There have been a few great moments for me in baseball this decade: Luis Gonzalez’s bloop single to win Game 7 of the 2001 World Series and defeat the hated New York Yankees; the Red Sox winning the championship in 2004; and, of course, the Colorado Rockies’ run to the World Series in 2007.
To be honest, Boston’s first championship of the decade has held up the best. The D-Backs in ’01 finally beat the three-time defending champions when no one thought they could, but the Yankees have never been the same since. It’s easy to take for granted how awesome it is when they lose. The Rockies’ hot streak was out of this world and came with nigh-perfect timing, except for its ending, but it was such a short burst of excitement. It wasn’t like the whole season had been awesome, or the next year was. But Boston’s win is still the stuff of legend. In 2003, they suffered a heartbreaking loss in the ALCS to the Yankees following a surprising meltdown from the once-incomparable Pedro Martinez. The next year they not only made it back but pulled an historic comeback from a 3-0 deficit before sweeping the St. Louis Cardinals in the World Series. Even though they annihilated the Rockies in 2007, I can’t forget how much I loved the Sox once upon a time.
(By the way, I am compelled to mention: 2003 almost makes me understand the NBA. There is no way that David Stern would have let a potential Cubs-Red Sox World Series matchup get away. For all that’s happened to baseball, the Marlins-Yankees matchup proved at least that between the lines, the game is still on the level.)
With such fond memories of Boston’s title, you can imagine my dismay in reading reports that not only Manny Ramirez, but also the wildly popular David Ortiz, tested positive for performance-enhancing drug use in 2003. These tests, incidentally, were supposed to be anonymous, and while I wish they had stayed that way, it's amazing how at this late date, things are still coming out. Actually, in some ways I feel the players’ union got what it deserved, considering it basically fought for years to prevent drug testing. Not a union I’d want to belong to.
In any event, I can’t say I’m entirely shocked to hear Ortiz might have used steroids or whatever, considering how his career went from “hitter with some pop” to “legend” when he moved cities. But it still hurts.
I’ve said before that steroid use, having not been against the rules for so long, should not keep a suspected user out of the Hall of Fame, especially if his use came before the rule changes. And I guess this doesn’t change my mind, but I’m sick of seeing every single baseball accomplishment come with a freaking disclaimer attached.
11 comments:
Were you really surprised that Ortiz was on that list? He was essentially cut by the Twins before Boston signed him and then all of a sudden he was hitting 40 homers every year...until the testing started.
I don't want players who have been linked to steroids in the HOF. They shouldn't get a pass just because the Commish hadn't made a specific rule banning steroids. They were still illegal right? That's like saying that players could poison opposing players because there was no ban against it. Players knew steroids were illegal, and they knew exactly what they were doing when they were using them. I'm sick of everyone playing the ignorance card.
No, I sort of hinted at that Twins thing. I'm not shocked, he's just the first player I really liked to get caught. Well, I guess I liked Bonds, but that took forever to develop. (I know lots of people were like hey! His head's big! But if steroids are that serious I want more evidence.)
I actually don't think steroid use is analogous to murder, sorry, or even a type of poisoning you'd recover from. Practically, the biggest problem now is enforcement...who from this era CAN go in the Hall of Fame? And if we find out forty years later that someone we thought was clean was actually using, do they get taken out? Doesn't that just encourage more secrecy? The way it is now someone can tell the truth after they're done (like Canseco), and at least we know what really happened. I feel like that's the best we can hope for at this point.
It sounds like I am saying because enforcement is hard, we shouldn't consider it. That's not what I mean. I don't think enforcement is hard; it's impossible. You can't drug test someone fifteen years after the fact. Plus there was a whole culture in the game where players were basically encouraged to use drugs. Seems kind of hypocritical to cheer guys on as they hit 70 home runs, then call 'em scumbags later and feign outrage. I mean, whether or not you thought they were using 'roids in the '90s it was obvious SOMETHING had changed.
I was sorely disappointed to hear of Papi's positive test. A friend of mine who has been completely in the tank for the Sox said point blank: "I am done being a Red Sox fan."
I understand the argument that because steroid use was not against the rules of baseball, it should not bar HOF consideration - in fact, I used to hold that position myself. But steroid use was illegal under the law of the land, and was understood to be cheating, so in some sense it didn't need to be formally illegal under the law of baseball. In other words, the legal and de facto understanding was that steroid use was cheating, so I have no problem if known users are barred from the Hall.
Interestingly, a similar thing happened with the Black Sox scandal - as far as I am aware, there was no rule against betting on baseball in 1919, but all of those guys got banned, too.
And I don't think enforcement is as hard as you think. The 2003 tests cut pretty broadly, and we keep learning about more positive tests. True, those tests were supposed to be anonymous, but MLB has clearly decided that cleaning up its own image is more important than maintaining anonymity.
And let's not forget that players test positive even today, see, e.g., Manny Ramirez. The fact that we may never know the full extent of such use does not change things for me, much like the fact that we don't know whether players other than the Black Sox cheated changes the fact that those players rightly were banned from the sport.
Let me explain myself a little more. I feel like very many if not most of the stars of the 90s and 00s used steroids. But it doesn't make any sense to me to have no one, or just very few players, make the Hall out of such a long era.
Also, if most players are using, does that provide much of an edge?
I am not sure there was a de facto understanding that steroid use was cheating. I recall reading that Bonds was jealous of McGwire and Sosa getting so much attention and that was why he started using. Well, I'm sure Barry Bonds knows what it takes to hit 60+ home runs on a level we don't, and I'm sure he had his suspicions. I'm not saying that Bonds specifically deserves a free pass, but I bet many players knew who were using, and I bet owners knew, and I feel like all the millions thrown around to guys who cheated was a pretty open acknowledgement that no one had a problem with it. In terms of legal understanding, of course you both are right.
And I guess I should have phrased better-if Manny's troubles this year keep him out of the Hall, that's fine, because there's evidence and it was definitely against the rules. I just mean pre-testing guys.
What do you guys think is a fair standard? Like Bonds never failed a drug test as far as I know. A Hall without Manny for steroid use but that has Bonds, even though he's the best LF ever, would make no sense. I think in his case there's other evidence but what about McGwire?
Actually, they re-tested Bonds' urine from 2003 and found steroids (http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/2009/02/03/2009-02-03_barry_bonds_2003_urine_samples_believed_.html).
It will be interesting to see how those who have a HOF vote decide to handle this era. I'm not sure what the standard should be, but I think a good place to start might be the Mitchell Report and the infamous "2003 list." If a player appears in either of those documents, I think it should be difficult for them to get in.
I don't know about the Docs with No Sox, but you have to start somewhere.
As for your Bonds link (same link, but Blaine's URL got cut off on the page here), wow, how did I not know that? I feel a little weird about the gov't. doing baseball's dirty work for it, and reminds me why I hate the whole after the fact nature of this whole business. That said, yeah, looks like he probably failed a drug test, though you'd think a good lawyer could challenge that considering it was a year later or whatever.
Not sure why I said the lawyer thing; I don't think you can sue your way into the Hall. Maybe, though. But it does seem kinda nuts to test a year-old sample, who knows what could have happened to it?
I see what you're saying about testing a sample a year later, but I would assume that most of the writers and those with a HOF vote have already made up their minds regarding Bonds. So, it doesn't really matter that they re-tested his sample because everyone already assumed that he was juicing anyways before that report came out.
I wish they would just release that 2003 list so we can stop speculating and we can try to move past the "steroids era." I just hope that none of my favorite players end up on that list: Pujols, Helton, etc.
Sure, people assumed. But there has to be some kind of hard evidence, I think. As for the 2003 list, well, I'm not sure it proves anything if a guy isn't on it, other than that he wasn't naive about anonymity.
Helton and Pujols are probably the two best clean guys we've got left as far as hitters go, so I feel you. I don't have any particular fondness for Pujols and could live with it if Helton was left standing alone as a beacon of hope.
Ha ha, beacon of hope? I think the last "hope" we have IS Pujols. At least if the hope you're referring to is a new home run king. Let's just hope Pujols is clean and that he can both surpass Bonds and outlast A-Roid.
What's crazy to me is that Helton isn't considered a sure thing for the HOF. He's one of only 50 players to EVER hit 500 doubles. Yesterday Drew Goodman pointed out that only three other players have more hits than Helton since '98 and it was Jeter, Pujols, and Vlad if I remember correctly. He's hurt by the whole Coors field stigma, which I would argue has been largely nullified by the humidor. He's also hurt by being a clean (assuming he's clean of course) player during the steroids era. It's crazy to think about how different public perception of players like Helton and Griffey might be if baseball hadn't had the steroids problem.
Oh, yeah, Griffey! Feel bad I didn't mention him. How incredible was he, especially looking back now?
I like Helton, but I think your examples are silly. I mean, top 50 is nice, but it's not that high. Like if the top 50 shortstops were in the Hall, I don't know, that sounds like too many. The top fifty hitters, maybe...but if you're saying he's top fifty of all-time, I hope you have more than career doubles to go off of (and he does-the man's got a career .997 OPS-I'm just saying).
More to the point, Goodman's cherry-picked cutoff dates are stupid. Helton is 223rd all-time in hits; he's behind Edgar Renteria, who only has a little more time in the game.
Also, hate to break it to you, but according to Baseball-reference.com, his career home/road splits are still pretty drastic.
To be honest, I think being known as a clean guy will be a huge factor in his favor.
Post a Comment