Question for Hall of Fame voters

With Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmeiro trapped in Hall limbo with Pete Rose, we are now facing the prospect that the greatest hitters of the last two decades are likely not to make the Hall.

Consider the man who announced his retirement today, Manny Ramirez. There is no doubt that Ramirez is one of the greatest hitters to ever step in a batter’s box — he hit for average, power and was a flat-out RBI machine for the bulk of his career.

The same can be said for Gary Sheffield and, of course, Barry Bonds, who faces all kinds of legal woes.

Here is a list of the Top 20 homerun hitters in baseball history:

Seven of them have a steroid asterisk next to their name (or would have were it to exist). Add Sheffield to the list of plus-500 homer guys with an asterisk and then consider this: Only three power hitters of the last 20 years — Ken Griffey Jr., Jim Thome and Frank Thomas — are without asterisks and there are writers who question Thome and Thomas’ credentials. (This doesn’t take into account the pitchers, by the way.)

I am not advocating for voting all of these guys into the Hall, but we have to address this in some way. The reality is that the game was badly tainted by the accusations and its best players, for the most part, were all involved.

So, here is my question: Can we continue to ignore these hitters without ignoring an entire era?

  • Send me an e-mail.
  • Read poetry at The Subterranean.
  • Certainties and Uncertainties a chapbook by Hank Kalet, will be published in November by Finishing Line Press. It can be ordered here.
  • Suburban Pastoral, a chapbook by Hank Kalet, available here.

The taint of steroids

It appears that we can add Manny Ramirez’s name to the list of tainted sluggers, based on today’s report that he is about to be suspended 50 games for a positive steroid test. The interesting question, of course, is what this means not only for his Hall of Fame chances, but for the Hall of Fame chances of all players from the present era — players who played the bulk of their careers over the last 20 years.

Consider this list of players from the era who slugged at least 500 home runs (from Baseball Reference):

  1. Barry Bonds 762
  2. Ken Griffey 613
  3. Sammy Sosa 609
  4. Mark McGwire 583
  5. Rafael Palmeiro 569
  6. Alex Rodriguez 553
  7. Jim Thome 545
  8. Manny Ramirez 533
  9. Frank Thomas 521
  10. Gary Sheffield 500

That’s 10 players — of the 25 all-time — who played the majority of their careers after the mid-1980s. Of these 10, only three — Griffey, Thome and Thomas — have not been linked to steroids. McGwire, the only one on the list eligible to enter the Hall, has been snubbed for two years now, which seemed to make sense — until you consider that the steroid era has tainted so many players of all abilities that we can’t be sure that the players we think are clean really have been.

A-Rod is the case in point. He was the one guy — along with Griffey — who everyone viewed as squeeky clean on the issue and who nearly everyone was rooting for to pass Bonds and remove the taint on the record. Now, however, he is mired in steroid controversy, his accomplishments called into question.

I don’t think steroid users should be rewarded, but we have to acknowledge that the homerun barrage that has left the record book a shambles was not a product of steroids alone. A host of factors — smaller parks, more sophisticated workout regimens, awful pitching, a tendency to swing for the fences — contributed.

But the one thing that I think has become clear — at least to me — is that guys like McGwire, A-Rod and Manny have been playing by the rules as established by the culture of baseball and are likely not exceptions.

A-Rod, steroids and informed choice

http://espn.go.com/broadband/player.swf?mediaId=3894963Well, he’s admitted it. Alex Rodriguez, one of the best hitters on the planet, has admitted taking steroids while playing in Texas from 2001-2003.

I’m not sure how to respond. I have come down on both sides of hte steroid issue in baseball over the years, initially buying into the arch “kick ’em out” school. But the anarchist in me — the one who believes that drugs should be decriminalized if not legalized outright and tightly regulated — wonders why this is all that important.

I know — these guys are role models, blah blah blah. I know — this supposedly taints the competitive balance, yada yada yada.

But let’s be fair. A-Rod is an adult — as are Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens and the rest, though they do all act like big kids. It’s his choice, or should be his choice, what he wants to do with his body — so long as he has all of the information necessary to make an informed choice.

I liken the use of performance enhancement drugs to laser eye surgery. No one would blink if a ballplayer had the surgery — even though it alters the player’s body and could improve an aspect of his game. (I’m not talking about someone who has the surgery to get rid of his glasses, but to improve decent sight.)

There is a debate going on among medical ethicists over this — over steroids and Ritalin and other drugs that have definite medical benefits for some ailments, but also offer some improved performance for the healthy. The question is whether they should be allowed to use these substances — should college students use Ritalin to improve their studying and their test scores, for instance? Right now, I come down on the side of yes, though I don’t advocate their use. As long as you can make an informed decision, and your actions do not have a negative impact on others, I think it should be up to you.

Baseball’s steroid era in black and white

The Mitchell report is out and it pretty much blasts the slow response of baseball to recognize — or perhaps care — that steroid use was widespread.

Obviously, the players who illegally used performance enhancing substances are responsible for their actions. But they did not act in a vacuum. Everyone involved in baseball over the past two decades – Commissioners, club officials, the Players Association, and players – shares to some extent in the responsibility for the steroids era. There was a collective failure to recognize the problem as it emerged and to deal with it early on. As a result, an environment developed in which illegal use became widespread.

Given the list of names (which includes some we’d already heard — Jose Canseco, Gary Sheffield, Matt Williams, Barry Bonds and Gary Sheffield — and some we had not — among them Miguel Tejada, Roger Clemens, Andy Pettite, Todd Hundley and Paul LoDuca), the apparent widespread use of steroids by players and the broad responsibility for steroid use, it seems that targeting individual players for pentalties appears senseless.

Ruling out people like Bonds and Clemens from the Hall of Fame — well, that is a difficult question. Do you rule out an entire generation of players? Do you assume that only the small handful of Hall-of-Fame level players wouldn’t have risen to that level without help? Do you penalize Bonds and Clemens? What do you do with Sheffield and Rafael Palmeiro? Mark McGwire? Sammy Sosa?

I wish I had a good answer. I don’t. Baseball, its fans and the press — along with the entire industry that surrounds it — need to come to grips with this simple fact: The last 20 years of baseball history have been tainted.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick

E-mail me by clicking here.

Some thoughts on Bonds and steroids

I’ll have a column on Barry Bonds tomorrow, but I thougth I’d offer some thoughts on steroids in baseball and the evolution of my thinking.

There was a time when I was completely aghast at the notion that steroids were apparently rampant in the sport, believing they compromised the integrity of the game and its statistical foundation and sent a terrible message to young fans.

But steroids are not the scourge envisioned by the press. It’s not that I endorse their use — I think any athlete is foolish to put that kind of stuff into their bodies. But they are adults and adults get to make decisions about their lives for good or ill.

And don’t give me that line about athletes being role models. They are athletes. They hit a ball with a long stick and often do really assinine things; why we think they should be paragons of virtue — better than the mechanic down the street or the office-worker next door — is a question that begs for an answer.

In any case, here is a summary of my current thinking on steroids in sports. Feel free to let me know that I’m wrong (but, please, keep it clean):

1. Adults should have the right, within limits and so long as they are clear about the risks, to do what they like to their bodies, be it tattoos or steroids or what have you. The government, however, does have a right to step in when an adult’s behavior may put someone else in danger — by banning drinking and driving, for instance, or by prohibiting smoking in restaurants and bars to protect workers and other patrons from second-hand smoke. Or by limiting access to adults, as we try to do with liquor.

2. Steroids — like the myriad recreational drugs out there — should be treated as a health issue. A massive health-education campaign is probably needed to demonstrate the dangers to the body and society of steroid abuse. There should be treatment options with law enforcement geared toward pushing users into treatment slots.

3. Sports always has been about finding the advantage and I’m not sure that, ethically, there is a lot of difference between a ballplayer using steroids, a pitcher throwing a spitball or all the body armor batters now wear. That may seem an odd set of connections, but there is some equivalence here — especially when you consider that steroids were not considered a banned substance in baseball until relatively recently.

James Carroll spelled this point out in a June column:

What are the issues embedded in these sporting controversies? In an age when improvement of physical and mental ability is promoted as a fundamental virtue, why do some methods of improvement seem right, while others leave us feeling queasy? What happens when genetic engineering replaces exercise and drug use as the main mode of athletic enhancement? Will bionic athletes whose bodies have been transformed by cloning complete the steroid-inspired movement from sport to spectacle?

It is part of a “drive to mastery” that reaches well beyond the sports world and raises the specter of “genetic manipulation aimed at flawless children” and even “a new eugenics that could ultimately create two classes of human beings.”

Sports already operates in this realm, self selecting for particular attributes — think about the growth in size of offensive linemen in football over the years, or the way all basketball players, regardless of their position, seem taller than in years past.

It is a sports version of natural selection: Hitters who see the ball more quickly than others survive; those who are slower to see it coming in do not. The same kinds of calculations are made about pitchers, quarterbacks, tennis players and soccer goalies. You either get the job done — by whatever means necessary — or you find a new line of work.

So is it any wonder that athletes turn to steroids and other perfomance enhancers?

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick

E-mail me by clicking here.