLB as early as the late eighties and I'm no one, just a guy who read about baseball at the time. The showboating Congressional investigation into steroids permitted excuse by MLB ownership to deny knowledge of what was readily apparent to anyone paying close attention and create a set of scapegoats to protect the ownership from blame.
The implicit approval of drugging for the boost in viewership created a work environment that pressured players into using, as they might lose their jobs to someone else who used if they were a marginal player, or see their competitive level suffer relative decline compared to the users, which would have an effect on game play, the likelihood of winning, and salaries. The history of cheating is long and largely anecdotal for not being something MLB wishes to highlight, but there are strong suggestions of it in the statistical record, including Ortiz's "remarkable" longevity as a top flight hitter at the more recent end being just one of a great many cases, which that anecdotal evidence supports. I don't care about the Hall of Fame as such, but the systemic bullshit involved in all of this is ugly.
posted by gusottertrout at 11:42 PM on January 26, 2022 [7 favorites]
I don't give a shit about PEDs, but domestic abuse should definitely keep Barry Bonds out of the hall of fame.
posted by zymil at 11:45 PM on January 26, 2022 [6 favorites]
posted by zymil at 11:45 PM on January 26, 2022 [6 favorites]
Anabolic steroid use outside of a valid doctors prescription is illegal. Getting swole is not a valid prescription. Just because it was not against the rules at the time means nothing, it was still illegal. No fame should come to anyone proven to use PEDs. Excellent choice.
posted by Geckwoistmeinauto at 2:21 AM on January 27, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by Geckwoistmeinauto at 2:21 AM on January 27, 2022 [2 favorites]
Those were a couple of the most overwrought, turgid, garment-rending, and smug articles I've seen in awhile. Probably why I don't read about sports that much. It seems that all of the accessible discussion about it is ridiculous.
Baseball - as a game - is a beautiful creation. When humanity finally reaches other worlds, we're taking baseball. I'm pretty sure we're leaving football behind. We're leaving most of the clock-based games behind because they're inherently flawed by the fact that one can run out the clock.
But baseball is different - it's a clockwork balance of strategy and skill that beautifully becomes a metaphor for just about anything we see in "the real world". If you're going to care about it, care about the game not the players. What are the favorite players in the Hall of Fame representing anyway? The best the game can offer as to who has played it? Yes. Is your favorite terrible baseball person in there? Yes. Baseball, like life, is flawed. Money ruins everything. But some things remain pure despite all the bullshit.
Did you ever see Tim Lincecum wind up like a wet towel and snap a fastball that fooled every hitter into stubbing one into the shortstop's glove? Thing of beauty. Is he in the HoF? I dunno. (No, apparently won't be). So the baseball writers make a point with Bonds and Clemens. And other baseball writers are twisted up about it. Feh. Baseball is great when you can find what you like and ignore the crap. It's just hard to do.
"Rock 'n Roll Hall of Fame". Still a stupid idea.
posted by petebest at 3:04 AM on January 27, 2022 [3 favorites]
Baseball - as a game - is a beautiful creation. When humanity finally reaches other worlds, we're taking baseball. I'm pretty sure we're leaving football behind. We're leaving most of the clock-based games behind because they're inherently flawed by the fact that one can run out the clock.
But baseball is different - it's a clockwork balance of strategy and skill that beautifully becomes a metaphor for just about anything we see in "the real world". If you're going to care about it, care about the game not the players. What are the favorite players in the Hall of Fame representing anyway? The best the game can offer as to who has played it? Yes. Is your favorite terrible baseball person in there? Yes. Baseball, like life, is flawed. Money ruins everything. But some things remain pure despite all the bullshit.
Did you ever see Tim Lincecum wind up like a wet towel and snap a fastball that fooled every hitter into stubbing one into the shortstop's glove? Thing of beauty. Is he in the HoF? I dunno. (No, apparently won't be). So the baseball writers make a point with Bonds and Clemens. And other baseball writers are twisted up about it. Feh. Baseball is great when you can find what you like and ignore the crap. It's just hard to do.
"Rock 'n Roll Hall of Fame". Still a stupid idea.
posted by petebest at 3:04 AM on January 27, 2022 [3 favorites]
I think the argument he's making is that their baseball achievements warrant inclusion in the HoF
But are they his achievements, really? Or was it just the steroids he was on?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:30 AM on January 27, 2022 [1 favorite]
But are they his achievements, really? Or was it just the steroids he was on?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:30 AM on January 27, 2022 [1 favorite]
I assume his arm guard got in on the first ballot.
posted by badbobbycase at 4:52 AM on January 27, 2022 [3 favorites]
posted by badbobbycase at 4:52 AM on January 27, 2022 [3 favorites]
I'm not much of a baseball follower, but the arguments for and against the Hall of Fame and this year's decision reminds me of the inevitable arguments which spring up whenever Time Magazine selects someone particularly loathsome as their person of the year, and people start debating whether it's an honor or a historical record (except for that one time, of course)
POTY is only an acknowledgement that they were the most influential person, good or bad...
Lots of really terrible people have already been selected as POTY...
Time Magazine should not be awarding POTY to this person because....
What's weird is that POTY is ostensibly an objective historical designation which has gained notoriety as a subjective award, and membership in the Baseball Hall of Fame is ostensibly a subjective award that's gained notoriety as an objective historical designation.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 4:56 AM on January 27, 2022 [1 favorite]
POTY is only an acknowledgement that they were the most influential person, good or bad...
Lots of really terrible people have already been selected as POTY...
Time Magazine should not be awarding POTY to this person because....
What's weird is that POTY is ostensibly an objective historical designation which has gained notoriety as a subjective award, and membership in the Baseball Hall of Fame is ostensibly a subjective award that's gained notoriety as an objective historical designation.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 4:56 AM on January 27, 2022 [1 favorite]
The Definitive Ranking of Time's Worst 'Persons of the Year'
posted by box at 5:44 AM on January 27, 2022 [3 favorites]
posted by box at 5:44 AM on January 27, 2022 [3 favorites]
But are they his achievements, really? Or was it just the steroids he was on?
posted by EmpressCallipygos
They are, seeing that we more or less know exactly when he began using PEDs. Before that he was the only 400 HR-400 SB player in league history with three MVP awards. He was peak Mike Trout along with being way better in the field and on the basepaths. He was already the best player in baseball since Mays, then he became the best player ever in history.
If you want to throw the baby out with the bathwater and say none of it counts because he eventually took drugs that's your business but you better also do it for Mays and Aaron and Mantle, to name three other guys we know used PEDs during their playing days. Applying a zero-tolerance anti-drug purity test will more or less gut all of baseball history.
posted by The Notorious SRD at 5:55 AM on January 27, 2022 [9 favorites]
posted by EmpressCallipygos
They are, seeing that we more or less know exactly when he began using PEDs. Before that he was the only 400 HR-400 SB player in league history with three MVP awards. He was peak Mike Trout along with being way better in the field and on the basepaths. He was already the best player in baseball since Mays, then he became the best player ever in history.
If you want to throw the baby out with the bathwater and say none of it counts because he eventually took drugs that's your business but you better also do it for Mays and Aaron and Mantle, to name three other guys we know used PEDs during their playing days. Applying a zero-tolerance anti-drug purity test will more or less gut all of baseball history.
posted by The Notorious SRD at 5:55 AM on January 27, 2022 [9 favorites]
box: Magary is still at Defector, as well as doing the SFGate gig.
I am not a baseball fan so I think I am relatively neutral on inclusion/exclusion. That is, I see the arguments for both sides.
What I can't understand is voting in Ortiz (who tested positive for PED use) on his very first ballot while on the very same ballot Bonds and Clemens are not voted in and it is their very last year of eligibility.
posted by a non mouse, a cow herd at 6:12 AM on January 27, 2022 [1 favorite]
I am not a baseball fan so I think I am relatively neutral on inclusion/exclusion. That is, I see the arguments for both sides.
What I can't understand is voting in Ortiz (who tested positive for PED use) on his very first ballot while on the very same ballot Bonds and Clemens are not voted in and it is their very last year of eligibility.
posted by a non mouse, a cow herd at 6:12 AM on January 27, 2022 [1 favorite]
What I can't understand is voting in Ortiz (who tested positive for PED use) on his very first ballot
Once you figure that one out, then you can work on trying to understand how Bud Selig, who was commissioner during the "PEDs" era and noticed nothing, nothing at all, as well as leading ownership in their bargaining fiascos with the Players Association. If he's in, literally anyone who's ever seen a baseball could be a fine choice as well.
posted by gusottertrout at 6:53 AM on January 27, 2022 [7 favorites]
Once you figure that one out, then you can work on trying to understand how Bud Selig, who was commissioner during the "PEDs" era and noticed nothing, nothing at all, as well as leading ownership in their bargaining fiascos with the Players Association. If he's in, literally anyone who's ever seen a baseball could be a fine choice as well.
posted by gusottertrout at 6:53 AM on January 27, 2022 [7 favorites]
What I can't understand is voting in Ortiz (who tested positive for PED use) on his very first ballot while on the very same ballot Bonds and Clemens are not voted in and it is their very last year of eligibility.
It's easy to understand once you know who votes for the Hall - the Baseball Writers Association of America, a group of "old school" sportswriters, many of whom are no longer working but are still allowed to vote.
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:18 AM on January 27, 2022 [1 favorite]
It's easy to understand once you know who votes for the Hall - the Baseball Writers Association of America, a group of "old school" sportswriters, many of whom are no longer working but are still allowed to vote.
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:18 AM on January 27, 2022 [1 favorite]
The use of steroids, HGH, anphetemines, and other performance enhancing drugs was not only known but implicitly encouraged by MLB ownership for the boost in ratings chasing records intitially provided.
This is basically my feeling about it. It clouds that whole era, not a handful of players. And it’s difficult really to pinpoint when the PED era even begins. We all know that players were into amphetamines from probably the 60s if not earlier, coke in the 70s and 80s, whatever, that’s another whole kind of drug. But oral anabolic steroids were around starting in the late 50s and are documented to have been used by athletes and bodybuilders in the 60s. You could get them from a doctor. They weren’t explicitly prohibited in most sports until the early 70s, if I’m not mistaken. And of course they weren’t actually systematically tested for in MLB until the 00s.
posted by atoxyl at 8:35 AM on January 27, 2022 [2 favorites]
This is basically my feeling about it. It clouds that whole era, not a handful of players. And it’s difficult really to pinpoint when the PED era even begins. We all know that players were into amphetamines from probably the 60s if not earlier, coke in the 70s and 80s, whatever, that’s another whole kind of drug. But oral anabolic steroids were around starting in the late 50s and are documented to have been used by athletes and bodybuilders in the 60s. You could get them from a doctor. They weren’t explicitly prohibited in most sports until the early 70s, if I’m not mistaken. And of course they weren’t actually systematically tested for in MLB until the 00s.
posted by atoxyl at 8:35 AM on January 27, 2022 [2 favorites]
FWIW, any mention of Ty Cobb should be met with the understanding that most if not all rumors of his nastiness are fabrications from a sensationalist writer who published stories after Cobb's death.
posted by explosion at 8:41 AM on January 27, 2022 [4 favorites]
posted by explosion at 8:41 AM on January 27, 2022 [4 favorites]
Good thing that I'm instead pointing to Kenesaw Mountain Landis, whose rank bigotry literally prevented integration of MLB until he died, and whose behavior enabled things like the Black Sox Scandal - and who is enshrined in the Hall as one of the people who created the modern game. Not to mention that there are other players enshrined in the Hall whose abuse is well documented.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:31 AM on January 27, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:31 AM on January 27, 2022 [2 favorites]
I thought 8 years ago that Bonds holds the record and should be in the hall, and I haven't had reason to change my mind.
posted by ob1quixote at 10:26 AM on January 27, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by ob1quixote at 10:26 AM on January 27, 2022 [1 favorite]
Normally I love Drew's work but seems like he maybe should have taken a breath before hitting "send."
For whatever it's worth, the BBWAA voters are getting better at this. From the article, you'd think the writers overwhelmingly rejected Bonds and Clemens. Nope. Almost two-thirds voted to induct both players. That's a landslide in the real world (even enough to break a GOP filibuster!)
And according to the invaluable Ryan Thibodeaux's Hall of Fame vote tracker, both did even better with first-time voters-- 80 percent of the newbies voted for both. (check it out, it's an amazing labor of love and nerdery.)
The problem is the old-timers, like the despicable Shaughnessy, who either see themselves as guardians of moral purity or submit garbage ballots in a desperate quest for clicks. The BBWAA has been purging the inactive old-timers, but there's still a ways to go.
I used to be in the "just say no to roiders" camp. But as you do your homework on this, you see the points others have raised -- that PEDs were pervasive, not just in the '90s but with greenies in the '60s; that there's no way to say who used and who didn't and so on.
It's important to remember that while the commissioner put steroids on the banned substances list in 1991, that had zero legal force with the players, because any such rule had to be accepted as part of the players union's agreement with MLB. That didn't happen until late 2002 and enforcement in the form of testing didn't begin until 2003, and had no penalties until 2004 or 2005.
So while someone can argue that PED use might fall somewhere between "unfair advantage" to "outright cheating," Bonds, Clemens and the other steroids users of the period weren't breaking the rules of baseball. And you shouldn't be penalizing people for breaking a law that didn't yet exist.
Yes, there's a "sportsmanship" clause in HOF voting, and that's the fallback for some of these voters. But as was said, to expect ferociously competitive athletes at the top of their game to *not* take advantage of something that dozens of other players did is naive and unfair. Both Bonds and Clemens were legendary for how hard they worked out; Bonds used to drag weighted sleds up the hills in San Francisco. Not exactly taking the shortcuts to excellence. I'm much more critical of the later guys, like Alex Rodriguez and Manny Ramirez, who failed tests multiple times even after the substances were banned and penalties were in place.
What I can't understand is voting in Ortiz (who tested positive for PED use) on his very first ballot
And as for Ortiz.. his performance curve sure suggests he benefited from some sort of PEDs. But current baseball commissioner Rob Manfred issued a statement saying that players whose name appeared on the infamous 2003 list (players who had tested positive in MLB's trial run of testing) should not be considered as steroid users, because of the possibility of false positives. That basically gave the writers a free pass to vote for an enormously popular player who wasn't half as good as Bonds or Clemens.
posted by martin q blank at 11:15 AM on January 27, 2022 [4 favorites]
For whatever it's worth, the BBWAA voters are getting better at this. From the article, you'd think the writers overwhelmingly rejected Bonds and Clemens. Nope. Almost two-thirds voted to induct both players. That's a landslide in the real world (even enough to break a GOP filibuster!)
And according to the invaluable Ryan Thibodeaux's Hall of Fame vote tracker, both did even better with first-time voters-- 80 percent of the newbies voted for both. (check it out, it's an amazing labor of love and nerdery.)
The problem is the old-timers, like the despicable Shaughnessy, who either see themselves as guardians of moral purity or submit garbage ballots in a desperate quest for clicks. The BBWAA has been purging the inactive old-timers, but there's still a ways to go.
I used to be in the "just say no to roiders" camp. But as you do your homework on this, you see the points others have raised -- that PEDs were pervasive, not just in the '90s but with greenies in the '60s; that there's no way to say who used and who didn't and so on.
It's important to remember that while the commissioner put steroids on the banned substances list in 1991, that had zero legal force with the players, because any such rule had to be accepted as part of the players union's agreement with MLB. That didn't happen until late 2002 and enforcement in the form of testing didn't begin until 2003, and had no penalties until 2004 or 2005.
So while someone can argue that PED use might fall somewhere between "unfair advantage" to "outright cheating," Bonds, Clemens and the other steroids users of the period weren't breaking the rules of baseball. And you shouldn't be penalizing people for breaking a law that didn't yet exist.
Yes, there's a "sportsmanship" clause in HOF voting, and that's the fallback for some of these voters. But as was said, to expect ferociously competitive athletes at the top of their game to *not* take advantage of something that dozens of other players did is naive and unfair. Both Bonds and Clemens were legendary for how hard they worked out; Bonds used to drag weighted sleds up the hills in San Francisco. Not exactly taking the shortcuts to excellence. I'm much more critical of the later guys, like Alex Rodriguez and Manny Ramirez, who failed tests multiple times even after the substances were banned and penalties were in place.
What I can't understand is voting in Ortiz (who tested positive for PED use) on his very first ballot
And as for Ortiz.. his performance curve sure suggests he benefited from some sort of PEDs. But current baseball commissioner Rob Manfred issued a statement saying that players whose name appeared on the infamous 2003 list (players who had tested positive in MLB's trial run of testing) should not be considered as steroid users, because of the possibility of false positives. That basically gave the writers a free pass to vote for an enormously popular player who wasn't half as good as Bonds or Clemens.
posted by martin q blank at 11:15 AM on January 27, 2022 [4 favorites]
IIRC all the horrible stories about Ty Cobb that everyone thinks they know come from one hatchet job biography by an author with an agenda. I’m too lazy to go find it but my source here is one of the anniversary editions of the Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract. For what it’s worth.
If a person wants the record cleared on something related to racism, Bill James is not the citation you are looking for.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 11:48 AM on January 27, 2022 [4 favorites]
If a person wants the record cleared on something related to racism, Bill James is not the citation you are looking for.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 11:48 AM on January 27, 2022 [4 favorites]
For whatever it's worth, the BBWAA voters are getting better at this.
When you're on a PIP because you fucked up (as the BBWAA should have basically been after the year they made no nominations), "getting better" is not an acceptable response. It's good that the new blood is taking things seriously - but the refusal of the BBWAA to seriously address the behavior of the "old guard" by making it clear that their bad faith would mean revocation of their voter status shows that they won't fix what's wrong - and so it's time they were replaced.
(And I wouldn't be surprised if there wound up being a push to get Ortiz over the hump in order to prevent a second no nomination year.)
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:23 PM on January 27, 2022 [1 favorite]
When you're on a PIP because you fucked up (as the BBWAA should have basically been after the year they made no nominations), "getting better" is not an acceptable response. It's good that the new blood is taking things seriously - but the refusal of the BBWAA to seriously address the behavior of the "old guard" by making it clear that their bad faith would mean revocation of their voter status shows that they won't fix what's wrong - and so it's time they were replaced.
(And I wouldn't be surprised if there wound up being a push to get Ortiz over the hump in order to prevent a second no nomination year.)
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:23 PM on January 27, 2022 [1 favorite]
@gadarene's link to Ratto's article hits it on the head for me.
"And Bonds and Clemens are to blame for forgetting that an industry that can install a color line and then take credit for eliminating it is addicted to, and accustomed to, having it both ways. They both got paid and got paid back, and they thought that as invulnerable beings who could throw and hit baseballs that systemic rudeness to everyone not specifically themselves was one of the really cool perks of the job, when all it was was energy-sapping petulance that people saved for the moment when they could get a tiny bit of revenge. Yes, Bonds and Clemens should have been voted in nine years ago by acclamation, but they are also responsible for the joy they sucked out of the experience that eventually became the true raison d’etre for their exclusion. They underestimated the power of pettiness while exhibiting it often themselves. It shouldn’t have come to that, but in the end, to quote a literary genius and exemplar to all mankind, hey, it’s a choice."
posted by zerobyproxy at 1:42 PM on January 27, 2022 [3 favorites]
"And Bonds and Clemens are to blame for forgetting that an industry that can install a color line and then take credit for eliminating it is addicted to, and accustomed to, having it both ways. They both got paid and got paid back, and they thought that as invulnerable beings who could throw and hit baseballs that systemic rudeness to everyone not specifically themselves was one of the really cool perks of the job, when all it was was energy-sapping petulance that people saved for the moment when they could get a tiny bit of revenge. Yes, Bonds and Clemens should have been voted in nine years ago by acclamation, but they are also responsible for the joy they sucked out of the experience that eventually became the true raison d’etre for their exclusion. They underestimated the power of pettiness while exhibiting it often themselves. It shouldn’t have come to that, but in the end, to quote a literary genius and exemplar to all mankind, hey, it’s a choice."
posted by zerobyproxy at 1:42 PM on January 27, 2022 [3 favorites]
Well, Dock Ellis threw a no-hitter on LSD and he's not in the Hall of Fame either.
posted by chavenet at 1:56 PM on January 27, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by chavenet at 1:56 PM on January 27, 2022 [2 favorites]
It could be I am a very naïve person, but I find Ortiz's explanation for why he would have appeared on the early positive results list for steroids to be entirely plausible.
Essentially, he said that while he never intentionally took steroids, he was not particularly careful about which supplements he took since steroids were not illegal anyway and he had no reason to worry if trace amounts of them were in something. Why would a player be worried that trace amounts of something not against the rules in their straight-up form might show up in tests he didn't know they were going to do?
He had thirteen years of clean tests after that and got better, not worse.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 2:35 PM on January 27, 2022 [3 favorites]
Essentially, he said that while he never intentionally took steroids, he was not particularly careful about which supplements he took since steroids were not illegal anyway and he had no reason to worry if trace amounts of them were in something. Why would a player be worried that trace amounts of something not against the rules in their straight-up form might show up in tests he didn't know they were going to do?
He had thirteen years of clean tests after that and got better, not worse.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 2:35 PM on January 27, 2022 [3 favorites]
The HoF is almost exclusively an emotional institution. If it were just stats they wouldn't bother voting, but they do just so Dave Kingman could spend years as a 400HR player on the outside (to name just one case.) They allow for a variety of groups to vote on it to reflect the various constituencies that might have differing criteria, and sometimes those groups are particularly effective (committee on Negro Leagues) or damaging (Frankie Frisch's Vets Committee.)
In this case I don't mind that the guys who were already at the top of the sport, with titles in hand and as much success as anyone could imagine were not satisfied with that. There was no doubt that both Bonds and Clemens were going to Cooperstown, but they had to be bigger than the game and break things. Bonds had three MVP and five other top 5 places before the time when he started messing with PEDs, and Clemens had several Cy Youngs and an MVP that weren't enough. There's a very serious difference between a marginal guy like Manny Alexander trying to stay in the game and Barry Bonds or Mark McGwire romping through the record books. There's some grey area as you start considering good but not awesome players, but by and large I tend to be hard on the guys that had everything and still couldn't be content.
I'm not going to apologize for my inconsistencies here. A fan's relationship with a sport is frequently not going to hold up to any serious intellectual scrutiny and I'm very comfortable with that. They wanted to be famous and make money, so now they can go down to the card shows with Pete Rose and sell autographs. The numbers are still there for folks that love the history and records. But these guys took a dump on the sport that allowed them to be famous and rich and lauded, a sport I've loved my whole life, and the sport can just as easily tell them to get lost when it's time to celebrate a career. If they want to get in they can use the veterans committee side door, if their old pals will have them.
posted by Cris E at 2:48 PM on January 27, 2022 [2 favorites]
In this case I don't mind that the guys who were already at the top of the sport, with titles in hand and as much success as anyone could imagine were not satisfied with that. There was no doubt that both Bonds and Clemens were going to Cooperstown, but they had to be bigger than the game and break things. Bonds had three MVP and five other top 5 places before the time when he started messing with PEDs, and Clemens had several Cy Youngs and an MVP that weren't enough. There's a very serious difference between a marginal guy like Manny Alexander trying to stay in the game and Barry Bonds or Mark McGwire romping through the record books. There's some grey area as you start considering good but not awesome players, but by and large I tend to be hard on the guys that had everything and still couldn't be content.
I'm not going to apologize for my inconsistencies here. A fan's relationship with a sport is frequently not going to hold up to any serious intellectual scrutiny and I'm very comfortable with that. They wanted to be famous and make money, so now they can go down to the card shows with Pete Rose and sell autographs. The numbers are still there for folks that love the history and records. But these guys took a dump on the sport that allowed them to be famous and rich and lauded, a sport I've loved my whole life, and the sport can just as easily tell them to get lost when it's time to celebrate a career. If they want to get in they can use the veterans committee side door, if their old pals will have them.
posted by Cris E at 2:48 PM on January 27, 2022 [2 favorites]
Also, Ray Ratto can bite me. As a career beat writer with unparalleled access to players, locker rooms, executives and anything else he wanted for decades, he IS the baseball establishment he finds so crass and transactional today. He was working in SF when Bonds was winning. He was writing for national outlets when the PEDs news was breaking. He had very ample opportunity to ask hard questions and to look under rocks and to challenge this new emerging problem and he just acted the mouthpiece for both sides. There was no pushback, there was no judging, there was no reporting at all. He just sat there and wrote the news six days a week and an opinion piece for Sundays. He saw it all and never dug for the facts because it would have threatened his meal ticket. Shut up Ray, you had your chance.
posted by Cris E at 3:09 PM on January 27, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by Cris E at 3:09 PM on January 27, 2022 [1 favorite]
Please, tell me how they dumped on the sport more than Landis' unrepentant bigotry did - because from where I sit, whatever sins they may have committed pale in comparison to the man who made sure that baseball would only integrate over his dead body. Not to mention that your argument distilled down is nothing more than the old bit of "they should have known their place" - an argument that is shameful in of itself.
There's also the fact that your argument that the "sport" rejected them is a lie - if the vote was held among players and fans, they would have been in years ago. No, it wasn't the "sport" that rejected them - it was a small cadre of petty moralizers who routinely turned a blind eye to the abuses and failings of the players they liked, and who, through a fluke of organization done decades ago wound up being the gatekeepers to the Hall - and then proved themselves unworthy of it.
posted by NoxAeternum at 3:43 PM on January 27, 2022 [1 favorite]
There's also the fact that your argument that the "sport" rejected them is a lie - if the vote was held among players and fans, they would have been in years ago. No, it wasn't the "sport" that rejected them - it was a small cadre of petty moralizers who routinely turned a blind eye to the abuses and failings of the players they liked, and who, through a fluke of organization done decades ago wound up being the gatekeepers to the Hall - and then proved themselves unworthy of it.
posted by NoxAeternum at 3:43 PM on January 27, 2022 [1 favorite]
He had very ample opportunity to ask hard questions and to look under rocks and to challenge this new emerging problem
What if he was just pro steroids the whole time?
posted by atoxyl at 5:09 PM on January 27, 2022
What if he was just pro steroids the whole time?
posted by atoxyl at 5:09 PM on January 27, 2022
If either Bonds or Clemens had said, "Yeah, I did it, and I'm sorry, and they didn't even help that much" instead of dragging the sport through high-profile courtroom cases and headline after headline and denial after denial, they'd be in the Hall right now.
To me, the drugs are part of the seedy underbelly of baseball, which has always existed. If there is a way to attempt to cheat, or to gain even a small advantage by bending the rules or engaging in skulduggery, it will be found and it will be attempted by someone. The writers know that. I think it was Bouton who said that if someone made a pill that made you an all-star but took five years off your life, many players would ask "How many times can I take it in a row?"
But when someone appears guilty, gets caught at it, shows no contrition and then turns out to quite likely have been lying to those writers' faces about it time and time again... some of them remember, and hold grudges, I believe. And what goes around, comes around.
posted by delfin at 5:16 PM on January 27, 2022 [2 favorites]
To me, the drugs are part of the seedy underbelly of baseball, which has always existed. If there is a way to attempt to cheat, or to gain even a small advantage by bending the rules or engaging in skulduggery, it will be found and it will be attempted by someone. The writers know that. I think it was Bouton who said that if someone made a pill that made you an all-star but took five years off your life, many players would ask "How many times can I take it in a row?"
But when someone appears guilty, gets caught at it, shows no contrition and then turns out to quite likely have been lying to those writers' faces about it time and time again... some of them remember, and hold grudges, I believe. And what goes around, comes around.
posted by delfin at 5:16 PM on January 27, 2022 [2 favorites]
If either Bonds or Clemens had said, "Yeah, I did it, and I'm sorry, and they didn't even help that much" instead of dragging the sport through high-profile courtroom cases and headline after headline and denial after denial, they'd be in the Hall right now.
Just like Mark McGwire and Alex Rodriguez? Those two guys copped to it, apologized and that's why they've been inducted into the HOF, right? The die was already cast with Clemens and Bonds, and admitting things wouldn't have helped one bit.
posted by The Notorious SRD at 6:04 AM on January 28, 2022 [1 favorite]
Just like Mark McGwire and Alex Rodriguez? Those two guys copped to it, apologized and that's why they've been inducted into the HOF, right? The die was already cast with Clemens and Bonds, and admitting things wouldn't have helped one bit.
posted by The Notorious SRD at 6:04 AM on January 28, 2022 [1 favorite]
"getting better" is not an acceptable response.
Fair enough, NoxAeternum. I'm glad it's improving as many of the sabermetrics-friendly writers I've followed for years are getting their credentials and changing the voting base, and I still wish it were better. I don't know enough about BBWAA bylaws to say how feasible it would be to just bounce 100 or so members. Maybe overnight change isn't really feasible, and incremental change, toward a tipping point, is what we get.
The bigger question that you're pointing out is whether the writers should have this power at all. A lot of the best writers-- Boswell comes to mind-- gave up their HOF votes because they saw it as a conflict of interest. But that raises the question of who should be doing it. The former Veterans Committee and now Era Committees have had their issues too. Call me crazy, but maybe the decisions about the baseball museum should be made by the directors of the baseball museum? Who knows.
I took my kids there a few years ago. We visited the plaques room... but spent most of our time in the main museum, a great exhibit on Latin ballplayers, the video archives, and a special presentation from an archivist. (Ichiro and I wear the same size shoes!) It's a cool place; too bad it gets tarnished by the BBWAA's BS.
posted by martin q blank at 6:41 AM on January 28, 2022 [1 favorite]
Fair enough, NoxAeternum. I'm glad it's improving as many of the sabermetrics-friendly writers I've followed for years are getting their credentials and changing the voting base, and I still wish it were better. I don't know enough about BBWAA bylaws to say how feasible it would be to just bounce 100 or so members. Maybe overnight change isn't really feasible, and incremental change, toward a tipping point, is what we get.
The bigger question that you're pointing out is whether the writers should have this power at all. A lot of the best writers-- Boswell comes to mind-- gave up their HOF votes because they saw it as a conflict of interest. But that raises the question of who should be doing it. The former Veterans Committee and now Era Committees have had their issues too. Call me crazy, but maybe the decisions about the baseball museum should be made by the directors of the baseball museum? Who knows.
I took my kids there a few years ago. We visited the plaques room... but spent most of our time in the main museum, a great exhibit on Latin ballplayers, the video archives, and a special presentation from an archivist. (Ichiro and I wear the same size shoes!) It's a cool place; too bad it gets tarnished by the BBWAA's BS.
posted by martin q blank at 6:41 AM on January 28, 2022 [1 favorite]
Just like Mark McGwire and Alex Rodriguez? Those two guys copped to it, apologized and that's why they've been inducted into the HOF, right? The die was already cast with Clemens and Bonds, and admitting things wouldn't have helped one bit.
Is Roger Maris in the Hall of Fame? No? Then we can uncheck the "one huge record-setting year equals HoF" box. McGwire had a perfectly respectable tour of duty with Oakland, followed by a large boost to his power stats in his thirties that corresponded nicely to when baseball fans learned to spell "androstenedione." Is he the poster boy for PED abuse? Probably not, but one can easily argue that he's not HoF-worthy without that boosted period.
A-Rod was a great, great player who was also indelibly tied to PEDs in a major way -- he was suspended for an entire season for use and possession of PEDs. The attempts to investigate him and tie him to Biogenesis are complicated and messy; to me, you don't put A-Rod into the HoF, you take Bud Selig OUT. By force, if necessary.
posted by delfin at 8:57 AM on January 28, 2022 [1 favorite]
Is Roger Maris in the Hall of Fame? No? Then we can uncheck the "one huge record-setting year equals HoF" box. McGwire had a perfectly respectable tour of duty with Oakland, followed by a large boost to his power stats in his thirties that corresponded nicely to when baseball fans learned to spell "androstenedione." Is he the poster boy for PED abuse? Probably not, but one can easily argue that he's not HoF-worthy without that boosted period.
A-Rod was a great, great player who was also indelibly tied to PEDs in a major way -- he was suspended for an entire season for use and possession of PEDs. The attempts to investigate him and tie him to Biogenesis are complicated and messy; to me, you don't put A-Rod into the HoF, you take Bud Selig OUT. By force, if necessary.
posted by delfin at 8:57 AM on January 28, 2022 [1 favorite]
to me, you don't put A-Rod into the HoF, you take Bud Selig OUT.
Oh I agree with that - a lot of different groups benefitted from this mess beyond the heroes swinging the bats. Bud took the juice while complaining about the lemons and has been allowed to have it both ways. He specifically is a root of this mess, at least as bad for the game as Pete Rose in his own awful way.
posted by Cris E at 2:31 PM on January 28, 2022
Oh I agree with that - a lot of different groups benefitted from this mess beyond the heroes swinging the bats. Bud took the juice while complaining about the lemons and has been allowed to have it both ways. He specifically is a root of this mess, at least as bad for the game as Pete Rose in his own awful way.
posted by Cris E at 2:31 PM on January 28, 2022
that boat done sailed already
So we can't criticize billionaires for avoiding their taxes because other billionaires have gotten away with it? That seems like an interesting argument. A better argument would be to reconsider whether Ty Cobb should be in the HOF, not think that his inclusion opens the gates wide for every cheater every.
The Hall of Fame has a historical mission, but that's only one of its missions. The other of its missions is to honor outstanding baseball players. Bonds is in the Hall of Fame in its historical role:
https://collection.baseballhall.org/search/barry%20bonds
As is Mark McGwire:
https://collection.baseballhall.org/search/mark%20mcgwire
That they are not then being honored is a completely different thing.
posted by Galvanic at 8:49 AM on January 29, 2022
So we can't criticize billionaires for avoiding their taxes because other billionaires have gotten away with it? That seems like an interesting argument. A better argument would be to reconsider whether Ty Cobb should be in the HOF, not think that his inclusion opens the gates wide for every cheater every.
The Hall of Fame has a historical mission, but that's only one of its missions. The other of its missions is to honor outstanding baseball players. Bonds is in the Hall of Fame in its historical role:
https://collection.baseballhall.org/search/barry%20bonds
As is Mark McGwire:
https://collection.baseballhall.org/search/mark%20mcgwire
That they are not then being honored is a completely different thing.
posted by Galvanic at 8:49 AM on January 29, 2022
A better argument would be to reconsider whether Ty Cobb should be in the HOF, not think that his inclusion opens the gates wide for every cheater every.
As I pointed out in a later comment, the point is that one stance needs to be picked - either admit that the makeup of the Hall makes the character clause a load of bullshit, or let's re-evaluate the Hall occupants on that standard. The thing that makes option two a nonstarter for many is that such a reassessment would result in a very bare Hall that would not be very reflective of baseball. This is why Springfield, Canton, and Toronto ditched their character clauses.
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:40 AM on January 29, 2022 [1 favorite]
As I pointed out in a later comment, the point is that one stance needs to be picked - either admit that the makeup of the Hall makes the character clause a load of bullshit, or let's re-evaluate the Hall occupants on that standard. The thing that makes option two a nonstarter for many is that such a reassessment would result in a very bare Hall that would not be very reflective of baseball. This is why Springfield, Canton, and Toronto ditched their character clauses.
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:40 AM on January 29, 2022 [1 favorite]
the point is that one stance needs to be picked - either admit that the makeup of the Hall makes the character clause a load of bullshit, or let's re-evaluate the Hall occupants on that standard
That's one of those things that sounds good in the abstract, but never works in practice. The third -- more realistic option -- is that it is perfectly possible to be aware of past mistakes while still trying to uphold current standards. Not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, I think is the phrase.
It's the billionaires paying taxes thing again: are the only two options really either that we're not going to try to make *any* billionaires pay taxes just because some of them manage not to? Or check all billionaire tax returns throughout history to make sure that they're reasonable? I'm sure Nelson Rockefeller's audit will go well.
This is why Springfield, Canton, and Toronto ditched their character clauses
Yep -- which is why the Football Hall of Fame now has a likely double-murderer in it. Hurray for progress!
posted by Galvanic at 11:51 AM on January 29, 2022 [4 favorites]
That's one of those things that sounds good in the abstract, but never works in practice. The third -- more realistic option -- is that it is perfectly possible to be aware of past mistakes while still trying to uphold current standards. Not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, I think is the phrase.
It's the billionaires paying taxes thing again: are the only two options really either that we're not going to try to make *any* billionaires pay taxes just because some of them manage not to? Or check all billionaire tax returns throughout history to make sure that they're reasonable? I'm sure Nelson Rockefeller's audit will go well.
This is why Springfield, Canton, and Toronto ditched their character clauses
Yep -- which is why the Football Hall of Fame now has a likely double-murderer in it. Hurray for progress!
posted by Galvanic at 11:51 AM on January 29, 2022 [4 favorites]
In 1987, after seeing the size of McGwire's and Canseco's arms, my friends and I were already saying that they were jacked. Interesting to see the comparison between both of them and Wally Joyner.
Show me any ballplayer from that period of time who has similar arm and upper body sizes and I'll reconsider my argument.
posted by goalyeehah at 1:27 PM on January 29, 2022 [1 favorite]
Show me any ballplayer from that period of time who has similar arm and upper body sizes and I'll reconsider my argument.
posted by goalyeehah at 1:27 PM on January 29, 2022 [1 favorite]
> It's the billionaires paying taxes thing again: are the only two options really either that we're not going to try to make *any* billionaires pay taxes just because some of them manage not to? Or check all billionaire tax returns throughout history to make sure that they're reasonable? I'm sure Nelson Rockefeller's audit will go well.
This "billionaires paying their taxes" comparison you keep trying to get off the ground makes no sense. The Hall of Fame is functionally a museum of baseball's history. That's the point of the institution. There's no way to retroactively force a billionaire from the 1960s to pay taxes, but museums are living institutions and the qualifications for what should go into a museum is or ought to be an ongoing evaluation and it ought to be consistent across the museum. Any generation of curators has the ability to easily remake any museum to reflect what they believe it should contain.
If the museum wants the standard to be "was both a very good person and a very good baseball player", they're free to apply that standard. That museum is going to be pretty bare, and it's not going to tell you much about the history of baseball, a sport frequently played and governed by assholes. If they want to tell you the story of baseball, it should probably include the best hitter who has ever played the game.
posted by protocoach at 2:25 PM on January 30, 2022 [3 favorites]
This "billionaires paying their taxes" comparison you keep trying to get off the ground makes no sense. The Hall of Fame is functionally a museum of baseball's history. That's the point of the institution. There's no way to retroactively force a billionaire from the 1960s to pay taxes, but museums are living institutions and the qualifications for what should go into a museum is or ought to be an ongoing evaluation and it ought to be consistent across the museum. Any generation of curators has the ability to easily remake any museum to reflect what they believe it should contain.
If the museum wants the standard to be "was both a very good person and a very good baseball player", they're free to apply that standard. That museum is going to be pretty bare, and it's not going to tell you much about the history of baseball, a sport frequently played and governed by assholes. If they want to tell you the story of baseball, it should probably include the best hitter who has ever played the game.
posted by protocoach at 2:25 PM on January 30, 2022 [3 favorites]
This "billionaires paying their taxes" comparison you keep trying to get off the ground makes no sense.
Sure it does. You just haven’t understood it.
There's no way to retroactively force a billionaire from the 1960s to pay taxes
Yes, that’s part of my point: there’s no real way to do the above, and there’s no real way to go back and start tossing people out of the HOF. Who goes? Ty Cobb? All the ballplayers who took advantage of segregation? The players who took greenies in the 70s? There’d be nobody left, which means that it’s not really a practical choice.
Any generation of curators has the ability to easily remake any museum to reflect what they believe it should contain.
That’s an incredibly naive statement. If a curator tried to remake the Hall of Fame by tossing people out, they’d be fired so fast that their head would spin.
That museum is going to be pretty bare, and it's not going to tell you much about the history of baseball, a sport frequently played and governed by assholes. If they want to tell you the story of baseball, it should probably include the best hitter who has ever played the game.
Again, you’re missing the point. The HOF is both a history museum and a place to honor people. Bonds and McGwire et al are in the HOF that’s a history museum. E.g:
https://collection.baseballhall.org/search/barry%20bonds
And
https://collection.baseballhall.org/search/mark%20mcgwire
Hell, there’s an exhibit about the 90s & 00’s that features Bonds & McGwire prominently and discusses the steroids issue.
https://baseballhall.org/discover-more/stories/whole-new-ballgame/peds
There’s your history.
What the HOF is not doing is honoring Bonds, McGwire et al. But -- just like with Confederate monuments -- you can acknowledge history without honoring it.
posted by Galvanic at 6:59 AM on January 31, 2022 [1 favorite]
Sure it does. You just haven’t understood it.
There's no way to retroactively force a billionaire from the 1960s to pay taxes
Yes, that’s part of my point: there’s no real way to do the above, and there’s no real way to go back and start tossing people out of the HOF. Who goes? Ty Cobb? All the ballplayers who took advantage of segregation? The players who took greenies in the 70s? There’d be nobody left, which means that it’s not really a practical choice.
Any generation of curators has the ability to easily remake any museum to reflect what they believe it should contain.
That’s an incredibly naive statement. If a curator tried to remake the Hall of Fame by tossing people out, they’d be fired so fast that their head would spin.
That museum is going to be pretty bare, and it's not going to tell you much about the history of baseball, a sport frequently played and governed by assholes. If they want to tell you the story of baseball, it should probably include the best hitter who has ever played the game.
Again, you’re missing the point. The HOF is both a history museum and a place to honor people. Bonds and McGwire et al are in the HOF that’s a history museum. E.g:
https://collection.baseballhall.org/search/barry%20bonds
And
https://collection.baseballhall.org/search/mark%20mcgwire
Hell, there’s an exhibit about the 90s & 00’s that features Bonds & McGwire prominently and discusses the steroids issue.
https://baseballhall.org/discover-more/stories/whole-new-ballgame/peds
There’s your history.
What the HOF is not doing is honoring Bonds, McGwire et al. But -- just like with Confederate monuments -- you can acknowledge history without honoring it.
posted by Galvanic at 6:59 AM on January 31, 2022 [1 favorite]
I love baseball but I am having a little trouble taking discussions about disrespecting the sport or whatever too seriously when stuff like this is a current thing. (Give me blaseball. Blaseball understands.)
posted by restless_nomad at 7:16 AM on January 31, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by restless_nomad at 7:16 AM on January 31, 2022 [1 favorite]
I love baseball but I am having a little trouble taking discussions about disrespecting the sport or whatever too seriously when stuff like this is a current thing. (Give me blaseball. Blaseball understands.)
Baseball cracked down on the practice during the season -- in any case, the argument that because some people cheat, we should just give up on caring about any or all of it?
posted by Galvanic at 7:19 AM on January 31, 2022
Baseball cracked down on the practice during the season -- in any case, the argument that because some people cheat, we should just give up on caring about any or all of it?
posted by Galvanic at 7:19 AM on January 31, 2022
No, it's that baseball has always been, and still is, about finding ways to win that don't teeeeeechnically break any rules, at least not until someone notices and makes some rules about it. That is the sport.
posted by restless_nomad at 7:31 AM on January 31, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by restless_nomad at 7:31 AM on January 31, 2022 [2 favorites]
Actually, no, it's not. There's a fascinating set of values in baseball that people are supposed to obey and that the rules catch up to now and then. The one I can think of at the moment is the hard slide into second to break up the double play. Used to be exactly what you talked about -- not quite against the rules, so people did it pretty viciously at times. But starting around the turn of the century, players started reacting really badly to hard slides that were "dirty."Not against the rules, maybe, but dirty, and the sense of what was okay and what wasn't evolved. The rules didn't actually change for quite a bit after that.
posted by Galvanic at 7:57 AM on January 31, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by Galvanic at 7:57 AM on January 31, 2022 [1 favorite]
Yes, that’s part of my point: there’s no real way to do the above, and there’s no real way to go back and start tossing people out of the HOF. Who goes? Ty Cobb? All the ballplayers who took advantage of segregation? The players who took greenies in the 70s? There’d be nobody left, which means that it’s not really a practical choice.
Which means that the only real choice is to admit the truth - the character clause is nothing more that moralizing bullshit that is only brought up when people want to keep someone with a Hall-worthy career out of the Hall, and as such needs to be removed. There is no third option, no "well we didn't respect the clause for over a century, but we're going to start in 2022!" If you want the character clause to actually mean something that people will respect, it means properly applying it across the board. Anything less looks frankly hypocritical and self-serving.
Also, I find the whole "they cheated by using steroids" thing tedious and misinformed by a pop culture view of the drug as an "easy way" to muscle gain, when it's not. Probably the most realistic depiction of steroid use in pop culture was in Rick and Morty of all places, as it showed Rick and Summer using - and then putting the time in at the gym to get the gains that were enabled. (Yes, I believe that they should be banned because they cause serious medical issues and not banning them creates a pharmaceutical arms race, but I'm also aware of how they work - which is why I find the 'cheating' cry rather uninformed.)
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:59 AM on January 31, 2022 [3 favorites]
Which means that the only real choice is to admit the truth - the character clause is nothing more that moralizing bullshit that is only brought up when people want to keep someone with a Hall-worthy career out of the Hall, and as such needs to be removed. There is no third option, no "well we didn't respect the clause for over a century, but we're going to start in 2022!" If you want the character clause to actually mean something that people will respect, it means properly applying it across the board. Anything less looks frankly hypocritical and self-serving.
Also, I find the whole "they cheated by using steroids" thing tedious and misinformed by a pop culture view of the drug as an "easy way" to muscle gain, when it's not. Probably the most realistic depiction of steroid use in pop culture was in Rick and Morty of all places, as it showed Rick and Summer using - and then putting the time in at the gym to get the gains that were enabled. (Yes, I believe that they should be banned because they cause serious medical issues and not banning them creates a pharmaceutical arms race, but I'm also aware of how they work - which is why I find the 'cheating' cry rather uninformed.)
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:59 AM on January 31, 2022 [3 favorites]
Which means that the only real choice is to admit the truth - the character clause is nothing more that moralizing bullshit that is only brought up when people want to keep someone with a Hall-worthy career out of the Hall, and as such needs to be removed
No, it’s not the only other choice -- as I pointed out earlier, the third -- more realistic option -- is that it is perfectly possible to be aware of past mistakes while still trying to uphold current standards. Not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, I think is the phrase.
it means properly applying it across the board.
There’s not a rule or law in existence that doesn’t get misapplied at times. A “this has to be 100% or nothing!” logic would throw just about every single of those rules or laws out.
Also, I find the whole "they cheated by using steroids" thing tedious and misinformed by a pop culture view of the drug as an "easy way" to muscle gain, when it's not.
Intent counts. The players thought it worked -- you don’t get off a murder charge just because the gun you used malfunctioned.
posted by Galvanic at 8:24 AM on January 31, 2022 [1 favorite]
No, it’s not the only other choice -- as I pointed out earlier, the third -- more realistic option -- is that it is perfectly possible to be aware of past mistakes while still trying to uphold current standards. Not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, I think is the phrase.
it means properly applying it across the board.
There’s not a rule or law in existence that doesn’t get misapplied at times. A “this has to be 100% or nothing!” logic would throw just about every single of those rules or laws out.
Also, I find the whole "they cheated by using steroids" thing tedious and misinformed by a pop culture view of the drug as an "easy way" to muscle gain, when it's not.
Intent counts. The players thought it worked -- you don’t get off a murder charge just because the gun you used malfunctioned.
posted by Galvanic at 8:24 AM on January 31, 2022 [1 favorite]
No, it’s not the only other choice -- as I pointed out earlier, the third -- more realistic option -- is that it is perfectly possible to be aware of past mistakes while still trying to uphold current standards. Not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, I think is the phrase.
I think I've found the flaw in your argument here. The reality is that while there may be a few cases where someone slipped in accidentally, the vast majority of the cases were the voters decidedly averting their eyes to moral issues (including cheating!) to admit players. They weren't mistakes, and the fact that they weren't is why the "let's start enforcing the standard now" comes across as hypocritical and self-serving, because it lends itself to the questions "Why now? And why these players?", which have had answers that are questionable. Which comes back to the point I and other people have made - there is no third way. Either admit that the character clause has been hypocritically used throughout the life of the Hall and has been rendered meaningless as such; or accept that to actually make it come across as meaningful, that means addressing the history of how it was abused.
Intent counts. The players thought it worked -- you don’t get off a murder charge just because the gun you used malfunctioned.
Except that it didn't "malfunction" - the whole idea of steroids as "cheating" comes from pop culture misconceptions of how they work, and why doping rules actually exist.
posted by NoxAeternum at 12:01 PM on January 31, 2022 [2 favorites]
I think I've found the flaw in your argument here. The reality is that while there may be a few cases where someone slipped in accidentally, the vast majority of the cases were the voters decidedly averting their eyes to moral issues (including cheating!) to admit players. They weren't mistakes, and the fact that they weren't is why the "let's start enforcing the standard now" comes across as hypocritical and self-serving, because it lends itself to the questions "Why now? And why these players?", which have had answers that are questionable. Which comes back to the point I and other people have made - there is no third way. Either admit that the character clause has been hypocritically used throughout the life of the Hall and has been rendered meaningless as such; or accept that to actually make it come across as meaningful, that means addressing the history of how it was abused.
Intent counts. The players thought it worked -- you don’t get off a murder charge just because the gun you used malfunctioned.
Except that it didn't "malfunction" - the whole idea of steroids as "cheating" comes from pop culture misconceptions of how they work, and why doping rules actually exist.
posted by NoxAeternum at 12:01 PM on January 31, 2022 [2 favorites]
"Cheating" means ""doing something against the rules to gain an unfair advantage." That's exactly what Bonds, Clemons, McGuire, Sosa, et al were doing, regardless of how much time they had to spend in the weight room to achieve that unfair advantage. They were cheaters. Calling them cheaters is not remotely the result of pop culture misconceptions of how anabolic steroids work.
posted by Lyme Drop at 12:29 PM on January 31, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by Lyme Drop at 12:29 PM on January 31, 2022 [2 favorites]
They weren't mistakes, and the fact that they weren't is why the "let's start enforcing the standard now" comes across as hypocritical and self-serving, because it lends itself to the questions "Why now? And why these players?",
They may not have been seen as mistakes at the time, but they are seen that way now , and the difficulty with your argument is that it starts to get really uncomfortable when we start talking about racism and similar horrors of the past. Ty Cobb's racism wasn't seen back then as a character flaw. You really want to elevate consistency so much that we can't criticize him for it now? Doug Glanville, the former MLB player, had a nice column for ESPN today where he basically said that yes, there are lots of problematic players already in the Hall, but rather than giving up, "why should any of that stop us from being better now?"
https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/33181692/doug-glanville-why-glad-barry-bonds-elected-hall-fame
Except that it didn't "malfunction" - the whole idea of steroids as "cheating" comes from pop culture misconceptions
That's not responding to my point: the players believed that the steroids helped them and thus they cheated to gain an advantage. It was their intent, not whether it actually worked.
posted by Galvanic at 1:10 PM on January 31, 2022
They may not have been seen as mistakes at the time, but they are seen that way now , and the difficulty with your argument is that it starts to get really uncomfortable when we start talking about racism and similar horrors of the past. Ty Cobb's racism wasn't seen back then as a character flaw. You really want to elevate consistency so much that we can't criticize him for it now? Doug Glanville, the former MLB player, had a nice column for ESPN today where he basically said that yes, there are lots of problematic players already in the Hall, but rather than giving up, "why should any of that stop us from being better now?"
https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/33181692/doug-glanville-why-glad-barry-bonds-elected-hall-fame
Except that it didn't "malfunction" - the whole idea of steroids as "cheating" comes from pop culture misconceptions
That's not responding to my point: the players believed that the steroids helped them and thus they cheated to gain an advantage. It was their intent, not whether it actually worked.
posted by Galvanic at 1:10 PM on January 31, 2022
the players believed that the steroids helped them and thus they cheated to gain an advantage. It was their intent, not whether it actually worked.
OK, seems fair. So, for example, if someone who believed in the literal existence of a god were to pray to that god for a victory in the World Series, and their team subsequently won the World Series, they should also be excluded.
On reflection I think I might be serious. "Character" is approximately as real a thing as deities and serves many of the same questionable social ends, so if we're going to take one of them seriously we might as well take the other seriously too.
posted by Not A Thing at 2:11 PM on January 31, 2022 [1 favorite]
OK, seems fair. So, for example, if someone who believed in the literal existence of a god were to pray to that god for a victory in the World Series, and their team subsequently won the World Series, they should also be excluded.
On reflection I think I might be serious. "Character" is approximately as real a thing as deities and serves many of the same questionable social ends, so if we're going to take one of them seriously we might as well take the other seriously too.
posted by Not A Thing at 2:11 PM on January 31, 2022 [1 favorite]
Is praying to God against the rules of baseball, or illegal under US law? No and no.
The intent issue is about breaking the rules to gain an advantage, which doesn’t apply to prayer.
posted by Galvanic at 2:51 PM on January 31, 2022
The intent issue is about breaking the rules to gain an advantage, which doesn’t apply to prayer.
posted by Galvanic at 2:51 PM on January 31, 2022
They may not have been seen as mistakes at the time, but they are seen that way now , and the difficulty with your argument is that it starts to get really uncomfortable when we start talking about racism and similar horrors of the past.
Gaylord Perry's induction was not a mistake. The blind eye turned towards the amphetamine era was not a mistake. And they, among other various times the voters looked the other way when inducting players are not seen today as mistakes but what they are - willful acts by the voters to disregard the character clause when it benefitted them and their views. That's the problem with your argument - you keep trying to dismiss the agency of the voters. And I think it's because you know as well as I do that if you acknowledge the fact that the Hall voters have actively disregarded the character clause in the past, then the question becomes "why the hard line now?" And the honest answers from those voters would show how self-serving their application of the character clause is.
Again, there is no third way. Either acknowledge that the behavior of the voters has rendered the character clause meaningless; or make it meaningful by fixing their misconduct. Trying to dismiss the behavior of the Hall voters by calling their behavior a "mistake" is just turning a blind eye when it's convenient for you.
posted by NoxAeternum at 3:49 PM on January 31, 2022 [1 favorite]
Gaylord Perry's induction was not a mistake. The blind eye turned towards the amphetamine era was not a mistake. And they, among other various times the voters looked the other way when inducting players are not seen today as mistakes but what they are - willful acts by the voters to disregard the character clause when it benefitted them and their views. That's the problem with your argument - you keep trying to dismiss the agency of the voters. And I think it's because you know as well as I do that if you acknowledge the fact that the Hall voters have actively disregarded the character clause in the past, then the question becomes "why the hard line now?" And the honest answers from those voters would show how self-serving their application of the character clause is.
Again, there is no third way. Either acknowledge that the behavior of the voters has rendered the character clause meaningless; or make it meaningful by fixing their misconduct. Trying to dismiss the behavior of the Hall voters by calling their behavior a "mistake" is just turning a blind eye when it's convenient for you.
posted by NoxAeternum at 3:49 PM on January 31, 2022 [1 favorite]
Gaylord Perry's induction was not a mistake.
You’re still confusing then and now.
agency of the voters.
You do know they’re not the same voters, right?
posted by Galvanic at 4:26 PM on January 31, 2022 [1 favorite]
You’re still confusing then and now.
agency of the voters.
You do know they’re not the same voters, right?
posted by Galvanic at 4:26 PM on January 31, 2022 [1 favorite]
Doing your best to apply standards and falling short because we're human and fallible is one thing. "Hypocrisy is the tribute virtue pays vice" and all that.
Scapegoating someone is something else, and that's a more accurate description of Bonds' treatment.
Bonds was not one of the heavier users of PEDs; he was not an early user of PEDs; he put up HOF numbers without them; most of his use came before the formal policy was set. So why so much focus on PED's for him? I don't think you can overrate the role which dislike of him played. No one ever said "beloved slugger Barry Bonds" or spoke warmly about him as the consummate team player and mentor. As I've said, I don't like Bonds and actively rooted against him when he was playing.
(Yeah, Balco. I know this seemed a big deal at the time and there where a ton of headlines. But he was a customer and not some criminal mastermind. He was prosecuted for statements an appeals court overwhelmingly decided were not worthy of prosecution.)
We've got Piazza, admitted PED user in the Hall. Ortiz goes in with a shrug. Even a decade after Bonds, someone like Bartolo Colon gets nailed and serves his suspension, but it's mostly treated as an entertaining story ("Well, I guess that's how you pitch that well at age 40!") and the next year he gets a $20 million contract and an all-star appearance. Water under the bridge. Bud Selig is in. The moral outrage Bonds gets doesn't apply to those people, because the decision to scapegoat Bonds worked. Lets everyone else keep profiting.
posted by mark k at 5:39 PM on January 31, 2022 [3 favorites]
Scapegoating someone is something else, and that's a more accurate description of Bonds' treatment.
Bonds was not one of the heavier users of PEDs; he was not an early user of PEDs; he put up HOF numbers without them; most of his use came before the formal policy was set. So why so much focus on PED's for him? I don't think you can overrate the role which dislike of him played. No one ever said "beloved slugger Barry Bonds" or spoke warmly about him as the consummate team player and mentor. As I've said, I don't like Bonds and actively rooted against him when he was playing.
(Yeah, Balco. I know this seemed a big deal at the time and there where a ton of headlines. But he was a customer and not some criminal mastermind. He was prosecuted for statements an appeals court overwhelmingly decided were not worthy of prosecution.)
We've got Piazza, admitted PED user in the Hall. Ortiz goes in with a shrug. Even a decade after Bonds, someone like Bartolo Colon gets nailed and serves his suspension, but it's mostly treated as an entertaining story ("Well, I guess that's how you pitch that well at age 40!") and the next year he gets a $20 million contract and an all-star appearance. Water under the bridge. Bud Selig is in. The moral outrage Bonds gets doesn't apply to those people, because the decision to scapegoat Bonds worked. Lets everyone else keep profiting.
posted by mark k at 5:39 PM on January 31, 2022 [3 favorites]
Your argument would be more convincing if McGwire, who was universally liked, was in the Hall.
posted by Galvanic at 6:28 PM on January 31, 2022
posted by Galvanic at 6:28 PM on January 31, 2022
You’re still confusing then and now.
No, I'm pointing out that intentionality doesn't go away with the passage of time, so calling intentional behavior "mistakes" is wrong. Again, the BBWAA didn't make a mistake when voting Perry in - they very intentionally turned a blind eye to the parts of his record that fell under the character clause, for one example.
You do know they’re not the same voters, right?
This argument fails the smell test on several levels:
* First, as per the Hall, the BBWAA has had the vote for induction since 1936. So organizationally, these are the "same voters".
* Second, the voters in question assert that they are the one upholding the traditions of the Hall, claiming that they are the successors of those previous voters.
* Third, we're talking about some of the longest tenured voters in the BBWAA, with sportswriting careers spanning decades - which means they very well could have been voting on amphetamine era players,for one example. So in that case, we may be talking about the actual same voters.
Your argument would be more convincing if McGwire, who was universally liked, was in the Hall.
Now you're just grasping to avoid the obvious - that the two players who the sportswriters have decided need to be made an example of just so happen to be two top players who the sports press hated, in large part because they wouldn't play by the press' rules. And while you're technically right that McGuire being in the Hall would strengthen the argument that Clemens and especially Bonds are being scapegoated, it doesn't change the fact that the case for that is strong.
Frankly, the knots you're tying yourself in is the reason why the other Halls abandoned their character clauses. A character clause is by its very nature incredibly subjective, and is just asking to be broken.
posted by NoxAeternum at 6:57 PM on January 31, 2022 [1 favorite]
No, I'm pointing out that intentionality doesn't go away with the passage of time, so calling intentional behavior "mistakes" is wrong. Again, the BBWAA didn't make a mistake when voting Perry in - they very intentionally turned a blind eye to the parts of his record that fell under the character clause, for one example.
You do know they’re not the same voters, right?
This argument fails the smell test on several levels:
* First, as per the Hall, the BBWAA has had the vote for induction since 1936. So organizationally, these are the "same voters".
* Second, the voters in question assert that they are the one upholding the traditions of the Hall, claiming that they are the successors of those previous voters.
* Third, we're talking about some of the longest tenured voters in the BBWAA, with sportswriting careers spanning decades - which means they very well could have been voting on amphetamine era players,for one example. So in that case, we may be talking about the actual same voters.
Your argument would be more convincing if McGwire, who was universally liked, was in the Hall.
Now you're just grasping to avoid the obvious - that the two players who the sportswriters have decided need to be made an example of just so happen to be two top players who the sports press hated, in large part because they wouldn't play by the press' rules. And while you're technically right that McGuire being in the Hall would strengthen the argument that Clemens and especially Bonds are being scapegoated, it doesn't change the fact that the case for that is strong.
Frankly, the knots you're tying yourself in is the reason why the other Halls abandoned their character clauses. A character clause is by its very nature incredibly subjective, and is just asking to be broken.
posted by NoxAeternum at 6:57 PM on January 31, 2022 [1 favorite]
No, I'm pointing out that intentionality doesn't go away with the passage of time, so calling intentional behavior "mistakes" is wrong
It's really not -- again, they are perceived as mistakes now, and that's the evaluation I'm going with.
"You do know they’re not the same voters, right"
This argument fails the smell test on several levels:
You're really really stretching here. The people who voted Ty Cobb into the Hall of Fame in 1936 are literally *not* the same voters as who refused to vote Barry Bonds in in 2022. The ones who voted Ty Cobb in are dead, have been dead for a while, and will remain dead for the foreseeable future. They are not the same voters.
Even if they were the same voters, your argument boils down to "you have done bad things in the past, therefore you must continue to do bad things now." I'll stay with Glanville's idea that we can do better.
And while you're technically right that McGuire being in the Hall would strengthen the argument that Clemens and especially Bonds are being scapegoated
Yes, yes, it would. And he's not, so I'm not just technically right, I'm actually right. Thanks for noticing that!
posted by Galvanic at 7:06 AM on February 1, 2022 [2 favorites]
It's really not -- again, they are perceived as mistakes now, and that's the evaluation I'm going with.
"You do know they’re not the same voters, right"
This argument fails the smell test on several levels:
You're really really stretching here. The people who voted Ty Cobb into the Hall of Fame in 1936 are literally *not* the same voters as who refused to vote Barry Bonds in in 2022. The ones who voted Ty Cobb in are dead, have been dead for a while, and will remain dead for the foreseeable future. They are not the same voters.
Even if they were the same voters, your argument boils down to "you have done bad things in the past, therefore you must continue to do bad things now." I'll stay with Glanville's idea that we can do better.
And while you're technically right that McGuire being in the Hall would strengthen the argument that Clemens and especially Bonds are being scapegoated
Yes, yes, it would. And he's not, so I'm not just technically right, I'm actually right. Thanks for noticing that!
posted by Galvanic at 7:06 AM on February 1, 2022 [2 favorites]
It's really not -- again, they are perceived as mistakes now, and that's the evaluation I'm going with.
And that's the shoal upon which your argument falters - because there are a lot of people who do not agree with that evaluation, for reasons that have been laid out both here and elsewhere. You haven't given any reason why your prior of treating the repeated behavior of the BBWAA to turn a blind eye to the character clause when it suited their membership as a 'mistake' instead of willful behavior should be accepted, and without that prior, your argument breaks down.
My argument has been that given both the behavior of the BBWAA in the past and all of the acrimony surrounding Bonds and Clemens in sports media - why should I believe that this is "being better" and not yet more bullshit moralizing being used to spite players the sportswriters hate? There is no trust in the BBWAA anymore, and that's why your third way doesn't work. The only options are to acknowledge that the BBWAA's history of bad faith with regard to the character clause has rendered it meaningless, or to restore faith in it through correcting those past abuses. If you want people to believe that the BBWAA is "being better", that's what it will take to restore trust.
Yes, yes, it would. And he's not, so I'm not just technically right, I'm actually right. Thanks for noticing that!
You don't get to dodge your implications when you get caught out on them. You were trying to argue that McGuire's exclusion weakened the case for Bonds and Clemens being scapegoated, and it doesn't. (For one, it's very likely that McGuire was also scapegoated, the writers turning on him out of a feeling of 'betrayal'.)
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:46 AM on February 1, 2022 [1 favorite]
And that's the shoal upon which your argument falters - because there are a lot of people who do not agree with that evaluation, for reasons that have been laid out both here and elsewhere. You haven't given any reason why your prior of treating the repeated behavior of the BBWAA to turn a blind eye to the character clause when it suited their membership as a 'mistake' instead of willful behavior should be accepted, and without that prior, your argument breaks down.
My argument has been that given both the behavior of the BBWAA in the past and all of the acrimony surrounding Bonds and Clemens in sports media - why should I believe that this is "being better" and not yet more bullshit moralizing being used to spite players the sportswriters hate? There is no trust in the BBWAA anymore, and that's why your third way doesn't work. The only options are to acknowledge that the BBWAA's history of bad faith with regard to the character clause has rendered it meaningless, or to restore faith in it through correcting those past abuses. If you want people to believe that the BBWAA is "being better", that's what it will take to restore trust.
Yes, yes, it would. And he's not, so I'm not just technically right, I'm actually right. Thanks for noticing that!
You don't get to dodge your implications when you get caught out on them. You were trying to argue that McGuire's exclusion weakened the case for Bonds and Clemens being scapegoated, and it doesn't. (For one, it's very likely that McGuire was also scapegoated, the writers turning on him out of a feeling of 'betrayal'.)
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:46 AM on February 1, 2022 [1 favorite]
"That guy is an asshole, let's not vote for him" is part of it.
But I will reemphasize that there are assuredly writers out there who are viewing this through a lens of What impact did this person's transgressions make upon the state of the game itself?
McGwire's andro usage drew the public's eyes onto steroid use in baseball in general, and tainted what was the biggest record-breaking spectacle of its era. Bonds's larger-than-life status -- the guy they'd rather walk with the bases loaded than pitch to -- coupled with loud court battles over steroid usage reinforced that idea, that all the big guys in the sport were using AND that yet another record-breaking spectacle was drug-induced. Clemens made headlines with steroid-related defamation lawsuits. A-Rod missed an entire season due to PEDs investigations. These aren't randos; these are guys at the top of their profession, the names that one thinks of when one thinks of that era of baseball, all drawing profuse negative public attention to themselves and to their sport.
Pete Rose is banned because he bet on baseball... and because he showed no remorse, because he denied betting on baseball over and over when they had him dead to rights, because he dragged the saga through the public eye to the point that that's what you THINK OF when you think of Pete Rose now. Not Charlie Hustle, not 4192 hits, not his bad haircut, but that he broke the rules and was unrepentant.
Whereas B-listers aren't exactly applauded for breaking the same rules... but they tend to slip under that radar a bit when bigger fish are in the spotlight, and their suspensions are on page 7-D right after the coverage of the local golf tournament.
Are all the writers of that mindset? Certainly not. But I can believe that enough are.
posted by delfin at 9:56 AM on February 1, 2022
But I will reemphasize that there are assuredly writers out there who are viewing this through a lens of What impact did this person's transgressions make upon the state of the game itself?
McGwire's andro usage drew the public's eyes onto steroid use in baseball in general, and tainted what was the biggest record-breaking spectacle of its era. Bonds's larger-than-life status -- the guy they'd rather walk with the bases loaded than pitch to -- coupled with loud court battles over steroid usage reinforced that idea, that all the big guys in the sport were using AND that yet another record-breaking spectacle was drug-induced. Clemens made headlines with steroid-related defamation lawsuits. A-Rod missed an entire season due to PEDs investigations. These aren't randos; these are guys at the top of their profession, the names that one thinks of when one thinks of that era of baseball, all drawing profuse negative public attention to themselves and to their sport.
Pete Rose is banned because he bet on baseball... and because he showed no remorse, because he denied betting on baseball over and over when they had him dead to rights, because he dragged the saga through the public eye to the point that that's what you THINK OF when you think of Pete Rose now. Not Charlie Hustle, not 4192 hits, not his bad haircut, but that he broke the rules and was unrepentant.
Whereas B-listers aren't exactly applauded for breaking the same rules... but they tend to slip under that radar a bit when bigger fish are in the spotlight, and their suspensions are on page 7-D right after the coverage of the local golf tournament.
Are all the writers of that mindset? Certainly not. But I can believe that enough are.
posted by delfin at 9:56 AM on February 1, 2022
why should I believe that this is "being better" and not yet more bullshit moralizing being used to spite players the sportswriters hate?
Because -- as you already conceded -- McGwire's not in the Hall, and the sportswriters liked him quite well.
As to the rest, you're just repeating arguments you've already made, ones that I've already responded to. I get that you don't think they responded effectively, but I do, and so I'm not going to repeat them ad nauseam.
he only options are to acknowledge that the BBWAA's history of bad faith with regard to the character clause has rendered it meaningless, or to restore faith in it through correcting those past abuses
You're not going to rebuild faith in an institution by essentially punting on any bad behavior at all. "Well, yes, they were convicted of domestic abuse, but that's not our concern!" works so well -- and is why the Football Hall of Fame has a likely double-murderer in it. Hurray for progress. Your only alternative to that -- trawling through everybody in the HOF -- would quickly turn into a horrifically divisive argument about what constitutes a disqualifying offense, and become even more toxic.
In both cases, burning down the organization to help save it is not a useful response.
posted by Galvanic at 10:43 AM on February 1, 2022 [1 favorite]
Because -- as you already conceded -- McGwire's not in the Hall, and the sportswriters liked him quite well.
As to the rest, you're just repeating arguments you've already made, ones that I've already responded to. I get that you don't think they responded effectively, but I do, and so I'm not going to repeat them ad nauseam.
he only options are to acknowledge that the BBWAA's history of bad faith with regard to the character clause has rendered it meaningless, or to restore faith in it through correcting those past abuses
You're not going to rebuild faith in an institution by essentially punting on any bad behavior at all. "Well, yes, they were convicted of domestic abuse, but that's not our concern!" works so well -- and is why the Football Hall of Fame has a likely double-murderer in it. Hurray for progress. Your only alternative to that -- trawling through everybody in the HOF -- would quickly turn into a horrifically divisive argument about what constitutes a disqualifying offense, and become even more toxic.
In both cases, burning down the organization to help save it is not a useful response.
posted by Galvanic at 10:43 AM on February 1, 2022 [1 favorite]
there is no third way. Either admit that the character clause has been hypocritically used throughout the life of the Hall and has been rendered meaningless as such; or accept that to actually make it come across as meaningful, that means addressing the history of how it was abused.
Jeez, people are still dumping words in this thread in defense of Barry Bonds, domestic abuser? Given how threads about folks like Joss Whedon or J.K. Rowling normally go, I feel like I stumbled into bizarro-world Metafilter here. Is it just for baseball? Or just sports? Or are our only options "In the future, continue to freely give horrible people stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame" or "rip up the entire Hollywood Walk of Fame and start over" with no third option there, either? How about politics, is it good to try to stop electing raging asshole politicians, or is that useless so long as official portraits of raging assholes still hang in the halls of Congress and the White House? Because the only reason I see for discarding "be better, going forwards" as an option is because some people in this thread have a blinding hatred for the BBWAA.
posted by mstokes650 at 10:59 AM on February 1, 2022 [3 favorites]
Jeez, people are still dumping words in this thread in defense of Barry Bonds, domestic abuser? Given how threads about folks like Joss Whedon or J.K. Rowling normally go, I feel like I stumbled into bizarro-world Metafilter here. Is it just for baseball? Or just sports? Or are our only options "In the future, continue to freely give horrible people stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame" or "rip up the entire Hollywood Walk of Fame and start over" with no third option there, either? How about politics, is it good to try to stop electing raging asshole politicians, or is that useless so long as official portraits of raging assholes still hang in the halls of Congress and the White House? Because the only reason I see for discarding "be better, going forwards" as an option is because some people in this thread have a blinding hatred for the BBWAA.
posted by mstokes650 at 10:59 AM on February 1, 2022 [3 favorites]
Well said!
Because the only reason I see for discarding "be better, going forwards" as an option is because some people in this thread have a blinding hatred for the BBWAA
Which, oddly, means that those people are doing the same thing they criticize the BBWAA for...
posted by Galvanic at 11:19 AM on February 1, 2022 [1 favorite]
Because the only reason I see for discarding "be better, going forwards" as an option is because some people in this thread have a blinding hatred for the BBWAA
Which, oddly, means that those people are doing the same thing they criticize the BBWAA for...
posted by Galvanic at 11:19 AM on February 1, 2022 [1 favorite]
So much of the disagreement (or the going round in circles, anyway) here rests on usage of the word 'mistake'. If you use it to mean 'a regrettable decision' then yes, a lot of inductees were a mistake. If you use mistake a bit more literally, to mean 'done without intent or by accident' then no, they were absolutely not mistakes, they were decisions made with eyes wide open.
posted by Dysk at 9:22 PM on February 1, 2022
posted by Dysk at 9:22 PM on February 1, 2022
> "be better, going forwards"
Again: great rule when you can't fix the mistakes of the past (taxing dead billionaires, unelecting dead politicians), stupid rule when you easily can fix the mistakes of the past (just remove all the people who sucked as humans from a museum honoring them), stupid and deeply suspect when it's only deployed in certain contexts (like blocking one shitty person from being featured in a museum filled with other shitty people).
It's sorta weird to be opposed to Barry Bonds being in the HOF on the grounds that he was a domestic abuser and a steroid user and not also arguing for removing Kennesaw Mountain Landis (as NoxAeternum mentioned earlier), or Cap Anson, or, like, a hundred other shitty guys. If there's a standard and it can be applied to everyone—and this "good people and good baseball players" standard definitely could be, pretty easily, Galvanic's handwaving of the concept notwithstanding—it should be applied to everyone. Otherwise, they should be honest that there isn't really a standard and drop it entirely.
posted by protocoach at 2:22 PM on February 2, 2022 [2 favorites]
Again: great rule when you can't fix the mistakes of the past (taxing dead billionaires, unelecting dead politicians), stupid rule when you easily can fix the mistakes of the past (just remove all the people who sucked as humans from a museum honoring them), stupid and deeply suspect when it's only deployed in certain contexts (like blocking one shitty person from being featured in a museum filled with other shitty people).
It's sorta weird to be opposed to Barry Bonds being in the HOF on the grounds that he was a domestic abuser and a steroid user and not also arguing for removing Kennesaw Mountain Landis (as NoxAeternum mentioned earlier), or Cap Anson, or, like, a hundred other shitty guys. If there's a standard and it can be applied to everyone—and this "good people and good baseball players" standard definitely could be, pretty easily, Galvanic's handwaving of the concept notwithstanding—it should be applied to everyone. Otherwise, they should be honest that there isn't really a standard and drop it entirely.
posted by protocoach at 2:22 PM on February 2, 2022 [2 favorites]
To piggyback on what protocoach is saying...
I understand the reasoning behind "be better, going forwards", although I disagree with it. Even if I agreed, it is still - at best - inconsistent in this particular case.
"We're doing better! We only let one person in who broke the character clause this year! We didn't vote the other two who were eligible in!" is not exactly a good look for "be better, going forwards".
posted by a non mouse, a cow herd at 6:24 AM on February 3, 2022
I understand the reasoning behind "be better, going forwards", although I disagree with it. Even if I agreed, it is still - at best - inconsistent in this particular case.
"We're doing better! We only let one person in who broke the character clause this year! We didn't vote the other two who were eligible in!" is not exactly a good look for "be better, going forwards".
posted by a non mouse, a cow herd at 6:24 AM on February 3, 2022
stupid rule when you easily can fix the mistakes of the past (just remove all the people who sucked as humans from a museum honoring them)... Galvanic's handwaving of the concept notwithstanding
The idea that removing people from the HOF would be easy is incredibly naive. There would be a firestorm of discussion, protest, argument and anger over each player. What is the standard? Tell me this: does every player who played in the segregated era get bounced? They took advantage of a racist and rigged system, after all. If not, how dare you condone segregation?
when it's only deployed in certain contexts (like blocking one shitty person from being featured in a museum filled with other shitty people
Except that's not what's happened. Though Bonds has become the poster person for this, lots of folks are being kept out at the moment, including, eg, McGwire.
And, again, the argument that "well, there are other shitty people in here, so we can't pay any attention to the shittiness of the current candidates" is really an awful way to run things. You want to start looking past sexual abusers, for example, just because a lot of HOF people have problematic histories in that regard?
And no, the only alternative to that is not to give up entirely because then you start letting in double-murderers, like the Football Hall of Fame.
"We're doing better! We only let one person in who broke the character clause this year! We didn't vote the other two who were eligible in!" is not exactly a good look for "be better, going forwards".
It's better than "we let all three in!" And it's certainly better than "Well, we can't do it perfectly, so we're just going to give up entirely."
posted by Galvanic at 6:45 AM on February 3, 2022
The idea that removing people from the HOF would be easy is incredibly naive. There would be a firestorm of discussion, protest, argument and anger over each player. What is the standard? Tell me this: does every player who played in the segregated era get bounced? They took advantage of a racist and rigged system, after all. If not, how dare you condone segregation?
when it's only deployed in certain contexts (like blocking one shitty person from being featured in a museum filled with other shitty people
Except that's not what's happened. Though Bonds has become the poster person for this, lots of folks are being kept out at the moment, including, eg, McGwire.
And, again, the argument that "well, there are other shitty people in here, so we can't pay any attention to the shittiness of the current candidates" is really an awful way to run things. You want to start looking past sexual abusers, for example, just because a lot of HOF people have problematic histories in that regard?
And no, the only alternative to that is not to give up entirely because then you start letting in double-murderers, like the Football Hall of Fame.
"We're doing better! We only let one person in who broke the character clause this year! We didn't vote the other two who were eligible in!" is not exactly a good look for "be better, going forwards".
It's better than "we let all three in!" And it's certainly better than "Well, we can't do it perfectly, so we're just going to give up entirely."
posted by Galvanic at 6:45 AM on February 3, 2022
It's better than "we let all three in!" And it's certainly better than "Well, we can't do it perfectly, so we're just going to give up entirely."
I disagree. It proves the point that it's neither about character nor skills. It's about who the BBWA will turn a blind eye to. If they would have waited even one year to vote Ortiz in (so it wasn't the same year two other 'roid users were falling off the ballot), it would *maybe* give them some small veneer of impartiality. But, they didn't. You want to talk about a hollowed out HOF? It already is because of the hollow BBWA.
posted by a non mouse, a cow herd at 7:13 AM on February 3, 2022 [2 favorites]
I disagree. It proves the point that it's neither about character nor skills. It's about who the BBWA will turn a blind eye to. If they would have waited even one year to vote Ortiz in (so it wasn't the same year two other 'roid users were falling off the ballot), it would *maybe* give them some small veneer of impartiality. But, they didn't. You want to talk about a hollowed out HOF? It already is because of the hollow BBWA.
posted by a non mouse, a cow herd at 7:13 AM on February 3, 2022 [2 favorites]
What is the standard?
The same standard that you want to apply to Bonds, that you are demanding that we treat as legitimate. So tell us - what is that standard?
Tell me this: does every player who played in the segregated era get bounced? They took advantage of a racist and rigged system, after all. If not, how dare you condone segregation?
This is shitty bad faith argumentation that shows that you don't actually understand what your critics are saying. Nobody has even come close to arguing such a position, and the fact that you've leaped off the slippery slope headfirst does not mean we're obliged to follow.
The main flashpoint that's been identified in a Hall disenrollment program has been the amphetamine era, and that applying the standards that are supposedly being applied for the steroid era would mean that players like Hank Aaron would be candidates for disenrollment. Needless to say, this is the point critics point to in order to show why the whole thing is a load of bullshit.
It's better than "we let all three in!" And it's certainly better than "Well, we can't do it perfectly, so we're just going to give up entirely."
No, it isn't. In fact, the behavior of picking and choosing who gets the character standard to is why people no longer have any faith in the character clause as anything beyond a tool for the BBWAA to give a veneer of legitimacy to excluding players they don't like. And when this is the Hall's response to removing a player who has been blackballed from the league for sexual assault (including Hall leadership):
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:39 AM on February 3, 2022 [2 favorites]
The same standard that you want to apply to Bonds, that you are demanding that we treat as legitimate. So tell us - what is that standard?
Tell me this: does every player who played in the segregated era get bounced? They took advantage of a racist and rigged system, after all. If not, how dare you condone segregation?
This is shitty bad faith argumentation that shows that you don't actually understand what your critics are saying. Nobody has even come close to arguing such a position, and the fact that you've leaped off the slippery slope headfirst does not mean we're obliged to follow.
The main flashpoint that's been identified in a Hall disenrollment program has been the amphetamine era, and that applying the standards that are supposedly being applied for the steroid era would mean that players like Hank Aaron would be candidates for disenrollment. Needless to say, this is the point critics point to in order to show why the whole thing is a load of bullshit.
It's better than "we let all three in!" And it's certainly better than "Well, we can't do it perfectly, so we're just going to give up entirely."
No, it isn't. In fact, the behavior of picking and choosing who gets the character standard to is why people no longer have any faith in the character clause as anything beyond a tool for the BBWAA to give a veneer of legitimacy to excluding players they don't like. And when this is the Hall's response to removing a player who has been blackballed from the league for sexual assault (including Hall leadership):
Clark said after Manfred's announcement that Alomar's plaque would remain on display in the Hall because "his enshrinement reflects his eligibility and the perspective of the BBWAA voters at that time." Alomar was inducted in 2011.- why the hell should we think that the Hall or the BBWAA take domestic violence seriously? Nobody is saying "be perfect" - people are pointing out that if you want to make the character clause mean something, you need to address the times it wasn't upheld. And when even the easy cases aren't addressed, why should people believe that this is about "being better"?
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:39 AM on February 3, 2022 [2 favorites]
The same standard that you want to apply to Bonds, that you are demanding that we treat as legitimate. So tell us - what is that standard?
I asked first.
This is shitty bad faith argumentation that shows that you don't actually understand what your critics are saying. Nobody has even come close to arguing such a position, and the fact that you've leaped off the slippery slope headfirst does not mean we're obliged to follow.
It's the inevitable result of what you're arguing for, and you're desperately trying to avoid recognizing that because it reveals the severe problem in what you're advocating. Instead, you're pounding the table like a lawyer without a case.
he main flashpoint that's been identified in a Hall disenrollment program has been the amphetamine era
And what I'm pointing out is that no public discussion about who should be in the Hall of Fame is going to stay contained to what you want it to stay contained to. Thinking otherwise is terribly naive.
No, it isn't.
Sure, it is.
give a veneer of legitimacy to excluding players they don't like
You keep saying that, and every time I'm going to point to Mark McGwire.
And when this is the Hall's response to removing a player who has been blackballed from the league for sexual assault
I thought it was "shitty bad faith argumentation" to bring in anything other than drug use?
posted by Galvanic at 7:44 AM on February 3, 2022
I asked first.
This is shitty bad faith argumentation that shows that you don't actually understand what your critics are saying. Nobody has even come close to arguing such a position, and the fact that you've leaped off the slippery slope headfirst does not mean we're obliged to follow.
It's the inevitable result of what you're arguing for, and you're desperately trying to avoid recognizing that because it reveals the severe problem in what you're advocating. Instead, you're pounding the table like a lawyer without a case.
he main flashpoint that's been identified in a Hall disenrollment program has been the amphetamine era
And what I'm pointing out is that no public discussion about who should be in the Hall of Fame is going to stay contained to what you want it to stay contained to. Thinking otherwise is terribly naive.
No, it isn't.
Sure, it is.
give a veneer of legitimacy to excluding players they don't like
You keep saying that, and every time I'm going to point to Mark McGwire.
And when this is the Hall's response to removing a player who has been blackballed from the league for sexual assault
I thought it was "shitty bad faith argumentation" to bring in anything other than drug use?
posted by Galvanic at 7:44 AM on February 3, 2022
> The idea that removing people from the HOF would be easy is incredibly naive. There would be a firestorm of discussion, protest, argument and anger over each player. What is the standard? Tell me this: does every player who played in the segregated era get bounced? They took advantage of a racist and rigged system, after all. If not, how dare you condone segregation?
Yeah, I dunno what to tell you here. It is hard to have standards and stand by them consistently. That's why most people don't, and it's why we respect people who do. For me, I'm ok with a museum of baseball history featuring exceptional players who were bad people or broke the rules, as long as their displays discuss and contextualize that. You seem to be content with one standard for some bad people and another standard for other equally-as-bad-or-worse people. An arbitrary, inconsistently applied standard is worse than no standard at all; you won't get credit for having standards, because you don't, and you won't achieve the mission of your museum, because you've voluntarily chosen not to.
posted by protocoach at 8:22 AM on February 3, 2022 [4 favorites]
Yeah, I dunno what to tell you here. It is hard to have standards and stand by them consistently. That's why most people don't, and it's why we respect people who do. For me, I'm ok with a museum of baseball history featuring exceptional players who were bad people or broke the rules, as long as their displays discuss and contextualize that. You seem to be content with one standard for some bad people and another standard for other equally-as-bad-or-worse people. An arbitrary, inconsistently applied standard is worse than no standard at all; you won't get credit for having standards, because you don't, and you won't achieve the mission of your museum, because you've voluntarily chosen not to.
posted by protocoach at 8:22 AM on February 3, 2022 [4 favorites]
You seem to be content with one standard for some bad people and another standard for other equally-as-bad-or-worse people.
No, I'm content with recognizing the real world, where organizations often struggle to apply their standards consistently and perfectly. Giving up on standards altogether is just indulging a naive sense of purity.
(By the way, it's clear that the HOF also hasn't been terribly consistent about what standard of performance gets you into the Hall. There are plenty of HOFers who probably wouldn't get voted in today because their stats aren't sufficient -- so does that mean we give up on evaluating any standard of performance at all?)
posted by Galvanic at 8:33 AM on February 3, 2022
No, I'm content with recognizing the real world, where organizations often struggle to apply their standards consistently and perfectly. Giving up on standards altogether is just indulging a naive sense of purity.
(By the way, it's clear that the HOF also hasn't been terribly consistent about what standard of performance gets you into the Hall. There are plenty of HOFers who probably wouldn't get voted in today because their stats aren't sufficient -- so does that mean we give up on evaluating any standard of performance at all?)
posted by Galvanic at 8:33 AM on February 3, 2022
Mod note: Galvanic, please review our participation guidelines, be conscious of not dominating a thread, and do not repost comments that have been deleted. No one is obligated to reply to you, and it is longstanding practice at MetaFilter for us to recommend people step out of threads they feel are going in circles or have become unproductive, rather than getting into a slugfest. My sense is that people have stopped responding to you not because they can't, but because your behavior here is pretty far outside site norms, and if earlier comments of yours had been flagged, they would have been deleted for being aggressively, unnecessarily combative and pointedly nasty to people who were engaging in good-faith conversation with you.
posted by Eyebrows McGee (staff) at 6:55 PM on February 3, 2022 [3 favorites]
posted by Eyebrows McGee (staff) at 6:55 PM on February 3, 2022 [3 favorites]
« Older An old Virginia plantation, a new owner and a... | It kinda feels like doing drugs Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by box at 2:42 PM on January 26, 2022 [1 favorite]