What to Asterisk? *

Triad · 12-19-2007, 03:54 PM

People are calling for players associated with steroid/HGH use to have their names removed from the record book. But then where does it stop? Does the Atlanta Braves championship of '95 get reneged because David Justice helped them win? Or Kevin Brown and the '97 Marlins? How about the Rocket and his two Yankees titles in '99 and '00? What about Canseco/McGwire and the '89 Athletics' championship? Brendan Donnelly and Troy Glaus with the '02 Angels? Chuck Knoblauch on the '91 Twins and the three Yankees titles? Hal Morris and the '90 Reds (he hit only .071, but in the NLCS, he was .417)? Andy Pettitte, Gary Sheffield, Mike Stanton... Are all those championships tainted?

Just looking for consistency in the arguments.

unreal654 · 12-19-2007, 05:00 PM

WilsonC · 12-20-2007, 12:01 AM

I don't asterisk any of it.

Grandstander · 12-20-2007, 09:55 AM

This is not a fixable problem because we are absent the information which would allow us to make even a rough estimate of what performance levels would have been if steroids had not been employed.

In order to craft any sort of quantitative system for making adjustments to stats, we would first have to have the complete confessions of every steroid user since the era began. We would need to know what years they were used, what the dosages were, when use stopped etc. Then we would have to compare the performances of those players while on steroids to their performances when not using and come up with some sort of percentage which represents the artificial boost.

Even that would hardly be exact or satisfying to all....and of course we will never get "that" because we aren't going to be getting any league wide confessions.

This is a permament injury to the game and there is no cure.

kflo · 12-20-2007, 10:16 AM

impossible to fix what has already occurred. i'm not going to asterisk the known cheats and assume that the others are clean, or make steroid adjustments to results. bonds can have his records, and he can have the stain of steroids associated with his name. same as clemens, and mcgwire, etc. the records without the love is punishment enough. and frankly, mlb itself deserves the stains for their complicity.

unreal654 · 12-20-2007, 10:46 AM

I honestly think all of this steroid drama will blow over pretty quickly. By the second month of the season, I doubt there will be much media attention because the fans will have moved on. New stories will unfold once spring rolls around, and we will have brighter things to talk about.

I don't like the idea of an asterisk for steroid users because it should be a fan's decision how to give meaning to an accomplishment. An asterisk, to me, is an insult to my baseball knowledge... and also redundant. We know what happened with steroids, and any future fans will have plenty of writing on the subject to educate themselves about the era. Let the fans make their own decision about the record.

I don't understand why many people are so quick judge players. It almost feels like fans are using a guilty until proven innocent attitude. I don't think we are being fair to the players that actually were clean.. which appears to be the majority of the league. Maybe I'm being naive, but I will take a players word. If the evidence against a player is there, then I'm not all that worried about people admiring a liar and a cheat. We can't change the past. We can change the future. At least baseball is cleaning up it's act. Better late than never...

Grandstander · 12-20-2007, 11:19 AM

unreal

Quote:

I honestly think all of this steroid drama will blow over pretty quickly. By the second month of the season, I doubt there will be much media attention because the fans will have moved on. New stories will unfold once spring rolls around, and we will have brighter things to talk about.

I believe that you are mistaken about this. The worst aspect to the steroid business is the damage done to the stats. The steroid era is an interuption in comparative flow. From now through forever, all attempts to create rating charts for the greatest of all time will be running into roadblocks when trying to cope with evaluations of players from this era. How in the hell will they decide where Barry Bonds belongs on the list of all time greats? Just use the raw numbers and ignore the seroids issue? Just use his pre 1999 numbers? Try and make some projection as to what he would have hit if he had not been using?

Further, we will be reminded again and again of the steroid problem every year when HoF voting takes place...and this will go on for a very long time. If McGwire keeps getting 25 % of the vote, he will be on the ballot for another 14 years. After that, if he still isn't in, he will be elligible for a veteran's committe vote...forever. If Miguel Tejada plays for another six or seven years, then retires after the 2013 season, he won't be a HoF candidate until 2019. He could in theory be on the writer's ballots until 2034.

"Blow over pretty quickly" just isn't on the menu.

kflo · 12-20-2007, 02:24 PM

except the fans will still show up at the stadium.

WilsonC · 12-20-2007, 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grandstander

I believe that you are mistaken about this. The worst aspect to the steroid business is the damage done to the stats. The steroid era is an interuption in comparative flow. From now through forever, all attempts to create rating charts for the greatest of all time will be running into roadblocks when trying to cope with evaluations of players from this era. How in the hell will they decide where Barry Bonds belongs on the list of all time greats? Just use the raw numbers and ignore the seroids issue? Just use his pre 1999 numbers? Try and make some projection as to what he would have hit if he had not been using?

Walter Johnson is often cited as the greatest pitcher of all time. He never had to face the best black hitters, or for that matter even the average black players who would have taken the jobs of the bottom players in the league. He also played much of his career in an era where hitting for any kind of power was very rare, and where spitballs were allowed. He played in conditions extremely favorable to pitchers. In addition, game fixing was a problem of the era for a good portion of his career. Did he have any wins that were a result of a fix? That's some pretty major roadblocks we're dealing with there, too. How do we compare that to Spahn or Maddux or Clemens or Paige or Kaneda? It's simply a judgment call on the part of whoever's doing the rating, and it's what makes for interesting debates. It doesn't remove the meaning from the numbers, it is part of what frames the context, and context has always been an important part of what gives the numbers meaning to begin with.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grandstander

Further, we will be reminded again and again of the steroid problem every year when HoF voting takes place...and this will go on for a very long time. If McGwire keeps getting 25 % of the vote, he will be on the ballot for another 14 years. After that, if he still isn't in, he will be elligible for a veteran's committe vote...forever. If Miguel Tejada plays for another six or seven years, then retires after the 2013 season, he won't be a HoF candidate until 2019. He could in theory be on the writer's ballots until 2034.

"Blow over pretty quickly" just isn't on the menu.

I think it'll blow over a lot faster than many people think - basically, until Bonds hate stops selling. The indictment will end one way or another, he'll retire offically, we'll see a few more books cashing in on him, a really awful documentary about him, and a little bit of fuss when he's eligible for the HoF. Within a couple years, though, there won't be anything new on Bonds, and the media will need to move on to something else because other names won't sell as well. By the time Tejada's on the ballot it'll be a footnote - either:
A: Bonds/Clemens will have made it in and set a precident, in which case it'll be a minor consideration along with Tejada's other merits, or
B: Bonds/Clemens will not have made it in yet, but will simply see slowly growing support each year as the emotional aspect gets more distant.

If it's A, the door will be open for voters to judge players on their merits. If it's B, there'll be a few half-hearted debates about Bonds/Clemens each year until they're in or drop off the ballot, and the door will be open or closed to all known or widely suspected users, as none will have matched the accomplishments of the two giants. At any rate, it'll be a more distant historical perspective by that time, rather than an emotionally charged view of the taint of the game.

In terms of mending, it's already well on its way along the process. Baseball was slow to respond to the problem, and arguably profited because of it, and as a result there's a lot of hoopla and well-deserved scorn toward the enterprise, some big names here and there, and a loss of faith that needs time to recover. In terms of the game becoming more clean, its testing program is now very much on par with other major sports. No sport will ever eliminate PED's altogether, and there is no doubt in my mind that there are still players doping, but I also have no doubt that the number has reduced drastically, and in particular that the number of star-caliber players still doping is down to a minimum. It's also no longer the 'black-sheep' of major sports in terms of steroid use, despite the current perception. It'll just take Bonds' story getting old in a few years - and maybe a new commishioner - in order for the public perception to catch up with the reality.

jtur88 · 12-21-2007, 12:51 AM

But, no matter who was batting the the majors, Walter Johnson would have struck out a lot more of them than anybody else did, and be in the HoF and be called maybe the greatest pitcher ever. Which he still deserves.

Grandstander · 12-21-2007, 09:20 AM

Wilson....Walter Johnson did not face African American hitters, but then no MLB pitcher did during his era. In terms of dealing with black batters, all of the MLB pitchers were on the same level.

What is uniquely unfixable about the steroid problem is that some were using and some were not....and we do not know which ones.

jtur88 · 12-21-2007, 09:49 AM

I think the only thing that can be done is to put it behind us, to get over it. Some players found a glitch, it has been patched. It took MLB ten years too long to fix it, but assume that they did. Giive MLB an asterisk, not the players that they danced with. Bonds hit a lot more homers than anybody else did, so (like Walter Johnson) was the best of the lot. Put up the plaque. Steroids did nothing for Bonds batting eye or his timing. He hit the ball squarely all the time, and you can't takt that away from him. Steroids gave him a little more distance.

Don't blame George W. Bush---blame the voters who put him there. Don't blame Bonds, blame the system that gave him the incentive to do it, rewarded him for doing it and let him get away with doing it through a half a career.

Grandstander · 12-21-2007, 10:25 AM

jtur

Quote:

Put up the plaque. Steroids did nothing for Bonds batting eye or his timing. He hit the ball squarely all the time, and you can't takt that away from him. Steroids gave him a little more distance.

You seem to be ignoring the evidence of your own senses.

Barry Bonds was among the very best to play the game, his declining years could reasonably be expected to be superior to those of ordinary players. It is not even remotely reasonable that his declining years would be marked by him batting not only better than he did during his prime, but better than anyone ever at anytime of their careers.

The numbers scream that steroids made a huge difference in Bonds' performance.....and you appear to be pretending nothing much happened.

From the start of the longball era in 1920, through 1997, 60 homeruns had been reached twice, Ruth and Maris. Then in a four year stretch, 60 homeruns was topped six times....and you appear to have not noticed or feel that this was nothing out of the ordinary.

jtur88 · 12-23-2007, 12:41 AM

First, steroids was not the only thing that changed from the Ruth>Maris era. Bonds et.al. would have hit fewer homeruns if pitches were called strikes up near the armpits, so they couldn't golf everything that was near the strikezone. That really is a huge factor---any hitter can get much more bat speed at the knees than at the letters. Also, league expansion might have watered down the quality of the mediocre pitchers, but that is arguable.

Second, are you contending that Bonds ability to make solid sweet-spot contact with such a high percentage of pitches, and swing at so few outside the strike zone, is attributable to steroids? I stated with maximum clarity that steroids made a difference in the distance that Bonds could hit a ball---how can you say I pretended that did not happen? What made him hit so many balls on the sweet spot? Steroids?

Sabermetricians have been telling me for years, on these boards, to ignore my own senses.

Grandstander · 12-23-2007, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jtur88

I stated with maximum clarity that steroids made a difference in the distance that Bonds could hit a ball---how can you say I pretended that did not happen? What made him hit so many balls on the sweet spot? Steroids?

.

C'mon, jtur, at least figure out what you are arguing here. You write that steroids did nothing for Bonds batting eye or timing and that is nonsense..and now you won't take responsibility for writing that? Of course steroids make a difference in timing. The stronger you are, the greater your bat speed. The greater your bat speed, the longer you can wait to swing and the more time you may devote to recognizing the type and location of the pitch.

What is especially nonsensical, is trying to claim that steroids made no real or important difference when there is overwhelming evidence of performance to suggest otherwise. I suppose now you will argue that it is just some happy coincidence that during what has now been identified as the steroid era, it wasn't just Bonds, McGwire and Sosa putting up unprecedented numbers, it was all of MLB...homerun rates suddenly spiked to an unrealistic all time high.

12-19-2007, 03:54 PM	#1 (permalink)
Triad Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Oregon Posts: 252	What to Asterisk? * People are calling for players associated with steroid/HGH use to have their names removed from the record book. But then where does it stop? Does the Atlanta Braves championship of '95 get reneged because David Justice helped them win? Or Kevin Brown and the '97 Marlins? How about the Rocket and his two Yankees titles in '99 and '00? What about Canseco/McGwire and the '89 Athletics' championship? Brendan Donnelly and Troy Glaus with the '02 Angels? Chuck Knoblauch on the '91 Twins and the three Yankees titles? Hal Morris and the '90 Reds (he hit only .071, but in the NLCS, he was .417)? Andy Pettitte, Gary Sheffield, Mike Stanton... Are all those championships tainted? Just looking for consistency in the arguments.

12-19-2007, 05:00 PM	#2 (permalink)
unreal654 Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 332	yes

12-21-2007, 09:49 AM	#12 (permalink)
jtur88 Hall of Famer Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: South Texas Posts: 7,849	I think the only thing that can be done is to put it behind us, to get over it. Some players found a glitch, it has been patched. It took MLB ten years too long to fix it, but assume that they did. Giive MLB an asterisk, not the players that they danced with. Bonds hit a lot more homers than anybody else did, so (like Walter Johnson) was the best of the lot. Put up the plaque. Steroids did nothing for Bonds batting eye or his timing. He hit the ball squarely all the time, and you can't takt that away from him. Steroids gave him a little more distance. Don't blame George W. Bush---blame the voters who put him there. Don't blame Bonds, blame the system that gave him the incentive to do it, rewarded him for doing it and let him get away with doing it through a half a career. Last edited by jtur88; 12-21-2007 at 09:54 AM.

12-23-2007, 12:41 AM	#14 (permalink)
jtur88 Hall of Famer Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: South Texas Posts: 7,849	First, steroids was not the only thing that changed from the Ruth>Maris era. Bonds et.al. would have hit fewer homeruns if pitches were called strikes up near the armpits, so they couldn't golf everything that was near the strikezone. That really is a huge factor---any hitter can get much more bat speed at the knees than at the letters. Also, league expansion might have watered down the quality of the mediocre pitchers, but that is arguable. Second, are you contending that Bonds ability to make solid sweet-spot contact with such a high percentage of pitches, and swing at so few outside the strike zone, is attributable to steroids? I stated with maximum clarity that steroids made a difference in the distance that Bonds could hit a ball---how can you say I pretended that did not happen? What made him hit so many balls on the sweet spot? Steroids? Sabermetricians have been telling me for years, on these boards, to ignore my own senses. Last edited by jtur88; 12-23-2007 at 12:46 AM.

12-20-2007, 12:01 AM	#3 (permalink)
WilsonC Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 121	I don't asterisk any of it.

12-20-2007, 09:55 AM	#4 (permalink)
Grandstander Hall of Famer Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Parts Unknown Northern California Posts: 6,345	This is not a fixable problem because we are absent the information which would allow us to make even a rough estimate of what performance levels would have been if steroids had not been employed. In order to craft any sort of quantitative system for making adjustments to stats, we would first have to have the complete confessions of every steroid user since the era began. We would need to know what years they were used, what the dosages were, when use stopped etc. Then we would have to compare the performances of those players while on steroids to their performances when not using and come up with some sort of percentage which represents the artificial boost. Even that would hardly be exact or satisfying to all....and of course we will never get "that" because we aren't going to be getting any league wide confessions. This is a permament injury to the game and there is no cure.

12-20-2007, 10:16 AM	#5 (permalink)
kflo Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 1,727	impossible to fix what has already occurred. i'm not going to asterisk the known cheats and assume that the others are clean, or make steroid adjustments to results. bonds can have his records, and he can have the stain of steroids associated with his name. same as clemens, and mcgwire, etc. the records without the love is punishment enough. and frankly, mlb itself deserves the stains for their complicity.

12-20-2007, 10:46 AM	#6 (permalink)
unreal654 Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 332	I honestly think all of this steroid drama will blow over pretty quickly. By the second month of the season, I doubt there will be much media attention because the fans will have moved on. New stories will unfold once spring rolls around, and we will have brighter things to talk about. I don't like the idea of an asterisk for steroid users because it should be a fan's decision how to give meaning to an accomplishment. An asterisk, to me, is an insult to my baseball knowledge... and also redundant. We know what happened with steroids, and any future fans will have plenty of writing on the subject to educate themselves about the era. Let the fans make their own decision about the record. I don't understand why many people are so quick judge players. It almost feels like fans are using a guilty until proven innocent attitude. I don't think we are being fair to the players that actually were clean.. which appears to be the majority of the league. Maybe I'm being naive, but I will take a players word. If the evidence against a player is there, then I'm not all that worried about people admiring a liar and a cheat. We can't change the past. We can change the future. At least baseball is cleaning up it's act. Better late than never...

12-20-2007, 02:24 PM	#8 (permalink)
kflo Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 1,727	except the fans will still show up at the stadium.

12-21-2007, 12:51 AM	#10 (permalink)
jtur88 Hall of Famer Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: South Texas Posts: 7,849	But, no matter who was batting the the majors, Walter Johnson would have struck out a lot more of them than anybody else did, and be in the HoF and be called maybe the greatest pitcher ever. Which he still deserves.

12-21-2007, 09:20 AM	#11 (permalink)
Grandstander Hall of Famer Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Parts Unknown Northern California Posts: 6,345	Wilson....Walter Johnson did not face African American hitters, but then no MLB pitcher did during his era. In terms of dealing with black batters, all of the MLB pitchers were on the same level. What is uniquely unfixable about the steroid problem is that some were using and some were not....and we do not know which ones.