A Cooperstown Supplement

by Peter Bean on Dec 13, 2007 9:26 PM CST in Baseball Comment 14 comments

Welcome to the Major League Baseball Hall of Fame! We've undergone some recent changes to help visitors better understand the sport's history. Please refer to the following guide as you proceed through the museum, as recent developments have made record keeping all but impossible.

MUSEUM DENOTATION GUIDE

* -- Attached to records held by players alleged to have used steroids.

# -- Attached to records held by players who accumulated statistics before African-Americans were allowed to play in the major leagues.

^^ -- Attached to records held by players who scuffed baseballs in any way.

% -- Denotes that a manger was accused of stealing signs on at least one occasion.

@ -- Indicates that a player allegedly used amphetamines of some kind.

$ -- Player or manager may have improperly influenced the outcome of a game or series.

GIFTS UPON EXITING THE MUSEUM

(1) On your way out, please pick up one of our complimentary mirrors and mail it to your local Congressman. Feel free to include a note about how pleased you are that they're happy to pander in front of the cameras to the parents of the poor children exposed to all these evils. If you're feeling spunky, we recommend further applauding Congress' excellence in balancing budgets, managing wars, and avoiding scandals of their own.

(2) We also encourage you to pick up one of the free holiday cards at the exit doors and mail a note to Commissioner Selig, thanking him for ~~mis~~managing the game and its image. (Shouldn't he just run for Congress?)

(3) Finally, we hope you'll pick up a bag of the equine treats that we have in barrels outside the parking lots. You never know when a sanctimonious, holier-than-thou 'fan' will come galloping up on his high horse to talk about baseball's ills with you. We want you to be prepared!

Thanks for visiting the Hall of Fame of America's ~~Worst Commissioner Ever~~ Pastime!

0 recs | Comment 14 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Shoeless Joe, where are you?

Funny stuff. Maybe it would be easier just to have a mark for 'natural, unadulterated baseball player.'

Don't know what field of law you're going to enter, but sports law seems to be an expanding area. If Mitchell and his sources got it wrong, this could be around for a long, long time. And not running it by the Players Association may have later implications.

The market just went way down for older baseball players.

The NFL got lucky when Vick copped a plea when there were whispers that other NFL players were involved. The NBA had a brush with the dark side. But baseball took a direct hit 86 times over.

I suspect the Tejada deal probably goes south. Talk about bad timing.

Wonder if clubs will honor current contracts with the alleged users? There's bound to be some escape clauses there.

by whills on Dec 13, 2007 10:39 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

selig

Why is Bud Selig the source of so much ire here? He obviously has a role here, but isn't Donald Fehr just as complicit, if not more? That is, if we're looking for people to blame that aren't the actual users.

by Jason Mayer on Dec 13, 2007 10:51 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Donald Fehr didn't call for this circus

Not that I care much for Fehr, either, but Selig's job is to protect and promote the interests of the game. In that capacity, he's been an absolute abomination. This needless circus is media-driven and Selig readily pumps gasoline into the fire. It's awful.

--PB--

by Peter Bean on Dec 13, 2007 11:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

selig

You don't think getting to the bottom of the steroid issue is promoting or protecting the interests of the game? Or finding ways to solve this ongoing problem?

I think he's handled this issue as well as it can be handled, while keeping baseball relevant and popular (see afaeguy's post below).

Of course, as a Bonds fan, I guess it shouldn't be too shocking that you would prefer the "head-in-the-sand" approach.

by Jason Mayer on Dec 14, 2007 8:25 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Can't agree

See Kahuna's post below. Selig has not handled this as well as it could be - not by a mile, in my view.

Nor am I advocating a "head in the sand" approach. I applaud the new testing programs, applaud the strict penalties, and would have like Selig to have spent his time putting money into testing research and youth education programs instead of this freaking ridiculous Witch Hunt. I cannot imagine how this media circus has helped baseball's image.

And to say so is not to say that steroids are good. Or even ok. But there was a smart way to handle this, and the Selig way. It's obvious what I think of Selig's choices.

--PB--

by Peter Bean on Dec 14, 2007 8:47 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Re:selig

I would have to agree. While the steroid media circus maybe Selig's fault, it was an inherited problem. Francis Vincent issued statements in 1991 about the use of steroids in baseball. They were a problem before Selig took the job.

I guess its easy to forget about the good Selig has done. He weathered the strike of '94. Even if steroids played a big part in the home run chases of the late 90's, it helped baseball recover. The wild card and its additional drama to the baseball season has been nothing but positive. Expansion teams, more than a dozen new stadiums, attendance is at an all-time high as is revenue. I wouldn't say Selig mismanaged baseball. If anything, despite the steroid era, he has put baseball back on the national map.

by afaeguy on Dec 14, 2007 8:07 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Good points

And well said.

Selig has done some nice things for baseball. But he's absolutely been a lousy advocate for the game's interest. Seriously, he's on the wrong side of public relations issues over and over and over again, and has been since he got the job. Baseball has succeeded long before Selig, and will long after. And though he's done some things worth applauding, he's helped tarnish baseball's overall image with casual fans. And you could easily argue that's his #1 job.

The steroid disaster is just the worst example. Selig did the right thing by implementing a very harsh, very transparent testing program. But then he fed the media with this witch hunt. Totally, absolutely unnecessary.

Look at that list of players. There are some hall of famers on there. There are some fringe starters. There are guys you've never heard of. Those who study this stuff say that steroids can certainly help you recover from workouts, but it's unclear what else they'd do for a ballplayer. And the list of players is full of guys with injury problems.

That doesn't mean we should ignore steroids. Or allow steroids. Selig was doing the right thing with the strict testing.

But he should have put time and effort into research. Time and money into better testing. And time and effort into managing the public's perception of baseball. Instead, we've got this... mess.

--PB--

by Peter Bean on Dec 14, 2007 8:56 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Whatever

I get what you're saying, PB: this isn't the worst thing that's happened in baseball, Congress is self-serving and Bud Selig is a worthless human being. (And the last point was a great pre-emptive shot at anyone who disagrees with you.)

But how is any of this supposed to make me or any other American feel better about baseball? How does any of this change the fact that the people who make up the pro baseball community have proven themselves to be paragons of the selfishness and detached nature of professional sports today?

No, steroids and amphetamines weren't "against the rules" in baseball. But they were/are clearly against the general sense of morality in modern sports. Performance enhancing drugs are banned in the Olympics, but they're ok in baseball? How can anyone believe that these guys thought it was "ok" and not blame him? More to the point, how can anyone root for these post-humans? My biggest problem with this post is that it ignores who's really to blame for this whole fiasco, whether its been too hyped or not: the players (trainers, coaches, etc.) who ignored the unethical nature of their actions for personal pride and gain.

Full disclosure: I gave up on baseball because of the last near-strike and, more importantly, the fact that Peter Angelos is the devil incarnate, but you're fooling yourself if you don't think this is a huge nail in the coffin of baseball as "America's Pastime" for the rest of the country. The sport is and has been too enamored of the sanctity of its history and tradition to stay relevant. Good riddance, I say. And hopefully those in charge of college football will learn the lesson and make some sweeping changes before it gets crushed under its archaic history as well.

(Lastly, PB, please understand that I have the highest respect for you and your opinions, this isn't a personal attack. I just disagree with you about baseball.)

So take that.

by Kahuna on Dec 14, 2007 8:31 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Well said

And I recognize I hold the minority view here.

Probably not worth getting into a huge debate on BON about it anyway...

My big complaint is that baseball players are held to a standard reserved only for baseball players. Shawn Merriman dopes. The fans don't care; sponsors don't care - immediately after he signed a huge deal with Nike.

Congress, meanwhile, gallops around this issue like it's critical to saving our children. Call me cynical, but that's borderline offensive. Find something worthwhile to do.

And so on. I shouldn't go on and on about this. I get that it bothers a lot of people, and I'm not hear to suggest anyone else has to share my view.

--PB--

by Peter Bean on Dec 14, 2007 8:38 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Steroids

I'm one fan that really cares about the steroid issue.

You are correct that all the sports should be held to the same standard. The majority would agree that Selig and Congress, in general, are horses' asses.

Having said that, steroids are a big problem in sports (even in high school).

The unique thing about baseball (compared to football and basketball) is that it is a game played by normal sized people and that the historical records go back much longer and have been much more comparable than in football and basketball (i.e. the records meant much more). Steroids pretty much destroyed that.

The farce of bobby Bonds passing up Hank Aaron was truly gross. BTW, Bobby would have been one of the greatest players of all time had he never used a single steroid. He could hit, hit for power, throw, run, and field. He was great at everything. He could do it all.

Instead he turned himself into a mutant so he could break one record. Now he looks like a complete asshole and is probably the most hated player in baseball. In the process, he destroyed the credibility of that record as well as his own credibility. The damage that he has done to baseball is enormous.

by Kafka on Dec 14, 2007 9:16 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

baseball

The difference with Merriman is that he tested positive and faced a four-game suspension. To date, there haven't been any serious consequences for any star player in baseball.

Your view of Congress is also a little off. Congressmen care about what their constituents care about, and the rampant use among high-school-aged kids that was outlined in the Mitchell Report makes this an issue critical to saving our children. At least, that's how it appears to a lot of the public.

Plus, there was no witch hunt here, but rather two sources that were forced to reveal their specific "customers." The players named ranged from all-star to role player and probably only scratched the surface of how deep the problem is.

The Report had a lot more meat to it than just the named players, including suggestions for improvements, so blame the media for trumpeting the players in the report rather than the other aspects, not Selig.

by Jason Mayer on Dec 14, 2007 9:33 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Fans cared about Merriman.

I never met a football fan who thought Merriman was mistreated in suspension but I heard many that felt he didn't deserve any recognition for being a great player given that he doped.

I like the NFL's drug testing program and mandatory punishments. I think it sends the right message and does a good job of keeping dopes out of football. Shawn Merriman immediately missed 1/4th of the season. Even if the sponsors don't care about the drugs -- which they do -- they have to care about the fact that he played 25% fewer games than some of the people he was competing against for those sponsorships. He'd be on the cover of Madden if he'd played the entire year. Instead he had to settle for NFL Tour.

Another difference between the NFL and MLB is that unlike many baseball fans I've spoken with, I can watch Merriman play the sport absolutely confident that he isn't doing it with the assistance of performance enhancing drugs. Merriman was drafted in 2005. As of his October 2006 failed test, he'd been administered "random" drug tests 19 times and passed every one. By week 7 of his 2nd year the dude had been tested 19 times.

by Red Blooded on Dec 16, 2007 11:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm with PB here

Pretty much right down the line. Now may I step out and speak the unspeakable, something I have never heard mentioned in all the coverage of this issue?

Could it be that steroids are reasonably safe when administered correctly to a trained athlete? If the dosages are correctly measured and the results closely monitored, I can believe that it may well be possible for a healthy individual to gain the benefits without significant dangers. (Compared, say, to lasik surgery.)

But then we have the athletes-as-role-models thing and our concern for our oh so impressionable youth. If that's the real issue, then we need to stop lying about steroids (like we do about other drugs) and tell kids the truth, even if it's a little more complicated than "just say no."

by Caradoc on Dec 14, 2007 12:48 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

drugs

Unfortunately, that won't play well to the masses, who view anything illegal as inherently bad, especially drugs.

But I'm not sure that competitive disadvantage is not the main issue here as it relates to the sport and the players. (Congress will beat the children argument to death). You either administer it to every player or not. And despite the fact that steroids, when used properly, are reasonably safe, there is no tenable method of making sure that every player is receiving something, especially for those that wouldn't want it in the first place.

by Jason Mayer on Dec 14, 2007 1:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs