Dec 1, 2011, 2:00 PM EST
This morning I laid out my general approach to how I’d deal with PEDs and the Hall of Fame. The shorthand: I’m a discounter. I try my best to take the accomplishment of established PED users down a bit. In this way I’m making an extremely rough and dirty era adjustment. I know it’s not a bulletproof approach. Far from it. And whenever I offer it up I usually ask for people if they have better ideas to enlighten me, because there isn’t a great way to deal with it.
Brien over at IIATMS took me up on that this afternoon, offering a critique of my approach that, I must acknowledge, makes me feel somewhat uncomfortable with my approach:
To sum it all up, the “this player wouldn’t be Hall-worthy without ‘roids” premise seems superficially fair and nuanced, but getting below the surface it seems far too similar to the old “he just doesn’t feel like a Hall-of-Famer” chestnut to me, and I absolutely despise that standard. And that’s why, though I certainly understand the desire to try to find a nuanced way to view this question, ultimately I don’t think there’s any way to apply such a standard in anything approaching an objective or scientific faction.
I can’t really rebut that with any sort of force. But I’m still not comfortable with where Brien comes out, which is to totally ignore the potential impact of PED use and focus only on production.
There’s no perfect answer here. It’s a struggle for even a guy like me who is often called a steroids apologist.
- Ian Kinsler hopes Rangers go 0-162, calls GM a “sleazeball” (132)
- Albert Pujols was insulted when someone asked him if he can put up Mike Trout numbers (101)
- The politics of “The Cardinal Way” (67)
- Robinson Cano wants the Mariners to bring in Kendrys Morales and Ervin Santana (64)
- Reporter calls Ian Kinsler as self-absorbed as A-Rod (60)