MLB 2008-09 Hot Stove II

[MattZ]

Steroids may not have had a specific penalty on the books, but they are illegal. As in, it is illegal to use them without a prescription. I don't understand why baseball has to have a specific penalty on the books. You can go to jail for it. Is that not evidence enough? Baseball also doesn't have a penalty on the books for whipping out glock and blowing away the opposing pitcher. Does it need to?

[Sir Stewart]

Baseball also doesn't have a penalty on the books for whipping out glock and blowing away the opposing pitcher. Does it need to?

I don't know - has Carl Everett retired?

[KevinG]

Bobbob, I am not sure something can be "more illegal" than others here. If it was on the books as banned, then it is banned. Just because there was no penalty doesn't make it any less of a sin than anything else. I think it just means that there was no fine. Now, there's no fine on murder and there is on speeding. Does that mean murder is "less illegal?" I know what your point is though. It definitely sends a message to the players when there's a rule with no consequence. But the rule was still there from, what, 93 on? So any time after 93 you're doing something MLB deemed illegal.

 

I would have to disagree on this statement. Steroids are illegal in baseball, but there is such a stigma around it in essence is "more illegal" or seen as a worse offense then other things you could do in baseball. Take for example the spitball, and the case of Gaylord Perry. Gaylord was a hall of fame pitcher whose use of the spitball was widely know and almost celebrated. The spitball or ball tampering is against the rules of baseball and a form of cheating, yet here is Perry in the hall of fame. Is what Gaylord Perry did different from a player who takes steroids, no. Is it seen differently by MLB, hell yes. Perry an admitted cheater is in the hall of fame. Mark McGuire, who has never admitted, and never been caught using steroids is not and will probably never get in the Hall.

 

It is simply put steroid abuse is seen as more of crime then most other illegal acts in baseball.

[MattZ]

I just read my company's employee manual and there is no mention of penalties for smoking crack in my office. Sweet! Suckers!!

[Lammycat]

I would have to disagree on this statement. Steroids are illegal in baseball, but there is such a stigma around it in essence is "more illegal" or seen as a worse offense then other things you could do in baseball. Take for example the spitball, and the case of Gaylord Perry. Gaylord was a hall of fame pitcher whose use of the spitball was widely know and almost celebrated. The spitball or ball tampering is against the rules of baseball and a form of cheating, yet here is Perry in the hall of fame. Is what Gaylord Perry did different from a player who takes steroids, no. Is it seen differently by MLB, hell yes. Perry an admitted cheater is in the hall of fame. Mark McGuire, who has never admitted, and never been caught using steroids is not and will probably never get in the Hall.

 

It is simply put steroid abuse is seen as more of crime then most other illegal acts in baseball.

Spitballs and steroids are not treated as equal infractions for a reason. They are two very different examples of rule breaking. Just like a corked bat and betting on the game are not the same. "Cheating is cheating" is a weak argument.

[KevinG]

Spitballs and steroids are not treated as equal infractions for a reason. They are two very different examples of rule breaking. Just like a corked bat and betting on the game are not the same. "Cheating is cheating" is a weak argument.

 

Why are they different? And why is a weak argument? You are doing something that will effect the outcome of the game, something that is banned by the league. Both steroids and spitballs give a player an unfair advantage in the game. Should they be treated the same, I think so. You are basically accepting one form of cheating and allowing the other. That is not right.

 

Steroids are treated differently, and the always will be. You can use the analogy of steroids is to murder as a spitball is to a parking ticket because the end result of steroids and spitballs are the same. An unfair advantage.

 

If I was the commissioner of baseball I would deal with "cheating" this way. There would be a list of things considered cheating, spitballs, steroids, corked bat, greenies, etc. And they would all have the same penalties. There is no gray area.

[Duck-Billed Catechist]

The Ricketts family is set to buy the Cubs for $900 million. They reportedly told MLB that they plan bring the payroll up to $175 million.

 

Freddy Garcia signed an incentive-laden minor league deal with the Mets.

[Lammycat]

Why are they different? And why is a weak argument? You are doing something that will effect the outcome of the game, something that is banned by the league. Both steroids and spitballs give a player an unfair advantage in the game. Should they be treated the same, I think so. You are basically accepting one form of cheating and allowing the other. That is not right.

 

Steroids are treated differently, and the always will be. You can use the analogy of steroids is to murder as a spitball is to a parking ticket because the end result of steroids and spitballs are the same. An unfair advantage.

 

If I was the commissioner of baseball I would deal with "cheating" this way. There would be a list of things considered cheating, spitballs, steroids, corked bat, greenies, etc. And they would all have the same penalties. There is no gray area.

Wow. Throwing a game is the same as knicking the baseball or using a bit too much pine tar too high on the bat to you? I guess we have nothing more to discuss about this.

[bobbob1313]

Wow. Throwing a game is the same as knicking the baseball or using a bit too much pine tar too high on the bat to you? I guess we have nothing more to discuss about this.

 

I laughed at saying "knicking the baseball" is the same as "using a bit too much pine tar too high on the bat". One gives one player a distinct advantage and one was put in the rule books to prevent the ball from getting too dirty during the course of a game. Biggest fucking apples and oranges point ever.

 

You don't see how you come off as a massive hypocrite by railing against steroids and then claiming that Spitballs/scuffing the ball is an "art"?

 

Do you know why scuffing the ball was outlawed? Go google "Ray Chapman". Putting another player's health in jeopardy is not, to me, an art.

 

And I maintain that if you are going to say that there is an art to scuffing a baseball and not getting caught, shouldn't we all be very impressed by the insane training regimens all these roided up motherfuckers were going through?

 

And weren't you the one saying "No way Albert Belle should get in, he corked his bat!" Why is corking the bat different than scuffing the ball?

[KevinG]

I laughed at saying "knicking the baseball" is the same as "using a bit too much pine tar too high on the bat". One gives one player a distinct advantage and one was put in the rule books to prevent the ball from getting too dirty during the course of a game. Biggest fucking apples and oranges point ever.

 

You don't see how you come off as a massive hypocrite by railing against steroids and then claiming that Spitballs/scuffing the ball is an "art"?

 

Do you know why scuffing the ball was outlawed? Go google "Ray Chapman". Putting another player's health in jeopardy is not, to me, an art.

 

And I maintain that if you are going to say that there is an art to scuffing a baseball and not getting caught, shouldn't we all be very impressed by the insane training regimens all these roided up motherfuckers were going through?

 

And weren't you the one saying "No way Albert Belle should get in, he corked his bat!" Why is corking the bat different than scuffing the ball?

 

 

Hell Yes!

[Lammycat]

I laughed at saying "knicking the baseball" is the same as "using a bit too much pine tar too high on the bat". One gives one player a distinct advantage and one was put in the rule books to prevent the ball from getting too dirty during the course of a game. Biggest fucking apples and oranges point ever.

I'm sure.

[bobbob1313]

Good point. Are you fucking joking?

 

How does pine tar on a bat give an advantage anywhere close to scuffing a ball?

[Lammycat]

You don't see how you come off as a massive hypocrite by railing against steroids and then claiming that Spitballs/scuffing the ball is an "art"?

Massive hypocrite? O.k. They are the same thing. And so agrees MLB.

[bobbob1313]

I thought this actually had the potential to be a pretty good discussion on the nature of cheating and all that. Good thing we're not going to do that.

 

Didn't the Sox just sign someone? Let's talk about that!

[Lammycat]

And weren't you the one saying "No way Albert Belle should get in, he corked his bat!" Why is corking the bat different than scuffing the ball?

I don't think I ever said that about Albert Belle, but you'd know better than me on that, too. Your view is the right view. Discussing baseball with you becomes a lesson in futility often as you come across as smug and know-it-all. Your opinion varies from mine and many others (in fact, MLB's). Get over yourself.

 

I thought this actually had the potential to be a pretty good discussion on the nature of cheating and all that. Good thing we're not going to do that.

 

Didn't the Sox just sign someone? Let's talk about that!

Brilliant.

[bobbob1313]

Whatever.

[rareair]

i tend to agree that spitballing is more of an art than steroids.

 

i think they both provide unfair advantages.

 

i think gaylord perry's induction into the hof more akin to max patkin than cy young.

 

not all fans "turned a blind eye" during the steroids era and should not be forced to embrace everyone b/c so many cheated.

 

subjective line-drawing regarding these issues for purposes of hof discussions is an additional basis for otherwise agreeable people to disagree.

 

there does not appear to be a definitive answer.

[Lammycat]

Good point. Are you fucking joking?

 

How does pine tar on a bat give an advantage anywhere close to scuffing a ball?

It may not but it's against the rules, hence cheating, hence the same as throwing a game, using steroids, or any other form of cheating. It's pretty obvious.

[bobbob1313]

Whatever.

 

I just think if you are going to draw a hard line against anyone even suspected of using steroids, you can't celebrate the cheating of others. But I guess you've decided this isn't worth discussing anymore.

 

I always find it funny when people who are just as set in their views as me get all pissy. It's just as much a head banging against wall excercise to discuss with you, except that I don't let it frustrate me. I enjoy debating this endless shit.

[Lammycat]

there does not appear to be a definitive answer.

And there isn't. But the topic came up about Bonds being a HoF-er, again, and this is where it usually leads. Regardless, the BBWA won't be kind to the players accused of usage. I think they have a valid point, others don't. Eh.

[bobbob1313]

And there isn't. But the topic came up about Bonds being a HoF-er, again, and this is where it usually leads. Regardless, the BBWA won't be kind to the players accused of usage. I think they have a valid point, others don't. Eh.

 

So Bonds accomplishments before he used are wiped out?

 

That's the crux of the debate for me. Is he a HOFer without roids? Then he's a hall of famer.

[Lammycat]

I just think if you are going to draw a hard line against anyone even suspected of using steroids, you can't celebrate the cheating of others. But I guess you've decided this isn't worth discussing anymore.

I've said, ad nauseum at this point, that there are degrees of cheating in baseball. Those degrees of cheating (or, rule-breaking if you will) vary greatly concerning impact on the game. Kevin G. stated that "cheating is cheating," basically, regardless of the form. I take issue with that. Using pine tar on the bat is breaking the rules. So is betting on the game. To say they are one-in-the-same is ludicrous to me. I was making an extreme case to set a point, is all.

 

Regardless of whether or not I draw a hard line on steroid use and my thoughts on those who got and get caught, MLB draws a hard line on it (at least now they do).

 

I don't "celebrate" other cheaters. Using a spitball has been considered a minor form of cheating in the game for ages, back to when it was actually an acceptable and fair pitch to toss. Most players, I'd imagine, accept it as a crafty thing to pull off and look at it as a minor offense and a part of the game that's always been there, as well. That's speculation, though. The penalty for getting caught using it is reasonable to the offense, imo. It's a minor thing.

[Lammycat]

So Bonds accomplishments before he used are wiped out?

 

That's the crux of the debate for me. Is he a HOFer without roids? Then he's a hall of famer.

So if his career stats after his use began were wiped out would he be a HoF-er?

[cryptique]

Discussing baseball with you becomes a lesson in futility often as you come across as smug and know-it-all. Your opinion varies from mine and many others (in fact, MLB's). Get over yourself.

QFT

[bobbob1313]

So if his career stats after his use began were wiped out would he be a HoF-er?

 

Absolutely. No question. His career would be extremely comparable to Rickey's in my opinion, with more power and less speed, but still their overall value would be very close.

 

Assuming he began use in 1999 as Book of Shadows says, we can take his career totals up to that point. He was approaching 500 home runs, and probably would have reached it given a few decline years from 34-38. Even prior to 99, he was routinely among the 2 or 3 best players in baseball year in and year out, and was regarded as one of, if not the best defensive left fielders ever. His eye was outstanding even before that, and he had insane OBP's every year and was still slugging quite a bit. Assuming his power would have faded as he aged rather than going up, he still probably ends up with about 540 home runs, and a career line something like .290/.400/.540.

 

He was a first ballot hall of famer if he retired in 1998, or if he didn't take steroids and followed a typical progression, or whatever. That's why I have no problem with him getting in even if he was using a giant syringe to bat.