The Baseball Hall of Fame's Quiet War Against Barry Bonds

While the NFL was commanding the majority of controversial headlines with the Ray Rice suspension story, and while we baseball fans were all celebrating the greatness of several worthwhile inductees into the Hall of Fame, the Baseball Hall of Fame quietly released news that will have a thunderous impact on the future of the Hall.

Recently eligible and future players will now have 10 years of eligibility on the ballot, instead of the previous 15 years.

In a vacuum, I would support this change. ESPN posted a list of players elected in their 11th through 15th years of eligibility, and while they're all fine players, none is a guy who the Hall can't do without: Ralph Kiner, Bob Lemon, Duke Snider, Bruce Sutter, Jim Rice, and Bert Blyleven. In general, I would expect a true Hall of Fame player to be elected in their first couple of years of eligiblity.

So what's the problem? Well, true Hall of Fame players aren't being elected in their first couple of years of eligibility. Barry Bonds is literally the best player ever; alright, maybe not, but the list of guys who were better than him is shorter than ten. And he's unarguably one of the great players of his generation. Those guys get in.

But he's not the only one. Roger Clemens's career and season-by-season numbers are insane. He ranks third all time in strikeouts, ninth all time in wins, and first all time in career Cy Young awards (he won it seven different times). His all-time Wins Above Replacement is 140.3, good enough for eighth in the history of baseball. The number of pitchers he's behind is exactly two: Walter Johnson, and the guy whose award he kept winning, Cy Young.

I think personally that Mark McGwire belongs in the Hall of Fame too, but I'm not going to be able to explain why in a blurb here. Maybe that'll be an article down the line.

In 2014, Clemens and Bonds respectively received 35.4% and 34.7% of the vote, both small declines from the previous year.

The important point here is that these are legends of the game that now have five fewer years to have their infractions forgotten, their opponents' stances softened. Neither player was ever suspended for PEDs during their playing careers, most of which spanned the period during which baseball couldn't give a flying f- whether or not its players were juicing. But in the court of public opinion, they're currently serving a sentence of as-yet-undetermined length. Those five additional years would extend the window of time during which players like Bonds and Clemens could engage fans, speak with the media, and redevelop (or in Bonds' case develop for the first time) goodwill with the public at large. On a shortened timeline, it's unclear whether they'll get that chance.

Of course, when specifically asked, the Hall of Fame said that PEDs had no impact on the decision to shorten the gap. Their timing is conspicuous in its proximity to the beginning of "steroid era" players becoming eligible. But even if the decision isn't related, its impact is profound. I was always of a mind that, eventually, baseball writers would get over their faux outrage and acknowledge the greatness that we saw. But pride is a real thing, and that process takes time.

For Bonds and Clemens, the clock is ticking.

Baseball's Suspension Rampage

The more I'm reading about the complex situation regarding Biogenesis and the several players who may or may not be suspended as a result of the information obtained from the clinic, the more nauseous I'm getting.

Baseball is obviously very concerned with their checkered history when it comes to drug suspensions. Even before the sport tested for steroids, Steve Howe was famously suspended seven different times for drug use. His usage was not "performance-enchancing" though; he fought a battle with alcohol and cocaine abuse, substances that we know absolutely do irreparable and dramatic damage to your body. Baseball found its way to forgive Howe seven different times, but it now appears resolved to forgive Alex Rodriguez roughly zero times.

Alex Rodriguez was discovered to have been using steroids during the 2003 season, the first season that baseball tested for steroids, during a "survey" season in which players' tests would remain anonymous, and whose results would be used to determine whether or not mandatory steroid testing would ensue. That season, 104 different players tested positive for steroid use. Of those 104, I can find news of seven actual names that have been confirmed: Rodriguez, David Ortiz, Manny Ramirez, Sammy Sosa, David Segui, Larry Bigbie, and Jason Grimsley. None of those players were suspended/fined/had a finger wagged at them for those test results, presumably because A) they were supposed to remain confidential forever, and B) baseball didn't have a true anti-steroids policy at the time.

But there's something in that list that should give you pause. Look at it again. I'll wait.

Did you find it? It's Manny Ramirez. Manny tested positive in 2009, was banned for 50 games, and returned. Then he tested positive again in 2011, was banned for 100 games, and chose to retire rather than face the suspension. Eventually he decided he wanted to return to baseball, and was able to negotiate the second suspension down to 50 games. He's played in the minor leagues a bit, and likely won't return to major league action ever again, not as a result of discipline for substance abuse, but simply because he's 41 years old and can't really hit anymore.

So here's the information we have:

Manny Ramirez
Tested positive in 2003
Tested positive again in 2009, suspended 50 games
Tested positive again in 2011, suspended 100 games (later reduced)

Alex Rodriguez
Tested positive in 2003

Found to have been receiving illegal treatments from a clinic
Potential lifetime ban

What in the ever-loving shit is going on here?

The evidence suggests that Rodriguez should be treated the same as Ramirez, but that's not what's happening. A-Rod is getting railroaded because he's not well-liked, and because baseball really doesn't want him to hit enough home runs to bypass their precious records. It says something when baseball would rather let Barry Bonds hold onto a record than risk letting you overtake him.

But it's all garbage. Baseball is trying to do something that U.S. law prohibits, which is to punish Rodriguez for attempting to exercise his collectively bargained right to defend himself. From this article on Yahoo by Ronald Blum of the Associated Press:

Major League Baseball is threatening to kick A-Rod out of the game for life unless the New York star agrees not to fight a lengthy suspension for his role in the sport's latest drug scandal, according to a person familiar with the discussions...Whether Commissioner Bud Selig would actually issue a lifetime suspension was unclear and a permanent ban could be shortened by arbitrator Fredric Horowitz to about 200 games, the person said.

Now listen. Nobody really likes Alex Rodriguez. He's a Yankee, he's wealthy, and he's a cheater. That trifecta is going to net you an awful lot of disdain. But he's entitled to be treated the same as his peers. Major League Baseball set a precedent with Manny Ramirez. He was a big name player who'd had a prolific career and was still productive, he tested positive, and he was suspended for 50 games. You can't force Rodriguez to be suspended for four times as long just because you don't like the guy.

I've never had a vendetta for steroid users. A couple of steroid users pretty much saved baseball after the strike that cost us a World Series (and may have cost Montreal their baseball team). They're committing a crime, so I'm on board with them getting punished, but after you establish the punishments, you can't just change them willy-nilly. It destroys your credibility and creates uncertainty for players/owners/teams. But more than anything else, it's distasteful and vindictive. I hope that's not what 21st century baseball is about.

Steroids v. Rape

Mark McGwire has been demonized for having used steroids and (until recently) not admitting so. Barry Bonds continues to be shunned from baseball because the belief is that major league fans won't tolerate their team signing him, because of the assumption, most likely correct, that he used performance-enhancing substances during his career.

Lawrence Taylor is a member of the NFL Hall of Fame, despite a fairly long rap sheet. Will he be removed from it if this most recent (and most heinous) charge sticks? Is cheating at your job more horrible than rape? It can't be, right?

I'm trying not to rush to judgment, trying not to assume that Taylor is guilty before he's been given a chance to defend himself. But if he ends up being guilty of this crime, the NFL has to step up and say, "Despite his amazing on-field performances, we refuse to be associated with Lawrence Taylor any further. While his statistics will remain in our record books, he has been removed from the NFL Hall of Fame."

And the media needs to react with similar disgust. Otherwise, keeping McGwire and Bonds out of the baseball Hall of Fame is just petulant.