Skip to content

Will the BBWAA keep Pudge Rodriguez out of the Hall of Fame? Only God knows.

Apr 19, 2012, 11:00 AM EDT

Ivan Rodriguez Getty Images

Any elite player’s retirement brings forth the question: will he make the Hall of Fame?  Pudge Rodriguez’s retirement is no different.  Of course, the answer to that question is more complicated.

On the merits he’s a no-brainer: He has the most games caught of any catcher, totaled nearly 3,000 hits, won an MVP award, a World Series MVP award and was arguably the best defensive catcher of all time. That’s normally a first-ballot ticket to Cooperstown.

But then there’s the PED problem.  As we’ve seen in recent years, players with any PED associations are basically blackballed from Hall of Fame consideration no matter how strong their on-the-field case is.  And that goes for those players who were admitted or documented users like Mark McGwire and for those who merely have whisper campaigns waged against them like Jeff Bagwell.  Basically, if a bunch of moralizing writers think you’re dirty, you’re not getting into the Hall of Fame.

So where does Pudge Rodriguez fall on that scale?  He was not named in the Mitchell Report. He has not been revealed to be on the famous list of 103 ballplayers who tested positive during baseball’s pilot testing program in 2004. He has not admitted to any PED use and hasn’t otherwise been brought into the greater PED scandal via legal action or the like. But:

  • Jose Canseco wrote in his book that he personally injected Pudge with steroids;
  • When asked if he was on the list of 103, Rodriguez responded “Only God knows”;
  • He played for the Texas Rangers in the 1990s; and
  • His physique varied fairly radically over the years, with it being beefier pre-testing and noticeably smaller once testing was implemented.

Did he do PEDs? Hell, I don’t know. I certainly wouldn’t be shocked if he did, but I don’t know for sure.

But I do know that while, in a court of law, all of those bullet points would represent circumstantial evidence at best, inadmissible hearsay at worst, Hall of Fame voting doesn’t operate at that standard. In the world of baseball, those bullet points — as well as any more or less reasonable suspicions that Pudge did, in fact, take PEDs — are more than enough to get writers to withhold votes.

And unless something happens to change the current pattern of Hall of Fame voting in the next five years — like, say, people electing Barry Bonds because, Jesus, it’s dumb to have a Hall of Fame without Barry Bonds — I think Rodriguez will be on the outside looking in for some time.

  1. WhenMattStairsIsKing - Apr 19, 2012 at 11:10 AM

    I’m led to believe he’s clean for two reasons:

    1) We have no proof of him not being clean, and I’m not one for consipracy theories:

    2) Steroids and the like break your body down, yes? I mean, remember how bad McGwire’s knees got? Pudge caught more than ANYONE – wouldn’t his body have been destroyed 10 years ago?

    You deserve it Pudge, as one of the top 5 catchers in history.

    • Ben - Apr 19, 2012 at 11:16 AM

      I mean, that logic doesn’t really work if you look at the late career arc of Barry Bonds, etc.. But yeah, we don’t have any solid proof.

      • Kevin S. - Apr 19, 2012 at 11:23 AM

        Didn’t Bonds miss an entire year because of a knee injury?

        The moralists like to have it both ways. When players have unusually impeccable health, steroids are whispered. When players break down, steroids are whispered. Well, what is it? Do they keep you healthy or break you down?

      • dangle13x - Apr 19, 2012 at 11:24 AM

        haha I was thinking the exact same thing Kevin. Spot on.

      • dangle13x - Apr 19, 2012 at 11:35 AM

        Yea thumbs down but don’t leave an opinion. Too stupid to formulate a sentence. “durrr i say down thumbys cuz that sucky” moron.

      • scottp9 - Apr 19, 2012 at 12:35 PM

        “Do they keep you healthy or break you down?” I think the correct answer is both. They allow you to recover quicker from workouts and thus allow you to work out more, which is generally good for health and certainly for strength. Certain players, perhaps overdoing a good thing, get bulkier than their joints, etc. can handle – think McGwire and Bonds – and end up breaking down.

    • braddavery - Apr 19, 2012 at 11:22 AM

      You aren’t looking hard enough or are willfully suspending reality if you honestly believe Ivan Rodriguez wasn’t a PED abuser. It’s quite obvious. “Courtroom rules” don’t mean jack squat in matters of public opinion like this. Ivan Rodriguez isn’t in court. Anyone with knowledge of baseball knows the guy used.

      • Kevin S. - Apr 19, 2012 at 11:24 AM

        Because shut up that’s why.

    • stex52 - Apr 19, 2012 at 11:23 AM

      I’m a huge Pudge fan, but let’s take the negative read on your argument anyway. Suppose he did at some point in his career. How small a portion of the career would that be? Even if you assume that it helped him for some finite period of time, he was great for years. Anything short of the HOF is a travesty.

      • dangle13x - Apr 19, 2012 at 11:31 AM

        I bet you are a big Andy Pettite fan.”I swear I only used like once! wahhhh”

      • braddavery - Apr 19, 2012 at 11:31 AM

        I look at it like this; the guy was good enough to be a HOFer without the use of PEDs. It’s his own fault for getting caught up in the whole cheating thing. He made his bed, now he will lie in it. I don’t feel badly for these guys who aren’t being voted in, because they knew the risks involved. I’m so sick of people making excuses for them as if they are victims.

      • Kevin S. - Apr 19, 2012 at 11:39 AM

        Did they really know that years aftee they used people would all or a sudden start giving a shit? Those same reporters were actively ignoring steroids usage in the late-90s.

      • braddavery - Apr 19, 2012 at 11:41 AM

        If they didn’t think cheating would be a problem, why did they do it in secret then.

      • Kevin S. - Apr 19, 2012 at 4:29 PM

        Because it was illegal. You want to disqualify everybody for doing something illegal in secret?

      • braddavery - Apr 19, 2012 at 10:41 PM

        If it’s illegal, why is it okay for them to use it and be inducted into the HOF.

    • thefalcon123 - Apr 19, 2012 at 12:27 PM

      “Steroids and the like break your body down, yes?”

      Quick, what is the single season record for OPS?

      39 year old Barry Bonds at 1.422

      So, I don’t think steroids break the body down (at least not for everyone)

      I think being in his late 30s was more of a breakdown factor for McGwire.

    • mox19380 - Apr 19, 2012 at 1:59 PM

      “2) Steroids and the like break your body down, yes? I mean, remember how bad McGwire’s knees got? Pudge caught more than ANYONE – wouldn’t his body have been destroyed 10 years ago?”

      administered correctly the side effects can be limited to only acne, hair growth and really only cosmetic effects. There was a great documentary on “The Network” that documented lifelong users (up to 30 years) of well administered steroid use and those people had none of the effects (joint, growth plate, or even emotional/hormonal issues) typically associated with steroid use…. all that to say no proof and no body deterioration don’t make a concrete argument for a clean player

    • kxlllxst - Apr 19, 2012 at 3:11 PM

      “only god knows”

    • raysfan1 - Apr 19, 2012 at 10:16 PM

      “Steroids …break your body down, yes?” No. Steroids are very potent anti-inflammatory drugs, Thus they ease the pain of things like arthritis.

  2. dangle13x - Apr 19, 2012 at 11:15 AM

    I love Pudge. I’m a Tigers fan, and he was a big part of our 2006 Series run. That being said, anyone who thinks this guys wasn’t juiced is flat out delusional.

    • crashdavis99 - Apr 19, 2012 at 11:58 AM

      Agree totally. No definitive proof but you don’t have to be a rocket scientist (or chemist) to draw a simple conclusion. The season before steroids were officially banned by baseball dude looked like a bouncer at the local pub. Next spring training he shows up looking like Jim Leyland’s paperboy and declares he “lost a few pounds” for conditioning. As Dr. Evil would say….RRRRIIIIGGGHHHTTT.

  3. bigleagues - Apr 19, 2012 at 11:17 AM

    Pudge needs to go in 1st ballot. End of discussion. This circumstantial hearsay crap as factors for elections is really getting tedious and not serving MLB well in any way shape or form.

    Put Pudge, Bagpipes and all the others in and let history write itself as to whether they did or didn’t use PED’s.

    I’m willing to bet that 20-30 years forward the start of death bed/old age admissions of guilt/innocence will begin to trickle out.

    • dangle13x - Apr 19, 2012 at 11:20 AM

      I agree. Let them all in. Blame the MLB for knowingly allowing PED’s to be used for decades, then scapegoating guys like McGuire Bonds and the like. It’s a sad display.

      • Ben - Apr 19, 2012 at 11:26 AM

        Yeah, that’s the thing–by refusing to let them into the hall it shifts the blame solely onto the players, and ignores MLB’s culpability on it. That’s pretty lame, but exactly what you’d expect from Selig’s MLB.

    • winkeroni - Apr 19, 2012 at 11:34 AM

      Ivan Rodriguez should be a first ballot HOFer. I can understand having reservations about electing Bagwell because I think he’s only borderline HOF material.

      • dangle13x - Apr 19, 2012 at 11:37 AM

        Well what is your stance on other former juicers whose numbers merit HOF induction?

      • Kevin S. - Apr 19, 2012 at 11:42 AM

        Jeff Bagwell, at the time he retired, was the best first baseman in National League history. How is that only borderline material?

      • paperlions - Apr 19, 2012 at 11:48 AM

        If you think Bagwell was borderline HOF material, you need to pay more attention. Try to list 10 1B that were better than Bagwell, you probably can’t get to 5 without looking really silly.

      • hasbeen5 - Apr 19, 2012 at 11:58 AM

        Are we talking about the same Jeff Bagwell?

    • stuckonwords - Apr 20, 2012 at 1:05 PM

      Every time someone dictates “End of discussion”, it is a clear sign that a discussion should be had.

      I can’t help envisioning the neighborhood bully, baseball bat in hand, telling everyone just how right he is and how they’d better comply.

      • bigleagues - Apr 22, 2012 at 1:51 AM

        Right, because a figure of speech that evokes an exclamation is a clear image of a neighborhood bully – bat in hand.

        I’d hate to be a guest in one of your nightmares.

        As for Pudge, the discussion about he and countless others has been had already for 5+ years. There reaches a point where a consensus of some sort needs to be achieved.

        If PED’s were enough to make a you a MLB baseball player, then there wouldn’t be need for any discussion whatsoever.

        Likewise PED’s are not necessarily enough to make an established Major League player a Hall of Famer . . . or even a turn a good player into a great player.

        I’m not arguing that PED’s don’t enhance a players natural abilities – or even extend their career (I think there is ample evidence of that).

        But what I have taken away from the PED era is that the public understanding of the issue is severely limited. The media’s reporting on the issue has been filled with piety and pontification. And MLB CLEARLY accepted it by turning a blind eye to what was otherwise staring . . . no . . . POKING them squarely in the thigh, errr uh, I mean eye.

        So for writers to make up their own standards and collude to not vote a player into the HOF, who would otherwise be a slam dunk, NO DISCUSSION NEEDED candidate for the HOF . . . based solely on hearsay and speculation is completely unacceptable. And that fans would cheer that mentality on, give it legs, champion it as some sort of feel-good cause . . . is pure lunacy.

        But then we are talking about pro sports and most fans have no real idea what their talking about anyway.

  4. koufaxmitzvah - Apr 19, 2012 at 11:18 AM

    Museums should tell the story of their subject. In this case, the Hall of Fame is doing a dis-service to baseball and, in a large part, the American story. They have a chance to describe the growth of the sport with the growth of our country. From pre-20th century through the go-go 20s, into integration and World War II and the subsequent internationalism of our game. From players’ rights (i.e. workers’ rights) vs. ownership ploys and, yes, the drugs. The dope and the acid and the speed and the cocaine and the PEDs (and lets toss in some protein shakes). This is baseball. This is America.

    • braddavery - Apr 19, 2012 at 12:00 PM

      You don’t have to elect and heap praise on cheaters to tell their story. That’s pretty damn ludicrous.

      • koufaxmitzvah - Apr 19, 2012 at 12:09 PM

        It’s funny that you think a pill or a shot can turn a normal player into longtime superstar.

        BTW: Owners have been giving their players speed since the game began. And Babe Ruth didn’t hit any homeruns off anyone but a White man. Your need to whine and complain about one situations of “unfair” practice is exactly the reason why the Hall of Fame needs to open up about not just who they are (a museum) but about what the game represents and entails.

      • braddavery - Apr 19, 2012 at 12:19 PM

        You can’t change the past, only make the present and future better. Would you have them retroactively “punish” HOF members for past voters’ votes? lol Okay dude. The whole “Well look at the past and vote in cheaters now” argument is illogical and in my opinion, idiotic. Every heard of learning from the past. It’s called progression.

      • koufaxmitzvah - Apr 19, 2012 at 1:15 PM

        What are you talking about, Changing the past? I’m Acknowledging it, not sweeping it under a rug.

      • stuckonwords - Apr 20, 2012 at 6:52 PM

        You don’t seriously think Babe Ruth wouldn’t have hit home runs against pitchers with a different skin color, do you?

    • tigerprez - Apr 19, 2012 at 1:20 PM

      Have you actually been to the HOF? I hate to break it to you, but the museum is already full of the PED guys. Their names and pictures are everywhere there, and the history of the sport is pretty comprehensively covered, if that’s what you’re worried about. The PED users’ accomplishments are not going unacknowledged. I think what you’re arguing for is celebrating those accomplishments and holding them up as worthy of praise. That’s the step some of us aren’t willing to take yet.

      • koufaxmitzvah - Apr 19, 2012 at 1:27 PM

        What I’m arguing is that the HOF is a museum, and the Gatekeepers are doing a dis-service when they decide to not elect a player for his admission. But I’m sure Jeff Bagwell will be happy to know that he made it onto a video.

        I’ve been to the Hall once. If Bagwell can’t get elected because of his body shape, or if we have to discern whether Pudge gets in because, y’know, the only way he became a superstar was due to an injection in his buttocks, then I won’t be going back. This constant brouhaha over how some people’s morals are just so much better than other’s is a stupid joke, especially considering how the owners got their players hooked on speed for over a century.

  5. Jonny 5 - Apr 19, 2012 at 11:39 AM

    I don’t really care anymore. For the simple reason that the BBWAA has turned the HOF voting into a three ring circus that they use to get page clicks and/ or to sell papers. Half of the time I feel their votes follow a pattern more of “Which vote could I place to get the most attention?” And less of “Who deserves to be in the HOF?”

    • braddavery - Apr 19, 2012 at 11:46 AM

      I don’t see how. You really think that voting in PED abusers would garner more attention than not voting them in. When Barry Larkin is in and Rafael Palmeiro is out, that doesn’t bode well for your argument.

      • koufaxmitzvah - Apr 19, 2012 at 11:55 AM

        Comparing Shortstops to 1st Basemen-DHs is like comparing strawberries to kumquats.

      • Jonny 5 - Apr 19, 2012 at 12:25 PM

        No, I don’t think that. I do think that when BBWAA members write stories about their votes saying that some of the best players in the sport won’t get their vote, and shouldn’t get any votes because they “suspect” PED use, are not only cries for attention, but damaging to the chances of some of baseballs greatest players to get into the HOF. The BBWAA is recklessly pointing fingers at players for breaking rules that didn’t even exist for some. It’s quite sad really because I strongly feel they are rendering the HOF irrelevant. Even in cases where we know PED use existed I feel the HOF needs to look at the numbers and maybe just tell the story. Rule changes took away the ability to use Greenies. Should we remove known users of Greenies now? No. Tell the tale and stop trying to be the morals police. Cough cough Conlin cough.

    • braddavery - Apr 19, 2012 at 11:56 AM

      Who is comparing them.

      • koufaxmitzvah - Apr 19, 2012 at 12:12 PM

        What does talking about Palmiero while referencing Larkin mean in your world?

      • braddavery - Apr 19, 2012 at 12:20 PM

        Since when does bringing up two players in the same sentence automatically mean you are comparing their careers. Read what I wrote again and what I was responding to and comprehend better.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Apr 19, 2012 at 12:24 PM

        Since when does bringing up two players in the same sentence automatically mean you are comparing their careers

        Are you serious? You wrote when Player A is in and Player B is not, and you don’t realize you are making a comparison? Come on….

      • braddavery - Apr 19, 2012 at 12:31 PM

        I wasn’t comparing their CAREERS. I was making the point, in response to what was stated by you, that if the voting was about “attention and page clicks”, Palmeiro would be in and Larkin wouldn’t. Palmeiro had a bigger statistical career (500+ HRs and 3,000+ hits) than Larkin, AND if voted-in he would garner the Hall and it’s voters more “attention and clicks” because he was caught cheating. Do people not know how to comprehend?

      • koufaxmitzvah - Apr 19, 2012 at 1:19 PM

        Then you should pick some other 1st Baseman-DH. Is Edgar Martinez in the Hall?

        Barry Larkin didn’t just get in because of his offense. He’s in because of his defense, too.

        Strawberries and kumquats go great in a shake, but are to stand alone when comparing their qualities.

      • braddavery - Apr 19, 2012 at 1:36 PM

        You are completely missing my point.

    • 18thstreet - Apr 19, 2012 at 12:11 PM

      I don’t think the voters are being stupid in order to draw attention to themselves, individually. I think they’re actually this stupid. It’s why I’ve stopped caring about the elections.

      Collectively, they think Jim Rice and Andre Dawson are better than Tim Raines. Why would I ask their opinion?

      • braddavery - Apr 19, 2012 at 12:24 PM

        Tim Raines is still on the ballot and most likely will be voted-in soon. He will probably bee right in there along side Dawson and Rice very soon.

  6. ningenito78 - Apr 19, 2012 at 12:07 PM

    Yes, I believe whole heartedly Pudge juiced. Yes, he belongs in the HOF. End of story.

  7. jimmymarlinsfan - Apr 19, 2012 at 12:10 PM

    I’m not going to speak for all the drug users in baseball…but to me, it won’t be the hall of fame without Pudge in it and if this was a court room, I don’t think there is any way you could convict Pudge of being on the juice unless more people with knowledge talk…good luck with that

  8. dcfan4life - Apr 19, 2012 at 12:16 PM

    Pudge is getting in for 3 reasons.

    1) He was never caught or implicated by anyone other than Jose Conseco

    2) He did not destroy any sacred baseball record

    3) He is a well liked and respected guy all over baseball

    You guys are forgetting, McGwire and Bonds are not well liked guys. The media and sports writers didn’t like them to begin with, then you throw on their heavy steroid use, and the fact that they both shattered the most treasured baseball records. I mean 61 home runs to 70 home runs, then 73. Thats disgusting. And then they both defied logic, Bonds refusing to admit it and Mcgwire saying he would have hit all those home runs without steroids. These 2 in particular are despised. As is Roger Clemens. Other notable accused users like Bagwell, or admitted users like Pettite and Arod, will most likely make the Hall. And guys like Pudge will definately make it, first ballot.

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Apr 19, 2012 at 12:22 PM

      You guys are forgetting, Babe Ruth was not a well liked guy. The media and sports writers didn’t like him to begin with, then you throw on their heavy alcohol use, and the fact that he shattered the most treasured baseball records. I mean he hit more HR than entire teams! Thats disgusting. And then they both defied logic being as great as he was well into his late career

      Fixed that for you

  9. tackledummy1505 - Apr 19, 2012 at 12:17 PM

    Hey writers, CAN IT ALREADY! Who cares anymore whether he was or not. You don’t see anyone crying out for the 1970’s Pittsburg Steelers players to be removed from the Hall Of Fame. Everyone knows they were on it and the won Super Bowls with it. Look the game has cleaned up, but baseball was dying at that time with lockouts, gambling and Umpires striking. Baseball needed something and the players gave it to them. We all knew it was happening, but nobody said anything about it. Now we want crucify the same players that saved baseball so we can feel better about ourselves. Pudge is one of the best catchers in the game ever, PEDS or no PEDS. Give him his due at least for his work ethic and his leadership. At least give it to him because he has never been guilty. Jose Canseco is a money grubbing meat head, not a rocket scientist.

    • phillyphreak - Apr 19, 2012 at 12:35 PM

      What is a Pittsburg Steeler and what is this Super Bowl thing?

      • Jonny 5 - Apr 19, 2012 at 12:55 PM

        Philly spots fan here. Super-bowl? Is this a novelty item? I picture a plastic cereal bowl with a big superman logo on it. Am I close?

      • Jonny 5 - Apr 19, 2012 at 12:55 PM

        Philly *sports fan here. EDIT!

    • florida76 - Apr 19, 2012 at 2:47 PM

      tackledummy1505, you need to get your facts straight. Mike Webster is the only HOF member of those 1970s Steelers teams who was revealed to use steroids. And steroids weren’t illegal back in those days, so there were players across the NFL using the stuff.

  10. hushbrother - Apr 19, 2012 at 12:18 PM

    Pudge was an NLCS MVP (2003) but never a World Series MVP.

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Apr 19, 2012 at 12:23 PM

      He also didn’t deserve his MVP award, but he’s still an easy HoFer.

  11. tackledummy1505 - Apr 19, 2012 at 12:20 PM

    Let him in, no one cares about the steroid era. Are we going to exclude everyone from the Hall from 1990 to 2010?

  12. Jack Marshall - Apr 19, 2012 at 12:35 PM

    I’m not God, but I know: Pudge won’t make it. He’s infinitely more suspect than Bagwell, and I think Bags will have continued trouble.

    One correction: it is dumb to have a Hall of Fame WITH Barry Bonds.

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Apr 19, 2012 at 4:05 PM

      it is dumb to have a Hall of Fame WITH Barry Bonds.

      Umm, explain this please.

  13. braddavery - Apr 19, 2012 at 12:41 PM

    No matter what anyone thinks, the Baseball Hall of Fame puts forth guidelines for it’s voters to follow. The voters take this into consideration and vote accordingly. They can’t knowingly vote-in a cheater, or make the mistake of voting in a “suspected” cheater on the chance he really did cheat. It’s just NOT gonna happen. Deal with it. You can “not care about the HOF anymore because they vote within the set guidelines”, but when all is said and done, who cares what you think. It’s what the voters think that matters. The HOF doesn’t have to knowingly vote-in cheaters because some people want them in there. End of story.

    • The Dangerous Mabry - Apr 19, 2012 at 1:08 PM

      They can’t knowingly vote in a cheater? Gaylord Perry and Whitey Ford, among a host of others, were certainly known cheaters who got voted into the hall.

      • braddavery - Apr 19, 2012 at 1:13 PM

        Clearly some forms of “cheating” are more acceptable in the game of baseball. Just look at the punishments for said “cheating” for evidence. No one has ever gets 50-game or lifetime bans for spitballs or scuffing.

      • mgv38 - Apr 21, 2012 at 3:37 PM

        And Don Sutton.

    • royalintx - Apr 19, 2012 at 6:13 PM

      This is the perfect summation.
      No matter how much the “non-moralists” such as Craig denigrate the HOF, the voters should absolutely stick to the guidelines. I can’t fathom how people would want the PED users in the HOF, and I realize this makes me stupid in the eyes of many of you here. I DON”T CARE.

      Craig – in a few years you can start your own HOF for gay PED users… San Francisco should be the perfect location.

      No need to comment…I can show myself the door.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Apr 19, 2012 at 8:54 PM

        Don’t let it hit you in the ass on the way out.

  14. mattymo - Apr 19, 2012 at 12:41 PM

    isn’t the original Pudge (Carlton Fisk) already in the HOF? ;)

    • bbil2012 - Apr 19, 2012 at 8:06 PM

      Now there’s a guy whose body changed.

  15. rmwuz - Apr 19, 2012 at 12:45 PM

    To me, he sealed his fate when asked if his name was on the list of 103. A non-user would NEVER respond with ‘Only God knows’..

    Unless someone can come up with a compelling explanation for that……..

    • braddavery - Apr 19, 2012 at 12:48 PM

      I always thought it was a strange statement anyway. Wouldn’t he know if he used or not? And wouldn’t the people who saw his test results know? ANYONE who saw the list would know. ONLY God knows? Huh? lol

      • bravojawja - Apr 19, 2012 at 2:11 PM

        It’s a non-native English speaker switching the words of an English expression. “God only knows” would be a perfect, sarcastic response from someone who hasn’t seen the list but wouldn’t be surprised by any name on it, even his own, because God only knows how the listmaker(s) came up with it.

      • braddavery - Apr 19, 2012 at 2:16 PM

        Ahhh, it all makes sense now. Thank you.

  16. Old Gator - Apr 19, 2012 at 2:46 PM

    A modest proposal: why doesn’t the MLBPA vote annually on which baseball writers are the biggest sanctimonious, pretentious assholes of all time? They could call it the Castle of Cretins or some such thing. I think it would be tonic for the star athletes that we all revere, idolize and love to designate a baseball writer – infinitesimally precious few of whom we even respect – as a complete blowhard schmuck every year, and then post a stick-figure cartoon of the jackass in some iconic location – perhaps designed to look like a classic Greek revival outhouse – where folks can come and read the litany of reasons why that slug got specially selected out of such a virtual superflux of like slugs.

    You think that might cause the Lupicas, Shaughnesseys, Heymans et al to think twice before climbing up on their soapboxes or commode lids to pillory athletes for utterly contrived and ego-gratifying reasons?

    I betcha it would.

    • Baseball Beer Burritos In That Order - Apr 19, 2012 at 3:01 PM

      I like the spirit of this post, but I think I would prefer a “Yo Momma”-style head-to-head matchup between athletes and sportswriters, televised nationally and hosted by Lenny Dykstra from prison. If you don’t want to know what Berkman thinks of Lupica (or what Luke Scott thinks of Calcaterra!!!) you’re not a red blooded American.

  17. downhillrider - Apr 19, 2012 at 5:06 PM

    None of these guys should be kept out of the HOF. Everyone (including MLB) looked the other way when these guys were jacking 60 homers. I think most players in the “steroid era” atleast tried PED’s.

  18. ezthinking - Apr 19, 2012 at 6:28 PM

    HOF was created by baseball writers to give them something to write about in the off season 80 or so years ago. They love these disputes because it gives writers something to write about. It is the Baseball Writers Association of America HOF, not the MLB HOF. It’s a great museum and an even better tool for providing a topic on which to write about.

  19. somekat - Apr 19, 2012 at 7:43 PM

    This is very simple. If a player is an obvious PED user (It’s not hard to tell with most of them. Totally different body shapes over night), you take out their power numbers. For a position player, HR and to a lesser extent RBI’s. Do they still make it to the hall? If the answer is no, they shouldn’t make it

    Pudge would make it if he hit 12 HR for is career strictly on his defensive play

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Apr 19, 2012 at 8:58 PM

      Alex Sanchez, Andy Pettitte, Jason Grimsley are three people who were caught with PEDs, do any of them “look” like users?

  20. stercuilus65 - Apr 20, 2012 at 2:31 AM

    “Basically, if a bunch of moralizing writers think you’re dirty, you’re not getting into the Hall of Fame.’

    ——————————-
    Cry me a river Craig and oh yeah “moralizing writers”? Look in the mirror Jesus.

  21. wpjohnson - Apr 20, 2012 at 12:51 PM

    Many criminals have been convicted on circumstantial evidence. If there is what the voters consider suffucient circumstantial evidence to convince them that Rodriguez is guilty, I say keep him out.

    Maybe the Hall should build an outbuilding behind the main building for the induction of the dopers. Their statistics, regardless of how they were accumulated, are often impressive. However, we don’t need to degrade the true greats by admitting the cheaters.

  22. acerob2002 - Apr 26, 2012 at 1:16 PM

    The BBWAA is going to make the HOF irrelevant. I agree that originally they needed someone to vote the players in, but they have no business voting for players now. No Rose, no Bonds, no Clemens, no McGuire? whats the point?

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

A managerial overanalysis epidemic
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. M. Bumgarner (3107)
  2. J. Shields (2920)
  3. T. Lincecum (2820)
  4. M. Morse (2411)
  5. T. Ishikawa (2398)
  1. Y. Cespedes (2028)
  2. L. Cain (1672)
  3. B. Roberts (1646)
  4. B. Posey (1511)
  5. U. Jimenez (1500)