Skip to content

Everyone was doing steroids! Except when it was only the superstars!

Jul 18, 2012, 9:22 AM EST

Frank Deford

Frank Deford, the journalist who is concerned that the hard-hitting, fact-based investigative journalism of his day is going to disappear because lazy, fact-free assertions are rewarded on the Internet, made some lazy, fact-free assertions in his latest weekly NPR rant:

I’ve been surprised to learn that some baseball writers have declared that they’ll vote for Bonds and Clemens because they were the best players in an era when drug use was widespread — ergo if there’s a lot of guilt going around, then nobody should be assigned guilt.

Of course, we do not know how many baseball players took steroids, but it certainly never involved more than a small percentage. It was never, for example, like the Tour de France where drugs were as common as toothpaste. But what the baseball writers must not forget is that the dopers did not just pad their own statistics. They keep score in games; by definition, sports are zero sum. By taking unfair advantage, the druggies hurt the players who played fair.

This is my favorite bit from the sanctimonious Hall of Fame Protection Force.  They’ll slam an entire era of baseball as illegitimate due to a distortion of the game by players who were gobbling up ‘roids like candy in one argument, and then in the next they’ll claim that the superstars were the bad seeds because they were screwing all of those clean players — in DeFord’s case here, the vast majority — from their proper due.

I do not doubt for a second that there were clean players who were hurt by the Steroid Era. But these guys were not going to be taking Barry Bonds or Roger Clemens’ place. They were hurt because other 20-25th men on the roster were taking things, keeping them out of jobs.

Yes, you can extend that and say that the superstars doing what they did caused it all to trickle down, making those 20-25th men do it too, but you can’t then also say that “a small percentage” of players were doing it.  It was very likely widespread, and in no case was confined to the Hall of Fame-threatening superstars, no matter what DeFord’s convenient (for today) assumptions happen to be.

Also: DeFord’s headline was stolen from Neil Young and that makes me mad.

  1. nolanwiffle - Jul 18, 2012 at 9:31 AM

    Old Man.

    • cleverbob - Jul 18, 2012 at 10:10 AM

      Get off his lawn

    • cur68 - Jul 18, 2012 at 10:26 AM

      Hey! Take a look at his life. He’s a lot like you.

      • nolanwiffle - Jul 18, 2012 at 10:39 AM

        Doesn’t mean that much to me, to mean that much to you.

      • cur68 - Jul 18, 2012 at 10:42 AM

        Know what you should do? You should be in love with a cinnamon girl. You could be happy the rest of your life, with a cinnamon girl.

      • nolanwiffle - Jul 18, 2012 at 10:52 AM

        Eh, I’d probably just end up shooting her…..down by the river.

  2. Rich Stowe - Jul 18, 2012 at 9:34 AM

    Deford has to realize that in 2003 104 players tested positive (thus leading to the official testing began in 2004)! That is more than 4 teams worth of players out of 32 total teams! That’s a HUGE percentage.

    • ezthinking - Jul 18, 2012 at 9:36 AM

      It’s even worse with 30 teams.

      • Rich Stowe - Jul 18, 2012 at 9:40 AM

        oops…not enough coffee this morning I guess!

    • paperlions - Jul 18, 2012 at 9:39 AM

      …and those were just the guys dumb enough to get caught during the season when they knew they were going to be tested. According to anyone that has been open and honest about it (and the available data), the majority of players were taking something, nearly everyone was taking amphetamines for about 40 years, and pitchers were just as likely to be using steroids as anyone else.

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jul 18, 2012 at 9:46 AM

      Not only that, but the players knew they were going to be tested. So you have to add in some sort of error bar of players who were smart enough to stop using it for that period.

      • Rich Stowe - Jul 18, 2012 at 9:48 AM

        and that doesn’t account for HGH which wasn’t tested for at the time (and those smart enough to stop using roids probably turned to HGH instead)

    • bigleagues - Jul 18, 2012 at 10:13 AM

      In 2003, 104 players tested positive for what?

      Other than the very few that were forced to admit what they had taken, we just don’t know.

      In fact, the Players Union strongly suggested that there were false positives as the testing procedures were themselves being tested.

      In fact, the 2003 testing was voluntary and not compulsory and not every player was tested.

      So to make any broad indictments about how prevalent ‘PED’ usage was or wasn’t at that time would be absurd at best.

      • chumthumper - Jul 19, 2012 at 10:22 AM

        And we have no idea how many of those samples were left in an unguarded mayonnaise jar overnight in someone’s basement fridge.

  3. mJankiewicz - Jul 18, 2012 at 9:35 AM

    blah blah blah steroids blah blah blah hall of fame blah blah blah blah blah

    • stlouis1baseball - Jul 18, 2012 at 12:38 PM

      Well stated Jankiewicz!

  4. ezthinking - Jul 18, 2012 at 9:35 AM

    Trickle down theory doesn’t work in economics or baseball. It’s does often have a place explaining the wet spot between the thigh and knee.

  5. adenzeno - Jul 18, 2012 at 9:37 AM

    The issue to me has always been that when a player chooses to use PEDs, he gains an unfair advantage because the health consequences are still unknown. Also, PEDs seem to be an artificial enhancement. Working out longer/more than you could without them gives players who choose to use an unfair advantage over those who are not using. Sports competition is supposed to be about competition from a level field. Asking people to potentially risk health issues as a result of PEDs is just wrong. If you are faster and stronger than I by virtue of genetics, then so be it. but if we are equal and I defeat you by using PEDs is not fair nor right.

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jul 18, 2012 at 9:54 AM

      Sports competition is supposed to be about competition from a level field.

      Except it never has, and never will, be an equal playing field. No matter what I did/do, no matter how many steroids or genetically engineered drugs to alter my ability, would I ever be as a good of a hitter as Barry Bonds or pitcher like Roger Clemens. They already have an [unfair] advantage over most others, and that’s without using any PEDs.

      Working out longer/more than you could without them gives players who choose to use an unfair advantage over those who are not using.

      Isn’t working out already an artificial enhancement? Should players be required to work out or just continue on with their naturally given talents? Someone who spends 4 hours a day in the gym will already have an advantage over someone who doesn’t go or does 15 min on a treadmill.

      Asking people to potentially risk health issues as a result of PEDs is just wrong

      No one asked the players to take PEDs, they choose to do so on their own. And considering how many other risky options players choose, we should stop moralizing their choices.

      • adenzeno - Jul 18, 2012 at 10:59 PM

        Innate genetic gifts do indeed alter the “level” field, but taking the PEDs gives one of two identical playes an advantage that is not brought about by willpower, concentration or work ethic. It then forces the player not using to either compete at a disadvantage or potentially risk his health. Is working out an artificial enhancement? The more you run the faster you will be…the more you throw the better you will throw..I hope that all the people who are playing Devil’s Advocate here are doing just that. I hope that no one wants to see the best game played by some who are on PEDs while others are not…Although I am sure to some extent that still occurs.

    • easports82 - Jul 18, 2012 at 9:57 AM

      By the “working out longer…” argument, coffee and sugar should be banned from clubhouses also, but no one’s classifying those as PEDs.

      • alang3131982 - Jul 18, 2012 at 10:32 AM

        But what about laser vision or tommy john surgery? There are many artificial things people can take or do to improve their athleticism.

        the point is there isnt ever an “even” playing field. Some people are just predisposed to being better. Does TJ surgery help? So saying PEDs render athleticism unfair is ignoring the fact that it is unfair to begin with…

      • paperlions - Jul 18, 2012 at 10:53 AM

        Yep, through lasik surgery players can get better than 20/20 vision, and eye sight is key when it comes to picking up the rotation on the ball (quickly identifying pitches) and hand-eye coordination….but that is okay….as is having a franken-elbow with a ligament in the elbow being replaced by a tendon from somewhere else in the body, which often allows pitchers to throw harder afterward than they ever did before….but, yep, that’s okay, too.

        What about players that don’t want to undergo the risks associated with lasik or TJ surgery?

      • adenzeno - Jul 18, 2012 at 10:53 PM

        None of these affects the muscles ability to recuperate more quickly after a workout.

  6. panickyvaudevillian - Jul 18, 2012 at 9:38 AM

    Lazy, fact-free assertions? Like sliding in your own political beliefs into over half of your baseball posts? I certainly hope no writers at hardballtalk would do such a thing….

    • paperlions - Jul 18, 2012 at 9:41 AM

      Ironic much?

      Please back up your lazy fact-free assertions with the proper citations, and I expect it to include AT LEAST 1/2 of all HBT posts. Thanks.

    • Craig Calcaterra - Jul 18, 2012 at 9:46 AM

      The difference is that when I offer an opinion, I admit it’s an opinion.

  7. drunkenhooliganism - Jul 18, 2012 at 9:52 AM

    For about five years, I thought this was the guy that owned the Dodgers.

  8. surly1n1nd1anapol1s - Jul 18, 2012 at 10:06 AM

    Frank DeFord needs to follow MacArthur’s example and fade away. How about old, past prime geezers taking up valuable NPR slots for younger, talented writers?

  9. surly1n1nd1anapol1s - Jul 18, 2012 at 10:07 AM

    If you cannot make a distinction between coffee and anabolic steroids/HGH…

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jul 18, 2012 at 10:10 AM

      If your sole argument is that “X gives you an added boost over your normal performance”, then you deserve to have someone make the argument that coffee should be considered a PED.

      The problem lies with the shit initial argument, not the absurd conclusion.

  10. dexterismyhero - Jul 18, 2012 at 10:19 AM

    He could play a great Wolfman with that hairdo.

    Barry’s knockin at the Balco door
    C’mon Victor can I have some more

    Gone Gone another Home Run uuuunnn

    Hit St Louis with my acne back
    Stuck a needle in my gluteus max

    Gone Gone another Home Run uuuunnn

    In front of Cub fans and in front of Congress
    wha he say sorry no hablo englas

    Gone Gone another Home Run uuuunnn

    I seen the needle and the damage done
    A little part of it in everyone

    Gone Gone another Home Run uuuunnn

  11. hatesycophants - Jul 18, 2012 at 10:44 AM

    If you were or could ever be a tenth of the writer DeFord is, your criticism might be legitimate.

    There has always been “doping” in baseball. The fans don’t care. But, you don’t get to call out DeFord on any subject. Now go get your shine box, son.

    • Craig Calcaterra - Jul 18, 2012 at 10:45 AM

      So because DeFord wrote good things several years ago he can write lazy, unadulterated crap now with impunity?

      So tell me: do the merits of one’s work matter or not?

      • cleverbob - Jul 18, 2012 at 11:14 AM

        In some circles this is called “tenure”.

      • dexterismyhero - Jul 18, 2012 at 11:18 AM

        Craig, I think DeFord has gotten jaded over the years and is probably more pissed about how journalism has changed. I bet in the middle of an article he is writing he just starts venting in his mind and it just comes across this way. Too bad for the Frankster.

        In my opinion the HoF for any sport anymore is a bit of a sham. Too bad about that.

        Now if they would just stop with the lists and shows about The Top 100 players………………………………….of 2012…………..of the 90’s…..of the decade….and so forth….

        Keep up the good work, whether we agree or disagree, it keeps us from work…lol

        Feel free to add your own line to my Neil Young ditty…We need verses for Roger & Rafael……

      • paperlions - Jul 18, 2012 at 12:25 PM

        In my field, they call it tenure….you know what that get’s you? Job security, that’s it.

        Tenure does NOT grant:

        The ability to do crappy work.
        A stay from ridicule by your peers for crappy work.
        The right not to be questions or to have your work critically evaluated.

        If you do crappy work, no matter who you are or what you have done, it will be recognized as crappy (or irrelevant, being ignored is almost worse than being wrong).

      • stlouis1baseball - Jul 18, 2012 at 12:41 PM

        Bob: Please don’t use the word “tenure.”
        Gator maybe watching and we don’t want to get him fired up.

      • stmiller02 - Jul 18, 2012 at 2:25 PM

        Craig… You need to remember that you’re more akin to Rush Limbaugh than Frank DeFord. You’re a mere pundit not a journalist. This is a blog, not a news article. You even asmit as much when you say its just opinion… Just opnion…. Most of us read for the occasional ranting not the facts.

    • CJ - Jul 18, 2012 at 11:33 AM

      just curious if you hate yourself yet. that is all.

  12. Kevin S. - Jul 18, 2012 at 11:07 AM

    Actually, it’s highly unlikely that what superstars were doing had any impact on the back end of the roster players’ PED decision, because they were NEVER competing with Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds for jobs. Alex Sanchez’s PED decision has everything to do with whether or not he thought taking them would make him better than Joey Gathright.

    • stlouis1baseball - Jul 18, 2012 at 12:47 PM

      No…but they were competing for playing time w/ other’s who were most likely taking something.
      A scenario:
      You are a 34 – 35 year old OF who is competing for playing time against a person 5 – 6 years your Junior. It is common knowledge this kid takes PED’s. Your livelihood is on the line.
      You are at the back end of your career. You want to hold out for a long as you can. If you can just make it 2 – 3 more years to get the kids through middle school and into high school.
      What are YOU gonna’ do?

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jul 18, 2012 at 2:21 PM

        Except you just proved his point. Calling out the guys who were the best in the game and used (Bonds/Clemens/Arod) is disingenuous if you are going to use the “journeyman who didn’t use so he was stuck in AAA”. Bonds/Clemens/Arod weren’t keeping the 25th man off the roster, whether they used or not.

        The Alex Sanchez’s of the world, who were barely hanging on to begin with and used, those guys might have kept the journeyman AAA player off the MLB roster. Or the guy who is thinking of using to just stay on a year or two. Bonds/Clemens/Arod weren’t being pushed by the AAA(A) non-phenom.

  13. yahmule - Jul 18, 2012 at 11:08 AM

    Better we should just legalize PEDs in baseball. Turn the game into the Vince McMahon production so many of you seem to want so badly. Who cares about the health of athletes? If any of them suffer long term ill effects, we’ll just chalk it up to them not following the directions of their team’s medical staffs. It will be awesome to see lots of long home runs by a bunch of artificially enhanced freaks. We can also squeeze the good defensive players out of the game again and just load up every lineup with muscleheads who will hit the inevitable three run homer. Screw those puritans who object. A bunch of luddites who embrace modern technology like eyeglasses to enhance their own lifestyles while depriving us of 10-8 ballgames.

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jul 18, 2012 at 11:34 AM

      It’s a mat, where you jump…to conclusions….

      • CJ - Jul 18, 2012 at 11:48 AM

        you win, yep, that’s exactly what’ll happen. Comparing MLB to WWE is a perfectly valid argument that no one can possibly refute.

        Legalizing roids won’t do anything you say, otherwise 1) it would’ve already happened back when Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, Clemens, etc were already doing anything and everything they wanted and 2) MLB would be fake/scripted, staged, whatever you’d like to call it.

        But other than that, I completely agree with you.

      • stlouis1baseball - Jul 18, 2012 at 3:58 PM

        “Except you just proved his point.”
        What the hell? I wasn’t trying to prove or dissprove anything.
        Just stating PED’s were used by numerous players…of all abilities.
        You know…taking part in the conversation.

        You don’t even realize how argumentative you get sometimes do you?
        Over the pissiest little things Man.
        Geesh Church. Have a drink.

  14. hittfamily - Jul 18, 2012 at 11:29 AM

    He’s right. Not in your interpreatation that some AAAer would take Barry Bond’s place, but in the interpretation that great legitimate careers look marginal compared to the cheaters. Fred McGriff is a superstar, paid like a superstar, and enshrined as a superstar without Sammy Sosa, Mark McGwire, Barry Bonds, Jose Canseco, Arod, Brady Anderson and Lugo.

    30 legitimate jacks will never compare to 40-50 illigitimate jacks. Great baseball players were marginalized because of 1 hit wonders, and lifelong cheaters. Hell, Chipper Jones only made 7 all-star games til this year. He is a legitimate superstar, a top 3 3rd baseman to ever play, a top 3 switch hitter to ever play. In the voting public’s eyes though, he’s only good enough to be voted a all star starter 4 times.

    • CJ - Jul 18, 2012 at 11:50 AM

      Craig will hate me for this as he’s a Braves fan and all, but just for the sake of playing devil’s advocate, how do you know McGriff wasn’t a user too, who was actually just a fringe guy without them but ended up having a very good if not borderline HOF career?

      Just sayin.

      • ksbuff - Jul 18, 2012 at 12:11 PM

        Isn’t this the main argument for letting dopers in the Hall? We don’t know the full extent of steroids in the game, and so it’s unfair to just punish those that were stupid enough to get caught or admit they used.

        Then again the legal seems to be a strong proponent if this type of justice…

      • CJ - Jul 18, 2012 at 12:17 PM

        Perhaps, but if you throw out the Pro-hall argument that “if we don’t know the full extend of who did and who didn’t, then let em all in”, then you have to throw out this argument as well that “if you throw out the known users then how do you know the next tier of guys didn’t use as well”. It’s the same logic, only flipped around.

        Can’t have it both ways.

      • ksbuff - Jul 18, 2012 at 12:21 PM

        I don’t want to throw them out. See my original response to hitt.

      • savvybynature - Jul 18, 2012 at 2:02 PM

        I don’t think the point he was making was that Fred “the Crime Dog” McGriff never used PEDs, it was that some players’ legitimate success was marginalized by other players’ decision to cheat.

        Unless you believe every single player of that era was a PED user, it’s a valid point regardless of whether The Crime Dog was juicing, he was just an example.

      • CJ - Jul 18, 2012 at 2:07 PM

        My point is just that you can’t have it both ways, you can’t exclude those from the hall that you THINK used, and you can’t over-inflate the accomplishments of those who you THINK didn’t use by putting them in the hall when they were very good. We don’t know who’s who. Maybe if they released the full Mitchell report, you could at least make a case that we do.

        The names are irrelevant, I’m just saying you can’t have it both ways.

      • bozosforall - Jul 24, 2012 at 10:18 PM

        The Mitchell Report was garbage. Still waiting to see even ONE POSITIVE TEST RESULT for Clemens. David Ortiz tested positive in 2003, denies ever using in the face of that leaked positive result, yet continues to get a pass. This entire argument is a joke, especially given that MLB is really the ones at fault here for not policing things properly.

    • ksbuff - Jul 18, 2012 at 12:00 PM

      Beyond that is the unknown number of clean hitters/pitchers that were directly disadvantaged by playing against cheaters. As Frank points out it is a zero sum game; either the pitcher wins or the hitter wins. If either party is playing with the deck stacked in his favor it decreases his opponent’s odds.

      To be clear, I side with those in favor of letting dopers in the Hall, but I think DeFord made a solid point here.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jul 18, 2012 at 1:17 PM

        As Frank points out it is a zero sum game

        Except it’s really not. Rosters may be a zero sum game, but the argument that steroids might have kept some deserving 25th player on the roster is faulty if you are going to talk about Clemens/Bonds/Arod. Those people didn’t keep the 25th guy from playing. Guys like Alex Sanchez and Jeremy Giambi, those people did. But no on rails against those guys and ‘roids, because no one cares.

      • hittfamily - Jul 18, 2012 at 1:36 PM

        I’m in the party of keep them out. If Bonds, Sosa, Palmeiro, Sheffield, Giambi, McGwire, Arod, Brady, Canseco, and Juan Gon had never existed, John Olerud’s career looks very good. Perhaps he is the best legitimate ballplayer of that group. He is the last player to go straight from high school to the majors. He was the best player of the bunch at 18 years old, and perhaps without the help of illegal practices by his competition, he still would be. We will never know, but I don’t think a cheater should be rewarded after his career is over, FOR CHEATING! They were already rewarded handsomely with massive paychecks, but I can’t look back at them and think “they were better than their opponent, regardless of the fact they had an advantage their opponent didn’t”.

        And don’t try the “maybe John Olerud, Greg Maddux, and Fred McGriff were on steroids too” argument. Maybe Bill Clinton bribed the Arkansas Bar to become a lawyer. Maybe George Bush bought the Rangers with cash printed on his Epson. If you are caught, you are guilty, if not, you are not guilty.

        I am reminded of the Judge who was caught taking bribes to sentence juveniles to long sentences at private juvenile prisons. No one assumed every judge did this, but the one engaged in illegal practices will never be rewarded with a seat on the supreme court. It doesn’t mean his peers should be looked over though, even though they weren’t as successful in their time behind the bench as this judge was, until he got caught.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jul 18, 2012 at 2:25 PM

        if you are caught, you are guilty, if not, you are not guilty.

        Except there’s a difference between being not-guilty and innocent. OJ was not-guilty of murdering his wife, but was he innocent? Derek Jeter hasn’t been shown to use steroids, does that mean he hasn’t?

        He is the last player to go straight from high school to the majors.

        John Olerud was drafted in ’89 out of Washington State University. He was drafted out of HS in ’86.

        http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?id=olerud002joh

      • hittfamily - Jul 18, 2012 at 4:45 PM

        Yeah, I remembered wrong. Olerud is the last player to play a game in the MLB without going to the minors first. Chris Sale recently did this, but the point is still fair.

        OJ Simpson has no relevancy in this. We are talking about the court of public opinion, not the judicial system. The players I mentioned will never be tried for using steroids. They may be tried for purjury, but not simply abusing drugs.

        If tangible evidence ever comes out that player x used, whether it is Jeter, Maddux, Olerud, or McGriff, they should be branded cheaters. Not just cheaters, but their statistics are illigitimate.

        If it is ever proven that the moon landing was filmed in a Hollywood studio, would we still claim Neil Armstrong was the first man on the moon?

      • ksbuff - Jul 18, 2012 at 8:26 PM

        Holy sh**, Church. Did you even read my post before you replied?

        I was not commenting on the nature of users keeping a deserving player off the roster. That’s a stupid argument, and if that’s the argument DeFord was making he’s an idiot. Hitt and I were discussing the validity of the point that a user could unfairly undermine his opponents. If Bonds’ reaction times were decreased to the point where he could act a fraction of a second after non-users then he had an unfair advantage. Unfair to other hitters and unfair to the pitchers playing against him.

  15. js20011041 - Jul 18, 2012 at 11:32 AM

    Deford looks like he would have been real smooth with the ladies back in the 70’s. That’s all I have to contribute here.

  16. Max Power - Jul 18, 2012 at 11:49 AM

    I can think of two clean players who were hurt by Bonds’ steroids use: Roger Maris and Hank Aaron. (Self-satisfied stiff…….)

    • addictedzone - Jul 18, 2012 at 12:24 PM

      As a Roger Maris fan, I can honestly say It would be hard for Bonds to have hurt Maris. Roger was dead before Barry hit his first major league homerun. If anything, the steroid era actually brought attention back to Maris.

  17. hatesycophants - Jul 18, 2012 at 12:00 PM

    Not my point at all, and the suggestion that DeFord hasn’t written anything of value in “several” years is not unnoticed. In fact, unless you can provide an example of anything you’ve written that’s better than what Frank left in the toilet this morning, you don’t get call out Frank DeFord. That’s my point. You, specifically, don’t get to critique a legitimate sportswriter. That is all.

    • ksbuff - Jul 18, 2012 at 12:17 PM

      So getting paid to write for a major sports network doesn’t make Craig a “legitimate sportswriter?” I’m sorry, which newspaper did you say you wrote for?

      • stmiller02 - Jul 18, 2012 at 2:22 PM

        Ksbuff…
        Youre correct that anyone who writes sports is technically probably a sportswriter, but Craig (remember I’m a lawyer) C is by no means a sports journalist. He readily admits that his junk is mere opinion. DeFord has been a decorated sports journalist for decades.

        Here is where the difference comes in that Craig ignores… Craig can never rightly claim to be a journalist anymore than Frank DeFord can claim to be a lawyer. However, if Frank wants to he can step far down to Craig’s level and rant mere opinion, which I think he did in the quoted piece.

        But in no way is Craig in DeFords class in terms of sports journalism or in my opinion even in sport writing, Craig would be a fool to claim otherwise.

    • hittfamily - Jul 18, 2012 at 1:39 PM

      detroitfanatic did a lot better job at defending Sportswriting the last time a Deford post was up than you did.

    • Matt S - Jul 24, 2012 at 2:52 PM

      It’s wonderfully ironic that someone named “hatesycophants” is exhibiting such a sycophantic attitude toward Frank DeFord.

    • bozosforall - Jul 24, 2012 at 10:24 PM

      @hatessycophants,

      Using your same logic, you nor anyone else here gets to criticize a single pro athlete unless they can do better on the field of play.

      Guess that’s the end of HBT, folks.

  18. sisqsage - Jul 18, 2012 at 12:46 PM

    Did this guy just walk off the old set of the Munsters?

  19. hatesycophants - Jul 18, 2012 at 1:29 PM

    I love it when some hump shills for a guy who likely wouldn’t piss down his throat if his heart was on fire. The comparison isn’t between me and anyone. The comparison is between a legitimate sportswriter and some douche on the internet. You obviously lack the ability to differentiate between the two. Enjoy!

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jul 18, 2012 at 2:26 PM

      Your name is hatesycophants and you’ve done nothing but verbally fellate Frank DeFord. Seems a bit ironic doesn’t it?

      • stlouis1baseball - Jul 18, 2012 at 3:59 PM

        Again…argumentative.

    • Joe - Jul 18, 2012 at 2:37 PM

      I love the soundness of this reasoning. Hey, since you’re just some pseudonymous douche commenter, you have no right to criticize a “legitimate” sports blogger. Never mind whether the criticism itself has any merit. Only arguments from those with the proper credentials will be heard!

  20. ezwriter69 - Jul 18, 2012 at 2:41 PM

    Calcaterra slamming Deford… now that has to be the most preposterous thing you’ve ever posted, and that’s a high standard given the TMZ wannabe crappola you slap up here with zero regard for fact or logic every day. You slamming Deford would be like Justin Bieber slamming Sinatra or Pavarotti… you just look laughably pathetic, far worse even than Simmons versus Reilly. Talk about a warped self-aggrandizing perception of yourself… get some professional help, and I’m not talking about taking a writing or journalism class or ten.

  21. hatesycophants - Jul 18, 2012 at 3:43 PM

    See? That’s the difference. Frank Deford is not a sports “blogger”. Mike Lupica is not a sports “blogger”. Mitch Albom is not a sports “blogger”. I have no allegiance to DeFord specifically. My allegiance is to journalism and writing in general, which are being murdered by douche bags on the internet calling themselves sportswriters….errrrr… sports bloggers.

Leave Comment

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

Featured video

Cubs shore up rotation with Jon Lester
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. W. Myers (4721)
  2. M. Kemp (3743)
  3. M. Cabrera (2930)
  4. J. Kang (2801)
  5. J. Upton (2644)
  1. M. Morse (2628)
  2. W. Middlebrooks (2329)
  3. A. Rios (2288)
  4. C. McGehee (2244)
  5. C. Headley (2215)