Yes. To dismiss an entire era is disingenuous. For good or bad, it's a part of the history of the game. You can't erase it. I believe you have to treat it as what it is and vote accordingly. Simply...Was Player X one of the best of his time?
I'll give props to Bloom for being able to admit his mistake. Most media types are very self-righteous, and if you hit them with overwhelming evidence, it causes them dig their heels in on their original (even if indefensible) position. At least he's willing to rectify the situation for 2013. The one thing I don't like is his implication that we should stop debating because the 2012 election is over. Um, Barry, your lack of basic knowledge is what got you into this mess in the first place. Don't shut down discussion from people trying to help you. Aside from Biggio's candidacy, the best thing for Bagwell's chances might be well-reasoned Astros' fans kindly picking apart each individual (and insane) argument against Bagwell in the Hall. One down, many more to go over the next year.
I tend to agree with this. Do we discount the deadball era or pitchers who used spitballs? No. This was simply the steroid era of baseball.
I completely disagree with that assertion of Maddux. For one, Maddux playing for a long time is not necessarily strange for a pitcher, since they are playing every day, anyway, while even the relief pitchers are not necessarily logging alot of innings. If there is a position that player could last at it's pitching. If Maddux was taking HGH/steroid, then it really was not doing him very much good, since his overall performances were steadily in decline. The last time he won at least 60% of his games was in 2002, while his ERA never reached below 3.00 per game after that same year. From 2003 to 2008, Maddux's lowest ERA was 3.96, which is a failing stat in regards to his full body of work. His opponents batting average went up, as well his innings pitched significantly decreased. Most of all, Maddux's pitching style is what allowed to play longer than most pitchers. His style was all about location and hitting the batter's in their weak spots on the plate. He rarely blew past batters, in first place, yet he could remain a very decent pitcher, because of his knowledge of batters. Clemens could never do that as well, as Maddux, but he had the juice to blow by most batters at his age. Moreover, Maddux was missing more games at the end of his career than in his prime. Clearly not an HGH user or had a product that was effective.
Doesn't mean he didn't use. Plenty of players you wouldn't have expected have been caught using. Your cutoff in performance by Maddux coincides with steroid testing. That would condemn a power hitter. Steroids have been in baseball since the 1970s, guessing who used and who didn't is a waste of time.
Indeed... people used the same argument for Palmeiro and A-Rod, and they indeed did use. Pitchers, unless caught red-handed, have gotten a pass... no one has really questioned Schilling or Johnson or Wagner or any of a long group of hurlers.
Part of that is a lack of evidence. We know batters who used and we see their numbers shoot up - guys like Caminiti, Bonds, etc. What pitchers do we know that used? And of those, was there statistical evidence of improvement when they were using?
Paul Byrd Roger Clemens Jason Grimsley Andy Pettitte Tom House Kevin Brown Mike Stanton JC Romero Sergio Mitre Denny Neagle John Rocker Sergio Mitre The list would go on and on. Most pitchers have claimed it was to improve health rather than performance. Of course being healthy improves performance.
You're missing the point. These writers, who have made themselves marshalls of the game, have effectively boiled their scientific research down to "big muscles = steroids" and that's overly simplistic, if not moronic. Given the players have stated, repeatedly, the value they found in taking steroids included healing faster from injury and being able to more easily endure the grind of a long season, longevity should - *should* - be every bit as suspicious as big muscles. IOW, don't distill a complex drug down to a simplistic idea and then, worse, go on a witch hunt armed with that specious conclusion. Bagwell is no more suspicious, IMO, than Greg Maddux, who pitched until he was, what? 42? You can make every excuse in the book, and they have merit - but pitching into your 40s should not *automatically* be lumped into the non-suspicious category. (Again, if your intent is to police the game.)
What excuses were made for Maddux? Even more so, I never said that HGH or steroids only resulted in big muscles,therefore causing more suspicion. Though, beyond injury, it goes against the grain for Maddux, because unlike a power hitter or pitcher, he never relied on power and intensity in his game. He's decline in production is comparable to any all time great pitcher, in fact, some pitchers were able to pitch at a higher level than Maddux and they retired over 20+ years ago (staying in the more modern era), in fact 42 is not even unusual for pitchers, especially when most are in decline at that point? Steve Carlton: Last 20 win season at the age of 37 (Finished at 43) http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/c/carltst01.shtml Nolan Ryan: Last 200k season at the age of 44 (Finished at 44) http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/r/ryanno01.shtml Don Sutton: Last sub 3.00 ERA season at the age of 36 (Finished at 43) http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/s/suttodo01.shtml Phil Niekro: Played the best baseball of his career after 35 (Finished at 48) http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/n/niekrph01.shtml Gaylord Perry: Last 20 win season at the age of 39 (Finished at 44) http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/p/perryga01.shtml Tom Seaver: Last sub 3.00 ERA season at the age of 36 (Finished at 42) http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/s/seaveto01.shtml Randy Johnson: Last 20 win season at the age of 38 (Finished at 45) http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/j/johnsra05.shtml Bert Blyleven: Last sub 3.00 ERA season at the age of 33 and his last 200+ innings pitched season was at 38 with 241 IPs (Finished at 41) http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/b/blylebe01.shtml Jim Kaat: Last 20 win season at 36 and pitched over 300 innings that year (Finished at 44) http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/k/kaatji01.shtml Mike Mussina: Last 20 win season at 39 (Finished the same season) http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/mussimi01.shtml Jim Palmer: Last 20 win season at 31 (Finished at 38) http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/p/palmeji01.shtml Jack Morris: Last 20 win season at 37 (Finished at 39) http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/morrija02.shtml Bob Gibson: Last 20 win season at 34 (Finished at 39) http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/g/gibsobo01.shtml Andy Pettite: (PED/HGH branded player) Last sub 3.00 ERA at 33 (Finished at 38) http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/p/pettian01.shtml Dennis Martinez: Last sub 3.00 ERA at 37 (Finished at 43) http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/martide01.shtml Catfish Hunter: Last 20 win season at 29 (Finished at 33) http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/h/hunteca01.shtml Best example of someone beating the trend: Jaime Moyer: Won more games after 35 than his first 13 seasons, in fact his last 20 win season was at 40 (Finished at 47) http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/moyerja01.shtml No Sandy Koufax, because he retired at 30 in the prime of his career. Retirement of pitchers is all over the place, as much as their performance value, while these pitchers have many different reasons for retiring at the ages that they did. With Maddux, it's unbelievable to think that he benefited from HGH, even more so took them for performance enhancement. As I've said before his game was never based around athleticism or power pitching. He's very much the Peyton Manning of pitchers, not necessarily beating people with his arm, but simply out thinking the defensive talent and coordinator. In Maddux's case, it was the offense of the batters. You can ask any Braves fan, who is over 25 about Maddux's pitching style. He almost never blew people away, it always about spot on location in batter's weak spots and adroit in situational baseball. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Maddux#Pitching_style http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090913173657AAkf4WS http://www.legalball.com/MLB_News_Greg_Maddux.html Moreover (for Hey-Now), age is not that good evidence to prove someone was doing HGH, even more so if that player is quickly declining. Maddux at 42 was not pitching nearly as well as Maddux at 35, definitely not 29. He could barely stay on the field, because of health issues, late in his career. On the contrary, most elite level players who were using PEDs/HGH for some reason could somewhat continue or better their peak production, comparable to their 20s and 30s. In Maddux's behalf, there's no statistical anomalies in his performance, what was unusual about his performances in his lower 30s and early 40s? He played, but it was nowhere near the elite level pitching in his glory days. Alot of (good pitchers) play into their 40s. Most of all, he never tested positive for HGH, or any banned substance, yet Juicystream (you have somewhat proved my point). If A-Rod, Clemens, Bonds and other baseball dynamos along with a number of pitchers were linked to it, how did Maddux get absolved from it, who was not as big of a star, like Clemens or Schilling. It really couldn't maximize his performances,except recovering from injuries faster and maybe being able pitch as many innings, as he did in his prime. Annually, Maddux was good from 245 to nearly 270 innings pitched, but after 2002, he never reached 230 innings again in his career. In 2003, his ERA shot up to 3.96 from 2.62, and it never dropped below 3.96 for the rest of his career. Lastly, he never got caught with it or tested positive for it . . . there's no logical reason to suspect that he used a banned substance. It's not even a good conspiracy theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_players_named_in_the_Mitchell_Report
^ I never accused Maddux of taking anything. I just said there is no point in trying to do a witch hunt because nobody knows. Tom House played in the 1970s and claimed there were probably 7 pitchers on each team (so roughly half of all pitchers) were experimenting with steroids. I'm certainly not going to try and say who did and didn't, because I don't have any idea. And it is foolish to mention that because somebody was not mentioned in a report that primarily depended on 2 key witnesses who never worked with a particular player, as evidence to somebody's evidence. There is reason to believe Maddux took PEDs, and that is because he was a MLB player in a time when more than half the league was supposedly taking them. And the other poster's point was essentially, how can you paint Bagwell as a steroid user when there has not been one shred of evidence, and not do the same about everyone.
Again, you're missing my point: I'm not accusing Maddux of doing anything illegal, nor is YOUR opinion my issue here. The voters are my target, and they have decided to boil a complex drug down to "big muscles = steroids," which is ridiculously simple-minded as we know, for a fact, steroid can help players recover faster from injuries and endure the long grind of a season - with no noticeable impact on muscle growth. Point is - we don't know all the myriad ways steroids made players better (if at all). So if these voters, in absence of actual proof, are going to conduct a witch hunt based on specious conclusions, they need to be absolute about it - either EVERYONE was doing it, or NO ONE was doing it. To single out the big muscle guys and pretend that's the only way steroids might have been beneficial is moronic. As for the pitchers you listed, all, save for Johnson (who pitched in the steroid era and therefore MUST be under a cloud of suspicion) pitched in an era where players admittedly gobbled greenies and, probably, dabbled in steroids - well before there was any scrutiny about it, and long before there was any testing for it. It would not shock me at all if Ryan took supplements. Again, it is NOT normal for humans to throw with that much velocity as they get into their upper 30s/early 40s without SOME kind of help. Having said that, you listed 16 pitchers. If we VERY conservatively assume there are 150/starting pitchers a year (5 x 30 teams - like I said, REAL conservative), we're talking about 4,500 starting pitchers these past 30 years. So 16 pitching into their 40s (I took 33-year old Catfish off) is absolutely, positively "unusual." You're talking about roughly .1% of starting pitchers. (And the 4,500 number is WAY off.)
That's an awful reason, mainly because most players are not taking banned substances or HGH. There's no logical reason to suspect Maddux, as they caught many superstars by eyewitnesses accounts or those simply tested positive in their drug tests. Moreover, the other poster's point was not a valid one on Maddux playing until he was 42, I showed a great number of pitchers who played near or past 42, and were more effective than Maddux in their later years.
