While I agree with you that certainly not everybody in the league was using PED's, the Mitchell Report isn't a very compelling source to support that point. First, there was no testing in conjunction with the report, it was all based on interviews and review of documents. Second of all, most of the players named in the report were named by Kurt Radomski, a former met employee who distributed drugs throughout the league. It strains credulity to think that one guy would be the supplier for, or otherwise aware of, the majority of users in a national sport, and Mitchell acknowledges as much, noting that there were no doubt other suppliers. Quite a few well known ped users aren't named in the report (including Sosa and Mac). For as much information as he gathered, there was almost certainly a lot going on his investigation didn't touch, and he explicitly states that there was a lot about PED use in mlb that he didn't cover.
Perhaps a better indication would be the 2003 survey testing, in which a bit less than 7% of the tests came back positive. But that's a highly questionable source as well. On the one hand, mlb has acknowledged there were some (I don't know if they've been specific as to how many) false positives. On the other hand, we know how easily players can mask their use, and Mitchell acknowledges in his report that HGH wasn't even testable. I think it's unrealistic to think that every user came up as a positive test in 2003 (in my opinion, it's unrealistic to think that test was even remotely close to reality).
So while I don't think everybody was using, I think it was a much higher number than the Mitchell Report or 2003 test would suggest. Did hitters face PED-using pitchers day in and day out during those years? Probably not. But I'd bet it was at least a couple of times a week (including relievers).
Demented and sad, but social, right?
Why are you wasting time here when you could be wasting it by listening to the latest episode of the DBR Podcast?
I have a tough prosecutor's mentality with respect to those who cheated: "Hang them all and let the gods decide who are innocent." It has a practical application. "The gods" are some special committee (old-timers or whatever) that would make a decision in about 50 years, after all the dust has settled and the guilty players have passed away.
Sage Grouse
---------------------------------------
'When I got on the bus for my first road game at Duke, I saw that every player was carrying textbooks or laptops. I coached in the SEC for 25 years, and I had never seen that before, not even once.' - David Cutcliffe to Duke alumni in Washington, DC, June 2013
I've probably mentioned before that I really like Joe Posnanski's writing. He's been writing pieces about the HOF candidates, and today was Edgar Martinez, of whom I'm a huge fan. I thought some might enjoy reading it.
http://joeposnanski.com/ballot-5-edgar-martinez/Heck, Pedro Martinez said Edgar was his toughest hitter even though Edgar only hit .120 against Pedro. 'He would make me throw at least 13 fastballs above 95,' Pedro said. 'I would be breathing hard after that.'
Demented and sad, but social, right?
Just a reminder -- the 2017 Hall of Fame announcement will be Wednesday at 3 p.m., live on the MLB Network
My final prediction is that three players will win induction:
Ivan Rodriguez (in his first year on the ballot)
Tim Raines (in his 10th and final year on the ballot)
Jeff Bagwell (in his seventh year on the ballot)
I think two players will come close, but miss
Trevor Hoffman (second year)
Vlad Guerrero (first year)
Both will make it next year
PS Once Raines gets in, I would argue the biggest outstanding HOF snub is Mike Mussina (who will get over 50 percent, but will be sixth on the list this year)
Mussina always struck me as a Bob Welch with a better strikeout ability. If he had pitched in Milwaukee, would he have gotten much attention?
Interesting article on how the HOF voting will change after this year. Starting in 2018, ballots will be made public:
-Jason "I welcome this new era of transparency and hope it will lead to more sanity in the voting - why can't there be some unanimous inductees?" Evansnever again will you have to wonder who the three voters were who left a player as great as Ken Griffey Jr. off their ballots. Never again, theoretically, will you have to wonder what the heck they were thinking.
Never again can any voter send in a blank ballot -- or a ballot with just one seemingly inexplicable name -- without the whole world knowing about it. If that means the internet erupts with fans demanding that those voters explain themselves, well, that's the deal.
Never again will you have to wonder who awarded those mysterious Hall of Fame ballots to the likes of Aaron Sele or Todd Stottlemyre or Felix Millan. Oh, it will still be legal to cast the most frivolous vote in America. It just won't be legal to leave America in doubt about who cast it.
Why are you wasting time here when you could be wasting it by listening to the latest episode of the DBR Podcast?
Full disclosure: I'm a Red Sox fan.
Earlier in the thread, Olympic Fan mentioned Ortiz among those he'd never consider for the HOF because of the 2003 positive test reported in the Mitchell Report. There's reason, I think, to distinguish Ortiz from the host of other folks that some like Oly have disqualified from HOF consideration.
Ortiz's test was a confidential test at the time and not subject to appeal or re-review. The commissioner himself admitted the test may not have been reliable.
http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/1...iled-drug-test
That's also Ortiz's only purportedly positive test, and in 13 years since the 2003 test, Ortiz never once had a positive test.
I don't know if I agree with keeping Bonds, Clemens, Palmeiro, Sosa and McGwire (and presumably ARod) out of the HOF because of their PED issues, but I think lumping Ortiz in with those guys is unfair to him.
I feel like I was snookered.
All week, the MLB Network has ben promoting the Hall of Fame induction announcement for 3 pm today. Over and over -- a 3 pm announcement.
I changed my plans to be in front of the TV at 3 p.m. to see the announcement. I expected some talk first and was prepared for a rehash of the arguments that MLB's "experts" have been spouting for weeks.
Then I turn on the show and find out the announcement is not until 6 p.m. -- the first three hours is a panel that will once again rehash the arguments for and against the candidates.
They've done that over and over.
Anyway, I'm not going to sit in front of the TV and watch the stupendously obtuse Harold Reynolds tell me who should and should not get in the Hall of Fame. I guess I'll get the news off the internet after 6 p.m.
Somehow you seem blissfully unaware (or choose to ignore) the fact that MANY Hall of Fame players took speed (dexedrine, other amphetamines) on a regular basis, gobbled it down like candy. That went on
for DECADES, beginning after WWII. Even some of your deified Yankees (I'm looking at you, Micky, Whitey). Frankly I'm conflicted about who deserves to get in and who doesn't...but if you want to exclude anyone who regularly took "performance enhancing drugs," you'd be excluding a WHOLE lot of current members...same for the requirement you mention of "integrity, sportsmanship and character." Nice words, but overlooked on many many occasions by the Hall.
Bagwell, Raines, Pudge.
Just be you. You is enough. - K, 4/5/10, 0:13.8 to play, 60-59 Duke.
You're all jealous hypocrites. - Titus on Laettner
You see those guys? Animals. They're animals. - SIU Coach Chris Lowery, on Duke
Pat myself on the back -- EXACTLY as I predicted Monday .. even down to Hoffman and Vlad barely missing. They will go in next year, along with first-timers Chipper Jones and Jim Thome.
A few other observations:
--The vote seems to show a softening on PEDs. Pudge is the first candidate with definite PED allegations (he's named in Canseco's book) to get in. Bagwell, like Piazza last year, is a guy many had suspicions about (because of how quickly he bulked up), but never any evidence. And the two biggest known PED abusers -- Bonds and Clemens -- jumped up to just over 50 percent of the vote. Sosa remained at 8 percent and not much love for Manny, FWIW.
-- Biggest gain was Edgar Martinez, who jumped 14 points to 58 percent. Biggest drop was Curt Shilling, who dropped under 50 percent.
-- Biggest surprise to me was Jorge Posada, who got just 3.8 percent and fell off the ballot. Not saying he's a slam dunk Hall of Famer, but he has a stronger case than many of the guys listed ahead of him that will stay on the ballot.
Next year will be interesting -- with public ballots for the first time, voters will have to defend any crazy votes.
We in San Diego hope you're right. Trevor is a local favorite for the obvious reason -- he was a great player -- but also because he could not be a better "community guy." I'd sure love to hear "Hell's Bells" for him at least once more. After the third out in the home eighth with a lead, the stadium would really start to rock.
https://youtu.be/esuQ_6oiDkw
Delighted for Pudge. Wish he would go in as a Tiger but totally understand. The video of him accepting the call and getting choked up was very touching.
Nice to see a good guy get the love.
Nothing incites bodily violence quicker than a Duke fan turning in your direction and saying 'scoreboard.'
"I swear Roy must redeem extra timeouts at McDonald's the day after the game for free hamburgers." --Posted on InsideCarolina, 2/18/2015
I don't get your point.
Where did I ever say that taking speed is okay?
I stand by my "absurd" dismissal of anyone who took PEDs (or took money to throw a baseball game or bet on baseball).
(And I've condemned plenty of my beloved Yankees -- especially A-Roid, Giambi and a guy I like Pettite, who would be a borderline HOF candidate had he not joined Clemens in juicing up).