Green Room

Whither Cooperstown?

posted at 10:09 am on January 9, 2013 by

The tradition of MLB’s Hall of Fame continues today, with an announcement due on the Class of 2013.  The Steroid Era’s biggest figures — pun definitely intended — are now eligible for enshrinement.  Names like Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa, and Roger Clemens are on the ballot.  However, my friend Paul Mirengoff points out that sportswriters and baseball fans are in a catch-22 that may end Cooperstown’s luster once and for all:

Regardless of the outcome, the Hall is in an untenable position. What sense does it make to have a Hall of Fame that doesn’t include the most successful hitter (Bonds) and the most successful pitcher (Clemens) of the past 50 years? Both players presumably would have coasted into the Hall of Fame based on performance that preceded the period during which they are believed to have been on steriods.

On the other hand, it seems like a breach of good faith to bestow baseball’s ultimate honor on cheats. That, at least, seems to be the sentiment of a number of Hall of Famers who have said they will boycott its ceremonies if Bonds, Clemens, or Sosa is admitted.

In my wasted youth (i.e., up until the age of 45), I used to spend hours pouring over baseball statistics trying to determine, say, the top 20 second basemen of all time. Who in his right mind would indulge in such a hobby now, when we don’t know (1) which players from the 1990s and early 2000s gained an unfair advantage through drugs, (2) the precise period in which they gained it, or (3) the extent of the advantage?

If the game didn’t care enough to maintain the integrity of its history, why should we care enough to obsess about that history or even to worry who makes the Hall of Fame?

I lost my enthusiasm for baseball in the Steroid Era.  I’m pretty sure that was not a limited phenomenon.

Recently in the Green Room:

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

ha ha ha. you think? people’s insecurities never cease to amaze. brilliant.

truecon on January 9, 2013 at 9:33 PM

Do you know what “projection” is? Right back at you – thank you for the entertainment you’ve provided me! :D

Anti-Control on January 9, 2013 at 10:11 PM

Anti-Control on January 9, 2013 at 10:11 PM

that’s just an opinion!!!!!! just because you say it doesn’t make it true!!! that’s is just your opinion!

hahahahahahahahahahaha

truecon on January 9, 2013 at 10:20 PM

that’s just an opinion!!!!!! just because you say it doesn’t make it true!!! that’s is just your opinion!

hahahahahahahahahahaha

truecon on January 9, 2013 at 10:20 PM

Do you believe your post here says anything interesting about me and/or the way I operate? Do you believe you are able to answer that coherently? Have you been chooming?

Once again, thank you for the entertainment you are providing me! :D

Anti-Control on January 9, 2013 at 10:31 PM

i think you are a joke. i said something that upset you and you pouted like a little child who can’t even handle seeing something they disagree with in print so you called it out as an opinion and emphasized it with italics as if that meant anything. i amused myself by pointing that out, and now we are in a pointless back and forth because apparently neither of us has anything better to do.

but to answer your question, i absolutely think it reflects on your insecurity, as i mentioned.

but that is just my opinion. :)

truecon on January 9, 2013 at 10:34 PM

i think you are a joke. i said something that upset you and you pouted like a little child who can’t even handle seeing something they disagree with in print so you called it out as an opinion and emphasized it with italics as if that meant anything. i amused myself by pointing that out, and now we are in a pointless back and forth because apparently neither of us has anything better to do.

but to answer your question, i absolutely think it reflects on your insecurity, as i mentioned.

but that is just my opinion.
:)

truecon on January 9, 2013 at 10:34 PM

Since none of your opinion about me here is provable on a rational level, yet you hold onto this opinion like it’s gospel truth, it stands to reason, irrelevant of anyone’s belief to the contrary, that you are an unintentional joke, a severely uncreative passive-aggressive who’s essentially mentally masturbating at an imaginary figure.

Think you can offer a factual argument that my inference about you is wrong? Why don’t you tell me it feels like to be unsure whether or not I’ll bother responding to your next post to me? Once again, thank you for the entertainment you provide me – LOL@you! :D

Anti-Control on January 9, 2013 at 10:59 PM

wow, 4 or 5 posts and we have reached the gospels already. pretty impressive. does passive-aggression come from smiley faces? just wondering….

ok, so i need to work on my creativity. i will give it a go. tell me how i do? (i am supposed to tell you how it feels to be unsure about you, so i will just say it feels fine. maybe we’ll keep going, maybe someone will get bored, maybe not. i tell you what, i will work on a to do list in the meantime that may provide more meaningful life experiences for us both.)

where was i? ah, yes, creativity. is it creative to critique another? probably not, but i have never claimed to be creative, so that must be ok. so let me critique your use of italics and now bold (clever switch up!).

ex. #1 (one of your posts above using italics): “Do you believe your post here says anything interesting about me and/or the way I operate? Do you believe you are able to answer that coherently? Have you been chooming?”

ex. #2: (the same ideas without italics): “Do you believe your post here says anything interesting about me and/or the way I operate? Do you believe you are able to answer that coherently? Have you been chumming?”

(the italics didn’t copy and paste, so i had to try to re-create them, i hope i did it correctly)

so the first, as you posted it, with italics, makes sure i understand that i have said nothing, and it was nothing about you (twice – for EMPHASIS!*!*!*!*!*!*! :)), and i should definitely answer about coherently.

whereas the second one really is unclear what you are talking about at all. thank you very much for those italics, without them i am totally lost. are you talking about me or you and is it important to think about the post in general or its being interesting and what about whether it is coherent. oh boy oh boy, what does that even mean? hard to tell without those italics. or better yet, BOLD!

ayayayay, ok, the amusement level is fading away (although, apparently not for you!). i don’t really want to say the obvious, but i think you are probably not all that bright, and i think your posts reflect as much in stark terms. you probably have other positive attributes, so please let me admit, that this is just an OPINION (a biblically righteous gospel type one that i will cling to until my dying day – i will be telling my grandkids about “anti-control” and my rabidly un-wavering opinions about him!), and i am sure you are a swell guy (or gal) in real life. i just wish i had the facts to back it all up! i need proof, dammit! proof is what i need to sway the masses. fiddlesticks!!!

so let me offer some thoughts on what both of us can do the rest of the evening instead of continuing with this nonsense;

1) make love to our wife/girflriend
2) masturbate (mentally or otherwise)
3) take up an exercise program by either, a) doing pushups and sit-ups, or b) going for a 30 minute run or hour walk
4) write a short story (i know i am not creative, but it will be for personal improvement, so i will do my best!)
5) play a video game (i am thinking this one and #2 are the best bets at this point)
6) call a friend (hmmmmmm)
7) write a friend! (just think of how entertained they would be with this story itself! :))
8) do some housework. (you can’t tell me your home/apartment is perfectly clean)
9) go to a bar or coffee shop and meet someone new. (i have faith in you, you can do it!)
10) rent a movie on netflix/itunes (surely in the top three)

ok, i think that is a good list to start. feel free to add to it. i will now sit on pins and needles wondering, will he respond? won’t he? oh, why won’t he? oh, he did! he did! thank jesus, he did!

man, i might just use this as my short story. ok, it looks like i am going with #4, wish me luck!

cheers,
a broken man :(

truecon on January 9, 2013 at 11:24 PM

truecon on January 9, 2013 at 11:24 PM

I’ll have you know, I didn’t read any of your diatribe (why would I bother wasting my time like that? :))

I just want to congratulate you for needlessly constructing all of those words – noticing that you are a stupid and pompous someone who leads with your chin, I knew I could elicit such a masturbatory, unengaging reaction from you! Bye now! :D

Anti-Control on January 9, 2013 at 11:38 PM

hahahahahahaha

oh, that is such a perfect final response from you in so many ways. i will definitely use that in my story. :) :) :)

i can only say i truly wish i could meet you in person to put a face and a history to the last few hours of my life. oh well, such is the internet…..

truecon on January 9, 2013 at 11:43 PM

I think that’s the dumbest sissy fight I ever saw on Hot Air.

cane_loader on January 10, 2013 at 8:07 AM

I think that’s the dumbest sissy fight I ever saw on Hot Air.

cane_loader on January 10, 2013 at 8:07 AM

Surely, there must be a French word for “verbally hitting someone with your purse”.

M240H on January 10, 2013 at 8:45 AM

“On the other hand, it seems like a breach of good faith to bestow baseball’s ultimate honor on cheats. That, at least, seems to be the sentiment of a number of Hall of Famers who have said they will boycott its ceremonies if Bonds, Clemens, or Sosa is admitted.” – Mirengoff

I call BS.
How about you go back and remove from every pro Hall of Fame those who used “performance-engancing drugs”? Then, we’ll talk.
In the meantime, Clemons and McGuire deserve to be installed.

People have NO idea what anabolic steroids are all about. You can inject yourself with a variety of steroids, or take them orally (personally, as a body-builder, I preferred to combine the two: inject Deca-Durabolin and take Anavar orally). What most people don’t know is that if you don’t train your äss off, they’ll do nothing but shrink yer yarballs and give you a bad attitude. You still have to do the work!

As for the hitters, anabolic steroids do absolutely nothing to enhance hand-eye coordination.
How do pros compete in various sports against those who are already using the drugs? You either use the drugs too, or find another way to make a living.
Pro athletes are independent contractors who have very short careers. I say:
Leave them alone. I want to watch the best of the best and the strongest of the strong, not self-righteous busy-bodies who whine when others out-perform them.
Get a grip, Mirengoff and Morrisey. Apparently, neither of you have competed in athletics at any level, especially not professionally.
/rant

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on January 10, 2013 at 9:06 AM

Reading through the comments, I see that no one has a clue re: this issue.
Carry On, Cat-Fighters.
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on January 10, 2013 at 9:10 AM

Bobby Orr and Wilt Chamberlain were more dominant over their peers at their peaks than Barry Bonds ever was, prior to his steroid’s usage – it’s craziness to say otherwise.

I’m talking about baseball. In baseball, Bonds was dominant, it’s difficult to compare apples and oranges here, so bringing up Chamberlain and Orr (Gretsky) isn’t applicable. That’s like saying that Chamberlain and Orr weren’t comparable to Eddy Merckx…

In **baseball** he was the best athlete of a generation, perhaps ever. Saying he wasn’t as impressive (which is what I was deeming “crazy”) means that there are [b]no[/b] impressive athletes in baseball. The guy is the only member of the 500/500 club, he holds records in most walks and intentional walks (meaning, everyone else thought he was a threat, just imagine if opposing teams could keep Wilt from ever having the ball), he has numerous accolades (Gold Gloves, Silver Bats, MVPs, All-Star, etc.), in fact, he has more than 2x as many MVPs as the next player on the list (several have 3 MVPs, and all of them are in the HoF except Rodriguez and Pujols, who are still active), and he had 3 MVPs before 2000.

Saying Bonds is not as impressive is still “crazy”. Find someone more impressive in baseball first.

Geministorm on January 10, 2013 at 10:22 AM

Surely, there must be a French word for “verbally hitting someone with your purse”.

M240H on January 10, 2013 at 8:45 AM

Doesn’t every word in French mean that?

Flange on January 10, 2013 at 10:24 AM

Whither Dale Murphy?

Is there really not a place in Cooperstown for Dale Murphy?

Did everybody already forget that he was the best, most feared, most complete player in the National League for most of the 80s?

398 career HR, 1266 RBI, 2 MVPs, 5 Gold Gloves, played 162 games FOUR YEARS IN A ROW, and since it’s the en vogue statistic to cite nowadays, he had an .815 OPS (Andre Dawson’s OPS was .811, and he’s in). And clean as a whistle. Not one thing about his personality or off-the-field behavior that could possibly hold him back.

And he’s done. Off the ballot. Like his career never even happened. What am I missing? Is his .265 career batting average that much of a hindrance in the face of all those other credentials?

Right Mover on January 10, 2013 at 10:26 AM

“I’m talking about baseball. In baseball, Bonds was dominant, it’s difficult to compare apples and oranges here, so bringing up Chamberlain and Orr (Gretsky) isn’t applicable. That’s like saying that Chamberlain and Orr weren’t comparable to Eddy Merckx…” – Geministorm

Well Said, Sir. The reference to Eddy Merckx is particularly topical, eh?
Roger Clemens deserves it as much as anyone. “The Rocket” was feared.

One of my beefs is with Jack Morris not making it. The Tiger pitcher really was grrrrrrreat! I think he has only one more year to be voted in. Sadly, I suspect that he was overlooked so the the HoF could make a loud statement re: “supplements”.

If pristine off the-field-behavior is a requirement, why is Chamberlain in the B-Ball HoF? To prove that sex does not adversely affect athletic performance?
Just a Thawt
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on January 10, 2013 at 10:43 AM

Is his .265 career batting average that much of a hindrance in the face of all those other credentials?

Yes it is.

As for tough breaks, I would suggest that IF Omar Visquel had retired one year earlier he would have been the only player to enter the hall this year, and on the first ballot! That would have been a perfect break for MLB and Omar!

An 11 time gold glove winner is first ballot material!

Freddy on January 10, 2013 at 10:43 AM

I think that’s the dumbest sissy fight I ever saw on Hot Air.

cane_loader on January 10, 2013 at 8:07 AM

That’s ok – I enjoyed myself and didn’t consider my participation to be like you perceived it, which is what I care about. If you don’t agree, what should that matter to me? :)

I’m talking about baseball.

So, now it’s only about baseball? That’s not how our conversation began.

In baseball, Bonds was dominant, it’s difficult to compare apples and oranges here, so bringing up Chamberlain and Orr (Gretsky) isn’t applicable. That’s like saying that Chamberlain and Orr weren’t comparable to Eddy Merckx…

In **baseball** he was the best athlete of a generation, perhaps ever. Saying he wasn’t as impressive (which is what I was deeming “crazy”) means that there are [b]no[/b] impressive athletes in baseball. The guy is the only member of the 500/500 club, he holds records in most walks and intentional walks (meaning, everyone else thought he was a threat, just imagine if opposing teams could keep Wilt from ever having the ball), he has numerous accolades (Gold Gloves, Silver Bats, MVPs, All-Star, etc.), in fact, he has more than 2x as many MVPs as the next player on the list (several have 3 MVPs, and all of them are in the HoF except Rodriguez and Pujols, who are still active), and he had 3 MVPs before 2000.

Saying Bonds is not as impressive is still “crazy”. Find someone more impressive in baseball first.

Geministorm on January 10, 2013 at 10:22 AM

I was talking about pre-roids Bonds, if you remember. That guy was not a consensus all-time top-10 player before he started roiding up; none of his stats, save perhaps his rate of stolen bases combined with his power production, were radically superior to what had proceeded him like Orr’s or Chamberlain’s or Gretztky’s were – that is what is not debatable.

After he started roiding up? Well, some of his stats were insane, but they were superhuman, and deserve an asterisk next to them because they were achieved unethically and unnaturally.

Anti-Control on January 10, 2013 at 1:43 PM

Freddy on January 10, 2013 at 10:43 AM

I would much rather have Alan Trammell as my SS than Visquel. Although I think both are worthy of the Hall.

Flange on January 10, 2013 at 1:44 PM

I think that’s the dumbest sissy fight I ever saw on Hot Air.

cane_loader on January 10, 2013 at 8:07 AM

In case you come back and see this, I will explain something that applies to truecon as well: because you felt the need to make such a comment in the manner you did, I now associate the word “sissy” with you, but not in a way which is derogatory to myself nor complimentary toward you.

Anti-Control on January 10, 2013 at 2:01 PM

Comment pages: 1 2