Ladies and Gentlemen, your 2014 Hall Of Fame Class

A year ago the Hall of Fame induction weekend was a disappointment.  Some long time worthy individuals (Hank O'Day, Jacob Ruppert and Deacon White) were voted in by the veteran's committee, although, they were given little attention since the BBWAA failed to vote anyone into the Hall of Fame.

I have already discussed what makes a Hall of Fame player and why I feel the voters missed out on voting in some very deserving candidates.  I certainly encourage you to read those articles, however, I don't want to distract from the inductees this season who are clear Hall of Fame players.

Without further delay, here is your Hall of Fame Class of 2014:

Photo of Bobby Cox Courtesy of Sports Illustrated.com

Bobby Cox
Bobby Cox the player spent the majority of his team in the minors bouncing from minor league team to minor league team and organization to organization.  Drafted as a minor leaguer in 1959 by the Dodgers.  He went from the Dodgers to the Cubs to the Braves to the Yankees.  If the organizations were not enough, the stops throughout the minors were even greater:  Reno, Panama City, Salem, Great Falls, Albuquerque, Salt Lake City, Austin, Tacoma, Richmond, Syracuse and Fort Lauderdale.  In all that time he spent one and a half seasons in the majors.

By 1978 Cox was back in the majors but not as a player, as a manager.  He was hired by the struggling Braves organization to turn around the bottom dweller.  With the Reds and Dodgers at the top of the division, the Braves were rebuilding around a young group led by Dale Murphy, Ken Oberkfell, Bruce Benedict and Glenn Hubbard.  His first tenure in Atlanta lasted four seasons.  It was not a success.  Cox was replaced at the end of the 1981 season by Joe Torre.

Cox moved on to take over another struggling organization, the Toronto Blue Jays.  Toronto had only been in the league since 1977 and struggled to compete with the Red Sox, Tigers, Orioles and Yankees.  Even the Brewers were improving ahead of the expansion Jays.  Although the talent was blossoming with Alfredo Griffin, Ernie Whitt, Lloyd Moseby and Jesse Barfield in place the Blue Jays still finished in 6th place.  They slowly improved moving up to 4th in 1983 and 2nd in 1984, even putting a scare into the nearly unbeatable Tigers.  1985 was the Blue Jays year.  They ended the year in the top AL East perch, ahead of one of the most talented teams not to make the playoffs in the Yankees.  They got ahead to a three games to one lead in the ALCS.  It was the first year the series went to the best of seven format.  The Blue Jays then became the first team to lose an ALCS when leading 3-1.  The tough loss was Cox's last game as manager in Toronto.  The tough loss would also become the theme of his career.

Cox was named Manager of the Year, left Toronto and was hired on as the General Manager of the Braves.  As General Manager Bobby Cox was responsible for the acquisition of Kent Merker, Mike Stanton, Keith Mitchell, Brian Hunter, Lonnie Smith, Mark Wohlers, Ryan Klesko, Glavine, Avery, Greg Olson, Gant, Justice, Smoltz and Chipper Jones.  The team that was in place when Cox took over as General Manager was much less talented as the Braves were struggling at the bottom of the division.  Cox knew the team had talent in the pipeline and he also felt that manager Russ Nixon was not the man to lead them.  In 1989, with the Braves in last place, Cox replaced Nixon in the dugout.  Everyone could see that the Braves had talent, but they were thought to be a few years away.  The 1990 team finished in last and the slow climb to the top was just beginning.  Cox, however, turned things around quickly.  He knew this talent better than anyone and in 1991 he took the Braves to the playoffs for the first time since 1982.  They came within an eyelash of winning it all and Cox was named Manager of the Year for the second time.  The Braves would not miss the playoffs again until 2006.  During this successful run (1991-2006) the Braves would reach the World Series five times and won the World Series in 1995.  During the run of success he faced off against his Hall of Fame Classmate managers four times (twice against LaRussa's Cardinals and twice against Torre's Yankees).  When he retired after the 2010 season, his 29th season as manager, Cox had 2504 career managerial wins, four Manager of the Year Awards, a World Series title and the record for the most career ejections as a manager.  The 2504 wins places him fourth on the all time list behind Connie Mack, John McGraw and Tony LaRussa.

Photo of Tom Glavine Courtesy of Sporting News.com

Tom Glavine
On June 4, 1984 in the second round of the major league draft, Tom Glavine was drafted by the Atlanta Braves.  He was a young, skinny kid out of Massachusetts, he had a ton of potential but every kid being drafted had a ton of potential.  The important thing was not how much potential you had but what you did with the potential you had.  Tom Glavine did more than anyone could have possibly imagined.  He made his major league debut on August 17, 1987 and started against the defending NL West champions Houston Astros.  It did not end well.  In 3 2/3 innings he gave up 19 hits, walked 5 and allowed six runs.  The rest of the year would not be spectacular as he finished 2-4. 1988 would be worse as his record was 7-17.  But the Braves were building a team and Glavine was learning to pitch in the big leagues.  By 1991 he had everything figured out.  Glavine won 20 games for the first time as the Braves went from worst to first.  Glavine would go on to win 15 or more games 10 times.  In five of those years he won 20 or more,  As the Braves rotation changed all star after all star behind him, Glavine remained the ace.  Glavine helped a talented group lead the Braves to the playoffs every year from 1991-2002.  At the end of the 2002 season, Glavine became a free agent and signed with the division rival New York Mets.  All he did in New York was help lead the team to the 2006 NLCS with a 15-8 record.  Glavine retired in 2008.  When all was said and done Glavine finished with a 305-203 record, a 3.54 ERA, 2 Cy Young Awards (and four more finishes in the top 3 in voting) and ten All Star Appearances.  You can add to that 14  post season wins, a World Series Title and the 1995 World Series MVP.  Tom Glavine was without a doubt a first ballot Hall of Fame player.

Photo of Tony LaRussa Courtesy of Sporting News.com

Tony LaRussa
Tony LaRussa is one of the many talented players to come out of the Tampa, FL area.  Growing up in the large shadow of Al Lopez, the original Tampa area star, LaRussa was signed by the Kansas City Athletics in June of 1962.  LaRussa would play parts of six years with in the majors with the Athletics, Braves and Cubs.  His final career batting average was .199.  After retiring as a player LaRussa went back to school, graduated from Florida State University and passed the bar exam but continued coaching in the minor leagues.  Midway through the 1979 season LaRussa was hired to replace Don Kessinger as manager of the struggling Chicago White Sox franchise.  The team had not reached the post season since Al Lopez led the team to the 1959 World Series.  It seemed like a slow climb but the White Sox finally made the post season in 1983, although they were ousted in the ALCS by the eventual World Champion Orioles.  LaRussa would remain on as manager with the White Sox through mid 1986.  Unhappy with the direction the team was taking LaRussa walked away and was replaced by Doug Rader for a few games before Jim Fregosi officially took over.  He was not out of work long as he was very quickly hired by the Oakland A's.  Taking over a team that was 31-52 he led the team to a 45-34 record the rest of the year.  LaRussa went into the 1987 season with some strong young talent.  Jose Canseco had won the Rookie of the Year award in 1986.  The team also had young talent like McGwire, Walt Weiss, Tony Phillips, Stan Javier, Terry Steinbach and Mike Gallegos.  The core of the team was there.  Now they needed something to bring it all together.  The 1988 team took over the league and LaRussa was the genius behind it all.  The A's would go on to win the AL West four of the next five years and would reach the World Series three straight years, winning the 1989 World Series.  As the talent moved on and the reality of the new free agent system took it's toll, the A's struggled to compete with the other teams in the division.  LaRussa finished the 1995 season in Oakland and said goodbye.

He moved on to St.Louis where the Cardinals were rebuilding.  The team was transitioning from the end of the Whitey Herzog era and had a few failed seasons under Joe Torre.  LaRussa immediately got the team headed in the right direction.  The team advanced to the NLCS and jumped out to a 3 games to 2 lead over Bobby Cox and the Braves but failed to advance.  Cox would go on to lose to Joe Torre and the Yankees.  Just as he had done in Oakland, LaRussa would constantly have his team in a playoff fight.  LaRussa would spend 16 years in St. Louis.  His teams would reach the post season eight times.  This included three World Series appearances (2004, 2006 and 2011) and two World Series wins.  Adding the appearance with the White Sox, and the four in Oakland, this gave LaRussa 13 post season berths in a 33 year managerial career, Six world series appearances and three World Series titles.  He is third on the all time wins list. won four manager of the year awards and eight other times finished in the top three in voting.

Photo of Greg Maddux Courtesy of CBS Sports

Greg Maddux
In 1984  the Cubs made the NLCS for the first time, though it was with a collection of mostly over the hill stars.  They really needed to rebuild around Ryne Sandberg and Bob Dernier.  As part of that rebuilding process they made a shrewd move in the 1984 draft when they drafted a young Greg Maddux in the second round.  He made his debut in 1986 and finished with a record of 2-4.  His second year in the league was no better than Glavine's second year.  Maddux finished at 6-14.  1988 was the start of the greatness.  He went 18-8 and made the All Star Team for the first time.  1989 was even better at 19-12 and he finished third in Cy Young voting.  Over the next three years he continued to excel and gain the reputation alternately as "Mad Dog" for his fierceness on the mound and "the Professor" for his studious approach of charting every pitch to every batter.  1992 was his final year with the Cubs.  He went 20-11, made his second All Star appearance and won his first Cy Young Award.

During the offseason Maddux moved on to Atlanta, joining Avery, Glavine and Smoltz on what was already considered the best rotation in the game.  Maddux would continue to gain a reputation for his control, his dedication and his dominance.  He again won the Cy Young in 1993, 1994 and 1995 as the Braves continued to dominate the National League.  Maddux would remain with the Braves until 2003.  During his years there he would win three Cy Young awards (finishing in the top 5 an additional four times), appear in seven All Star Games and 9 Gold Gloves (added to the three he had already on in Chicago.  He won a total of 194 games in Atlanta in 11 years there.

 After the 2003 season Maddux was again a free agent and he decided to return to his roots where the Cubs appeared to be building a strong young team.  The Professor was beginning to show his age slightly (although he won 16 games) and the Cubs were not quite as good as originally believed.  Injuries took a major toll on the Cubs and midway through the 2006 season Maddux was traded to the Dodgers in the middle of a playoff run.  He helped the Dodgers with a 6-3 record but was not able to get them past the first round.  He spent 2007 with the Padres and finished the year at 14-11 as the Padres collapsed down the stretch and finished just out of the playoffs.  He started 2008 with the Padres but as the Dodgers made another run to the playoffs Maddux ended his career in blue.  The Dodgers could not overcome the Phillies and Maddux walked away after the year with the reputation of one of the greatest pitchers in the history of the game.

Maddux finished his career with four Cy Young Awards, 355 wins, 8 All Star appearances, 18 Gold Gloves, 11 career playoff wins and one World Series title.

Photo of Frank Thomas Courtesy of Sports Illustrated

Frank Thomas
Last summer I was having a conversation with a good friend and fellow baseball fan when the name of Frank Thomas came up.  The friend said he felt that Thomas was one of the most disappointing franchise players in history.  While it is certainly true that Thomas did not lead the White Sox to the World Series he certainly can't be called disappointing.

Thomas was drafted in 1989 with the 7th overall pick and joined a franchise with one post season appearance in the previous thirty years.  The team had gone through rebuilding after rebuilding and finally had the player that would lead them to the post season.  Thomas made an immediate impact on the organization.  The White Sox went almost over night from a bottom of the league, after thought to an annual playoff contender.  Thomas was the unquestioned leader of the group.  In 1991, his first full year in the league, he began a streak of greatness that produced 8 straight years over 100 RBI, 6 straight years over 20 Home Runs (all but two of those above 30) and seven straight years above .300.  To be honest, Thomas was a bit of a throw back.  In an era where it became accepted for players like McGwire, Canseco, and Prince Fielder to strike out 100-150 times a year and hit .250 or so, as long as they drove the ball over the fence, Thomas was the opposite.  In the prime years of his career, as he was challenging for the triple crown each year, his strike outs were below 100 (with the exception of his first full year with 112 years).  Ironically, for a man who was nicknamed the Big Hurt, he never led the league in Home Runs or RBI.  He did, however, win a batting title in 1997.  Thomas made five All Star Games during these years, won two consecutive MVP's and became the face of the White Sox organization.

It was 2001 when injuries started to truly take their toll.  Frank's father passed away early in the season and a few days later he learned that he needed season ending surgery to repair a torn bicep.  It would happen at the worst of times.  As Thomas continued to fight back to regain his place at the top of the league, Bonds, McGwire, Sosa and seemingly everyone in the league was getting stronger.  Thomas would continue to put up impressive numbers but his injuries crept up with his age.  As the White Sox picked up Paul Konerko, Thomas's playing time diminished.  Sadly, as the White Sox pushed to their first World Series win since 1917, Thomas sat by and watched.

He moved on to the Athletics for the 2006 season and was a big reason for the A's reaching the ALCS.  He hit .270 with 39 Home Runs (impressive in the cavernous Oakland Coliseum) and drove in 114 runs and finished fourth in MVP voting.  He played 2007 in Toronto on what was expected to be a playoff contender.  Thomas certainly had a good season with 26 Home Runs, 95 RBI and a .277 average.  The rest of the talent did not contribute as hoped and the Jays fell flat.  He returned to start the 2008 season with the Jays but after just 16 games Thomas was released. He resigned with the A's and finished his year out with 55 games in Oakland.

When all was said and done Thomas finished his career with two MVP awards (four other top five finishes), 495 doubles, 521 Home Runs, 1704 RBI and a .301 average.  What was more, in an era when players were routinely suspected of steroid use with little or no proof, there was never a question that Thomas had played the right way.

Photo Courtesy of Sports Illustrated

Joe Torre
As a player Joe Torre was a 9 time All Star, an MVP and a very respected Catcher with the Braves, Cardinals and Mets.  He played in over 2000 career games but never played on a team that reached the playoffs.  With 2342 hits, 252 career Home Runs and 1185 RBI Torre's playing career got him some consideration for the Hall but he fell far short of induction.

Torre played his final games in 1977 with the Mets.  45 games into the season he became the player manager for the Mets.  The Mets were in between the Seaver era and the Strawberry-Gooden era and the team was suffering.  At no point did the team finish higher than 4th.  At the end of the 1981 season Torre left the Mets.

There was another National League team that needed a manager as Bobby Cox had moved on from the Braves to the Blue Jays.  Torre stepped in for Atlanta and led the Braves to their first playoff appearance since 1969.  It was an encouraging start but it didn't last.  The Braves fell to second place in his second year and third in his third year. He had no more chances to guide the Braves.

Near the end of the 1990 season he got one more chance at the helm.  This time it was in St.Louis and he replaced the legendary Cardinals manager Whitey Herzog.  He took over a Cardinals team in transition.  The core of the Cardinals team (Pendleton, Tudor, Cox, Coleman, Lonnie Smith, Milt Thompson) were gone.  In their place were young talent like Pagnozzi, Zeile, Gilkey and Whitten.  The pitching was not quite good enough and the Cardinals struggled.  The team was accused of under achieving with a string of second and third place finishes and part way through the 1995 season Torre was let go and labeled as a failure.  He was replaced in St.Louis with Tony LaRussa

Meanwhile, in New York, George Steinbrenner had grown upset with manager Buck Showalter.  Despite leading the Yankees to their first post season appearance since 1981, Steinbrenner constantly questioned Showalter's decisions.  When Torre became available, Steinbrenner demanded that the Yankees get him.  The Yankees baseball people told Steinbrenner that Torre was not the right man for the job.  Torre, they said, had failed with the talented Cardinals and the fact that LaRussa took them to the NLCS in their first year was proof that Torre wouldn't work.  Steinbrenner wanted him anyway.  In his first year in New York Torre took the Yankees to the World Series and faced Bobby Cox's Braves, who had beaten LaRussa's (formerly Torre's) Cardinals in the NLCS).  The Braves jumped out to a 2 games to 0 lead but the Yankees battled back and won the World Series, their first since 1978.  It was the start an unimaginably successful stretch for the Yankees.  They won the World Series again in 1998, 1999 and 2000 and came within an extra innings loss of winning the 2001 World Series.  The Yankees, under Torre's leadership, became the dominant team in baseball.  They were once again the powerhouse of Ruth, Gehrig, DiMaggio, Mantle, Munson and Jackson.  The team made the playoffs every year under Torre's leadership until 2007.  Unfortunately for Torre, despite the poor performance of the high priced free agents, Torre took the blame.  He was unceremoniously fired by Steinbrenner following the 2007 season.

Just as happened after he left St.Louis, he was not unemployed long.  The Dodgers quickly hired Torre to lead the team.  In his first year with the team, he led the Dodgers to the NLCS.  It was the first time the Dodgers had won a playoff series since Kirk Gibson's dramatic 1988 Home Run.  They fought tooth and nail (and very nearly hand to hand) with the Phillies who won a dramatic, tight, tense series.  With the help of Manny Ramirez, the Dodgers became a serious contender.  2009 saw Ramirez suspended for PED's but with the emergence of Ethier, Kemp and Russell Martin, the Dodgers again advanced to the NLCS. Again they fought the Phillies and it looked like they were set to take control of the series when Jimmy Rollins broke the heart of Dodger fans with an RBI triple to tip the series back in the Phillies direction.  The 2010 season was a disaster for the Dodgers as Johnathon Broxton struggled in the bull pen, Russell Martin injured himself and Matt Kemp fought with Torre and the coaching staff.  While this was going on the ownership group was tearing itself apart in divorce court.  At the end of the year Torre walked away.  He currently works for the Commissioner's office.  Torre retired with 2326 regular season wins, six World Series appearances and four World Series victories.

TRIVIA QUESTION:

Connie Mack, John McGraw, Tony LaRussa, Bobby Cox and Joe Torre make up the top five winningest managers of all time.  Who rounds out the top 10?

Answer to Last Week's Question:
Cy Young first pitched in the Major Leagues in 1890.  The World Series as we know it would not start until 1903.  In 1892 the Cleveland Spiders took on the Boston Beaneaters in the National League Championship Series.  Cy Young appeared in this championship series but his Cleveland Spiders lost 5-0 with 1 tie game.  When the American League opened for business in 1901 Cy Young signed with the new Boston franchise and when they took on Pittsburgh in the 1903 World Series, the first ever, Young and Bill Dinneeen were the aces of the Boston staff.  Young went 2-1 with a 1.85 ERA in  four appearances.  Boston beat Pittsburgh in the first ever World Series

The Hall of Fame Controversy Part 3: What Makes a Hall of Fame Player?

Over the last two weeks I hope I have opened up for discussion some of the issues that exist in the Hall of Fame process.  Even if you don't agree with everything (or anything) I have said I hope it has at least made you reflect on your own views a little.  Whether it has made you think a little bit deeper or even if it has made you a little more firm in your original opinion I hope you have enjoyed the articles.  This week we will end our three part series by asking what is probably the most basic question of the Hall of Fame Controversy:  What does it take to become a Hall of Fame player?

There are specific guidelines provided to the voters.  The Baseball Writers Association of America says that consideration for the Hall of Fame is based on the following guidelines in Rule 3 of the voting procedure:

A. A baseball player must have been active as a player in the Major Leagues at some time during a        period beginning twenty (20) years before and ending five (5) years prior to election.

B. Player must have played in each of ten (10) Major League championship seasons, some part of which must have been within the period described in A.

C. Player shall have ceased to be an active player in the Major Leagues at least five (5) calendar years preceding the election but may be otherwise connected with baseball.

D. In case of the death of an active player or a player who has been retired for less than five (5) full years, a candidate who is otherwise eligible shall be eligible in the next regular election held at least six (6) months after the date of death or after the end of the five (5) year period, whichever occurs first.

E. Any player on Baseball's ineligible list shall not be an eligible candidate.

These instructions under Rule 3 are fairly straight forward.  Under Rule 5 there comes a bit of a gray area.  Rule 5 states:  "Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played."

This is the extent of the information the voters have to go on for deciding who gets into the Hall of Fame.  There are certain milestones that "guarantee" (or used to anyways) a player will reach the Hall of Fame.  For a batter a .300 lifetime average, 3000 career hits or 500 career Home Runs usually get you into the Hall of Fame automatically.  For a pitcher 300 wins generally is considered the magic number.

So if the only guidelines are the ones set forth above how do we decide what actually makes someone a Hall of Fame player?  Supposedly the voting is based on "integrity, sportsmanship, character" as well as the actual performance.  The voters last year took a moral stand and wouldn't vote for anyone from the "steroid era" based only on them having played in the steroid era.  At the same time the same people seem to have no issues with having Ty Cobb (a racist, vicious, angry man who was hated by most of his era), Rogers Hornsby (a member of the KKK) or Phil Niekro (a notorious junk ball pitcher often suspected of doctoring the ball) as Hall of Fame members.

It would be interesting to see how these members would vote on players who did what they could to stand in the way of Jackie Robinson breaking the color barrier.  Enos Slaughter, who notoriously spiked Jackie at first base in Jackie's first season is an example.  Enos is definitely not the only Hall of Fame member who reacted strongly against Jackie but his interaction with Jackie was the most notorious.  It would be interesting to see how voters who took a moral stand against the "cheaters" of the current era would have felt about voting for someone like Slaughter.

This all still doesn't answer what makes a Hall of Fame player.  Is it just numbers?  If a pitcher wins a certain number of games does it make them a Hall of Fame player?  If so why are Red Ruffing (273), Burleigh Grimes (270), Jim Palmer (268), Bob Feller (266) , Eppa Rixey (266) and Ted Lyons (260) Hall of Fame members but Jim Kaat (283) is not a member?

There are some extra criteria that are generally accepted (but not written into the rules) as reasons to place someone in the Hall of Fame.  If someone was considered dominant at their position for their era they are considered a Hall of Famer. If you cannot tell the story of the game without mentioning their name they are considered a Hall of Fame player.  If they played a considerable part in the success of a long  lasting playoff run (Yankees, Giants, Dodgers, Cardinals dynasities are heavily represented) or they revolutionized the game in some way they are considered a Hall of Fame player.  If you have a single, defining moment that all fans instinctively pointed to when the player's name is mentioned it is considered a great credential.

Keep in mind as well that there are different levels of Hall of Fame caliber players.  Clearly players like Babe Ruth, Henry Aaron, Joe DiMaggio, Walter Johnson, Willie Mays and Jackie Robinson are in the top 1% of players all time. Players like Richie Ashburn, Orlando Cepeda, Johnny Mize, Arky Vaughn and Rick Ferrell are great players in the history of the game and belong in the Hall of Fame but they are not on the same level as the top 1% of all time.

I have two examples for you that should draw attention to the question of what makes a Hall of Fame player.  Keep in mind that both examples are of players who have not made the Hall of Fame as of this posting.

Example 1:
If a player won more games than any other pitcher during the 1980s (at the same time that pitchers like Nolan Ryan, Bert Blyleven and Roger Clemens were pitching)  would you consider them a Hall of Fame pitcher?

If that same player ended their career with 254 victories (more wins than Carl Hubbell, Al Spalding, Bob Gibson, Vic Willis, Joe McGinity, Amos Rusie, Juan Marichal, Herb Pennock, Three Finger Brown, Clark Griffith, Waite Hoyt, Whitey Ford, Jim Bunning, Catfish Hunter, Stan Coveleski, Chief Bender, Jesse Haines, Don Drysdale, Bob Lemon, Hal Newhouser, Rube Marquard, Dazzy Vance, Ed Walsh, Rube Waddell, Lefty Gomez, Sandy Koufax, John Montgomery Ward, Candy Cummings and Hoyt Wilhelm) including a no-hitter, would that person be a Hall of Fame player?

That same player won 20 games or more three times in his career (including 21 at the age of 36).  This pitcher never won a Cy Young award but he finished in the top five in voting five times in his career.  Three of those years the winner was a future Hall of Fame member.  Would you consider that Hall of Fame credentials?

This player was the unquestioned ace on four playoff teams, including three World Series winners.    During his time in the playoffs he won a total of seven games (including two of the four wins in the 1984 World Series and two of the four World Series wins in the 1991 World Series).    Finally, if this pitcher, at the age of 36, pitched a 10 inning complete game shut out in the deciding game of the World Series would that be a Hall of Fame pitcher?

This resume belongs to Jack Morris.  Jack Morris is still not in the Hall of Fame mostly because people feel his 3.90 career ERA is too high and because he was not friendly to the media.  So despite all of his credentials Jack Morris is not a Hall of Famer because, despite winning more games (remember last week we all agreed that the point of the sport is to win games) than anyone in an entire decade, he gave up more runs (despite winning)  than the experts thought was acceptable.

Example 2:
Let's look at another player.  This player finished his career with 2111 hits (more than Arky Vaughn, Monte Ward, Gary Carter, Harmon Killebrew, Chuck Klein, Deacon White, George Kell, Bobby Doerr, Earl Averill, Bill Mazeroski, Johnny Mize, Dave Bancroft, Jimmy Collins, Sam Thompson, Bill Dickey, Gabby Hartnett, Tony Lazzeri, Home Run Baker, King Kelly, Ernie Lombari, Lou Boudreau, Travis Jackson, and Elmer Flick).

This player finished with 1266 RBI.  This puts this player only 10 behind Hank Greenberg and 7 behind Pie Traynor.  It also places him  ahead of Zack Wheat, Bobby Doerr, Frankie Frisch, Gary Carter, Bill Dickey, Jim O'Rourke, Chuck Klein, Heinie Manush, Tony Lazzeri, Gabby Hartnett, George Sisler, Earl Averill, Tony Gwynn, Roberto Alomar, Joe Morgan, Luke Appling, Rickey Henderson, Kirby Puckett, Bill Terry, Sam Rice, Bid McPhee, Kiki Cuyler, Ryne Sandberg, Hack Wilson, Joe Sewell, Rod Carew, Fred Clarke, Ralph Kiner, Wade Boggs,Ernie Lombardi, Deacon White, Home Run Baker, Jimmy Colliins, Edd Roush, Joe Gordon, Larry Doby and Barry Larkin.

This player finished with 1197 runs scored.  This places him ahead of Willie Stargell, Earle Combs, Pie Traynor, Jim Bottomley, Yogi Berra, Arky Vaughn, Chuck Klein, Billy Herman, Joe Sewell, Deacon White, Ron Santo, Orlando Cepeda, Bill Terry, Johnny Mize, Edd Roush, Bobby Doerr, Johnny Bench, Kirby Puckett, Tommy McCarthy, Bobby Wallace, Jimmy Collins, Hank Greenberg, Dave Bancroft, Mike Piazza, Gary Carter, John McGraw and Tony Lazzeri.

These stats by themselves are quite impressive, especially considering  that the player played in Atlanta when the Braves were the doormat of the league.  Contemporaries like Rickey Henderson played with Don Mattingly, Dave Winfield, Jose Canseco, Mark McGwire, Dave Henderson, Roberto Alomar and Paul Moltor and had pitching staffs including Dave Stewart, Bob Welch and Tommy John.  Gary Carter played with players like Andre Dawson, Darryl Strawberry, Keith Hernandez, Howard Johnson  and Doc Gooden.  Kirby Puckett played with Kent Hrbek and had pitchers like Frank Viola, Jack Morris and Rick Aguilera. The player in question played with players like Bob Horner, Chris Chambliss, Bruce Benedict and Rafael Ramirez.  With that lineup this player won two MVP's (1982 and 1983), made 7 All Star Games in 8 years (starting in five of them).  He also won five straight Gold Glove awards (1982-1986) as well as four straight Silver Slugger awards (1982-1985).

Add to that, this player was one of the most respected, highly thought of and overall considered one of the nicest guys to ever play the game.  Somehow, with all of these credentials Dale Murphy is not in the Hall of Fame.

So what is the point of all this? I know I just told you that numbers are not the only thing that matters and that we need to look more deeply at the performance than just at career numbers.  Then I immediately threw numbers for Morris and Murphy at you.  The point is this:  Look at what the numbers of Morris and Murphy tell you.

Morris won more games (never lose focus on the fact that the entire point of the game is for the team to win) than anyone else in the 1980's when several Hall of Fame pitchers were in their prime.  Morris was the ace pitcher on four playoff teams and when the team absolutely needed to have a win in the most pressure packed situation Morris threw 10 shutout innings to win the World Series.

Murphy won two MVP awards, started five All Star Games, won five Gold Glove awards and was ahead of many contemporary Hall of Famers.  He did all of this with very little support in the lineup at a time when Atlanta was not the best place to play baseball.

The point of all this is that we need to look at all of the player's career as a whole and not just the newly developed stats that are being focused on by the experts.  The funny thing about some experts is that they focus too much on certain statistics.  For example, several experts last year at the voting said they voted solely based on the WAR.  One expert later admitted that he didn't properly understand the statistic he used as his primary basis for his votes.

Bottom line, we need to dig deeper into the careers of the eligible players before using one or two statistics to rule someone out or induct them.

As I mentioned in the previous two weeks, I am sure that many of you readers disagree with me.  Please send me your views so we can continue to discuss the situation.

TRIVIA QUESTION:

The 1984 Tigers featured some of the best players in the game including Jack Morris, Allen Trammell, Lou Whitaker, Lance Parrish, Kirk Gibson and Darrell Evans.  How many Hall of Fame Players were on the 1984 Tigers?

Answer to Last Week's Question:

Congratulations to Hope who partially answered the question last week.
The number 2632 may not be the most immediately recognizable number in sports but it is important.  The number more recognizable would likely be 2131.  When Cal Ripken played in his 2131 consecutive game he passed Lou Gehrig for the all time record.  He continued playing until he reached 2632.

The Hall of Fame Controversy Part 1: How Do We View a Potential Hall of Fame Player from the Steroid Era?

For those of you who have been enjoying the rivalries series, I apologize for the interruption of the series.  There are still two more articles coming in that series so please continue to check out.  Since the Hall of Fame voting will be revealed in a few weeks I thought this would be an appropriate time to start a discussion of the Hall of Fame controversy.

Since I started this blog a little over a year ago I have tried to give my honest opinion about things in baseball from the current happenings to historical perspectives and everything in between.  To this point I have avoided broaching some subjects for several reasons.  One of the topics I have avoided is the Hall of Fame and the place of steroid users in history.

First, I wanted to make sure that I thought out what my perspective is in detail so that I can properly give my views and second I needed to make sure I viewed this from as many perspectives as possible.  The biggest focus of the Hall of Fame controversy right now is on what to do with the steroid users but there are a few other issues clouding the nomination process.  So over the next three weeks we'll discuss three main points of the Hall of Fame controversy:

1) Steroids and the Hall of Fame:  How are we setting the parameters of the "steroid era" and what do we define as a Performance Enhancing Drugs?

2) SABRmetrics and the new statistics dominating our analysis.

3) What makes a Hall of Fame Player?:

I am sure that many of you will disagree with my opinions and I would love to hear your views.  The only way we, as baseball fans, will ever get past the controversy is to get as many perspectives as possible and respectfully discuss the issue.  So let's get started with part one.

Steroids and the Hall of Fame:

To start off, the big question is "how do we define the steroid era".  When people reference the steroid era they usually start the discussion with McGwire and Sosa's Home Run duel and end it with the start of drug testing around 2007 when testing became much stricter and better regulated.  There are a lot of problems with this but three main problems exist with the parameters that have been artificially drawn around the era.

1. We have basically accepted that the "steroid era" is over (meaning that the rampant, unchecked use of the Performance Enhancing Drugs (PED) has stopped), yet in the last few years Bartolo Colon, Nelson Cruz, Alex Rodriguez, Johnny Peralta, Melky Cabrera and several other big stars have been embroiled in a performance enhancing drug ring that was only truly exposed because a disgruntled ex-employee of a South Florida clinic leaked information. How many other clinics similar to the one these players were associated with are out there and have not been discovered yet?  Also, there are many ways that PED users can get around the system.  When I worked retail we had to do whatever we could to stop shoplifters, however, we always knew that shop lifters were developing new ways to take things from under our noses and we were essentially playing catch up to their methods.  Essentially this is the same idea.  The PED users are always one step ahead of the people trying to catch them.  The use of PEDs may never be ended completely.
2. If the steroid era "lasted" from the late 1990's through the mid 2000's, is it fair to exclude someone from the Hall of Fame because they played in the steroid era as we have defined it and they "looked like they used steroids"?  Last year there were no Hall of Fame members inducted on the normal ballot despite the presence of players like Mike Piazza, Jeff Bagwell and Craig Biggio on the ballot for the first time.  Several voters withheld their votes because they said they were "punishing" the steroid era players (whether or not they used steroids) because the players had known others were using and did nothing about it.  This argument has a few flaws to me, most importantly, how do we know that these players didn't go to the player's union and ask for testing.  Drug testing had been on the table for a very long time before it was finally put in place (it was part of the issues that caused the 1994 strike).  There had to be some players pushing for this testing for the Players' Union to finally agree to it.  In 1988, as Jose Canseco amazed everyone with his 40 Home Runs/40 Stolen Bases, Tom Boswell of the Washington Post wrote an article saying that it was time we started to look into the possibility that steroids were impacting the record books.  The reaction from his media colleagues was that Boswell, a very respected baseball writer and still a very respected historian, was out of line and had no proof.  The support for Canseco by the media made it clear that the media had no intention of pushing the issue and Boswell's reputation was damaged.  It is amazing that these same people are now punishing the players for not informing publicly on their teammates. In addition, the argument against players like Piazza and Bagwell was that there was no proof that they had used steroids but they "looked" like steroid users.  One writer even said he did not vote for Piazza because he had back acne which is sometimes associated with steroid use.  This argument turns the moral stand taken against those who didn't inform on the users into a way for writers to shift the blame from themselves for not pushing on an issue that they clearly were aware of as it happened. 
3. Performance Enhancing Drugs are not new.  During the 1990's I had a subscription to Sports Illustrated.  One of the issues that I received in the mail had a picture of a gaunt Lyle Alzado, former defensive lineman for the Broncos and Raiders.  The article inside revealed that Alzado had a brain tumor that he linked directly to the use of anabolic steroids he took during his playing days.  He admitted using steroids as far back as 1969.  That's correct.  1969.  In addition to that there were players as far back as the late 1800's who drank "tonics" that were supposed to have properties that could improve your health and energy.  Pud Galvin reportedly drank "monkey testosterone" for better performance.  In the 1930's at least one player was said to have taken injections of an extract from bull testicles.  In the 1960's Mickey Mantle was trying to find a way to play through the knee pain that was destroying his career.  He went to a doctor recommended to him by Mel Allen.  The doctor's injection led to an infection that forced Mickey to miss the end of the 1961 season.  During the 1970's Doc Ellis reportedly pitched a no hitter while high on LSD.  In the 1980's players (including some Hall of Fame superstars) were using amphetamines as "pick me ups".  They would simply drop the "greenies" into their coffee and dissolve them.  We have  arbitrarily defined the steroid era as post 1994 strike or the 1998 Home Run race, when clearly steroids and PED's have been around for decades.  The voters who "punished" players for not demanding testing earlier have already voted for some players and elected players who very easily have done the same thing.  We can certainly continue to incorrectly define the steroid era from post strike to the mid 2000's and the voters can continue to "punish" players of the era who didn't reveal the deep dark secrets of the locker room, but Cal Ripken, Tony Gwynn, Paul Molitor, Kirby Puckett, Wade Boggs, Ryne Sandberg and others also played in that time period and are already in the Hall of Fame (I am not implying, accusing or suggesting any of these players used PED's but they certainly played well into the steroid era and likely played with teammates who were using PED's).  So it was a grand moral statement by the voters to "punish" last year's Hall of Fame candidates who didn't say anything about steroid use publicly, but if the issue truly bothered these individuals, why did they choose last winter to take their stand?

What are we defining as a performance enhancing drug?
We can start with the most rudimentary, first grade essay format and define the words Performance Enhancing Drug.
Performance: the execution of an action
Enhancing:  Heightening or improving, especially enhancing or improving in value, quality desirability or attractiveness.
Drug:  1) a substance that is used as a medicine or 2) an illegal and often harmful substance that people take for pleasure.

So basically what we are saying is that a Performance Enhancing Drug is any substance that improves your ability to perform.  Carl Erskine pitched for the Dodgers in the 1950's.  He often told a story of waking up a day after he had pitched not being able to raise his arm to comb his hair.  His arm was swollen, bent and in pain.  A friend on another team recommended Erskine see that team's trainer, who gave Erskine a shot.  When Erskine's turn came up in the rotation a few days later he was not only healthy, he threw a no-hitter.  If we apply the definition of performance enhancing drug, clearly the substance administered to Erskine enhanced Erskine's ability to recover from his sore arm and perform in his regular rotation spot.  I am not implying that Erskine did not have the ability to throw a no hitter without the shot. Nor am I implicating Erskine as a steroid user, cheater or in any way saying anything negative about Erskine.  In fact, Erskine is one of the most respected and well liked people from those Dodgers teams.  My point is only that without that shot he likely would not have been able to even make the start.  By definition that substance was a PED.  That substance was cortisone.  It is now used regularly by nearly every professional trainer in every major sport. 

The Dodgers trainers used this same treatment to keep Sandy Koufax in performance shape, along with applying hot capsolin (an extreme version of icy hot so severe that it caused blistering on Koufax's arm) that allowed him to get his arm loose enough to throw his breaking ball.  Again, I am in no way questioning the ethics, honesty or character of Sandy Koufax.  The things that Koufax was able to accomplish and the pain that he endured in doing so are amazing and I admire the man greatly but clearly, by our current definition, this would be another Performance Enhancing Drug. 

My point here is not that Erskine or Koufax should be viewed differently.  Erskine had a great career and was a big reason for the success of the Dodgers.  Koufax was a definite Hall of Fame player, one of the best pitchers in the history of the game and also one of the classiest people ever.  So what if they were using an applied treatment from the training staff? 

This is my point:  the arguments against allowing the PED users into the Hall of Fame is that they have an advantage that other players in their eras (and older eras) did not have.  This is another faulty argument.  I think we can all agree that cortisone, when administered by a trained professional, is an acceptable substance that can assist the the body in a quick recovery allowing athletes to perform.  But if we are using the argument that current PED users are cheating because they have an advantage that other players of previous eras did not, should we revise our view of the accomplishments of the 1950's to the present.  For example, Hal Newhouser, Bob Feller, Dizzy Dean, and Carl Hubbell were all great pitchers who dominated the hitters of their eras but how much better could they have been and how much longer could they have pitched if cortisone were available then?  The surgeries that are available now allow pitchers to simply repair a damaged arm that would have been beyond repair decades ago.  Should we punish pitchers like Tommy John and Ron Guidry who had great careers but fell short of Hall of Fame numbers because their arms broke down before the current medical technologies that could have kept them pitching for much longer?  As you can see the issue goes much deeper than a simple someone used steroids and someone else didn't.

Why do players look so much bigger than the old days?:
The first part of this answer feeds into the second answer.  Looking at pictures of Mark McGwire, David Ortiz and Prince Fielder it is definitely a logical conclusion that there are more players of larger build today than there were sixty, fifty, or even twenty years ago.  I have not done a percentage based analysis but it is definitely true that the players today are larger than most players of the past.  It is not true in all cases.  Two very specific examples are Jimmie Foxx and Ted Kluszewski.  Foxx was known as "the Beast" because of his gigantic arms.  Kluszewski was alternately known as "Big Klu" or "Killer" and had arms so big he had to cut the sleeves of his shirt to comfortably fit his arms into them.  He routinely asked pitchers not to pitch him low and inside.  It wasn't because he couldn't hit it.  He could.  He could hit it hard, but he couldn't control the fact that the ball always went right back up the middle and he was terrified he would kill a pitcher.

Foxx and Kluszewski are just a few examples.  The truth is there are more players of a larger build today and steroids obviously play a big part in that.  However, there has also been a significant philosophical shift in the training habits of the league in the last twenty to thirty years.  For the first 100 years of organized baseball there was a fear by management and coaches of weightlifting.  There was a fear that the development of muscles (specifically biceps and triceps) would hinder the movement of the arms and would lead to loss of fluidity in the swing.  For pitchers, it was assumed that adding muscle to an individual would hinder their pitching motion and lead to more arm injuries.  With the growth of the fitness industry, health and vitamin supplement improvements and a better study by baseball trainers of the human body, weight lifting is no longer off limits and is often added to off season training regimens under supervision of the team training staff.  The acceptance of weight lifting by the baseball community has had a big impact on the new vision of the baseball player.

Why are we focused on baseball's players using steroids while other leagues ignore or do cursory testing?
When the NFL went on strike a few years ago one of the big issues causing the strike was the Players Union's stance on how far the league could go in testing for illegal substances.  The league wanted to start testing for Human Growth Hormones (HGH) and the union refused.  I actually heard one player make the argument that "no one's using HGH so there is no need to test for it."  That is not an exaggeration, that was an actual argument a current player made.  It would be like applying for a job that required a lie detector test and telling them "I'm not a liar so you don't need to do a lie detector test."  It also sounded eerily like the argument that baseball players were making before the 1994 strike and before the drug testing policy went into place.

The NBA has a first offense penalty of 5 games. Second offense is a 10 game suspension.  A third offense is 25 games and a fourth offense is a two year suspension.  The problem with this system is that players can only be tested four times in a season so once that fourth test is up they are off limits.

The NFL suspends players for 4 games on first offense.  Second offense is eight games and third offense is a full season.
 
The NHL has a stronger policy of 20 games for a first offense, 60 games for a second offense and permanent suspension for a third offense.  The problem with the NHL's policy, similar to the NBA's, is that players can only be tested twice in a season. 

The MLB has the strongest (though clearly not perfect) process for punishing offenders.  The best part of it is the public and permanent shaming of the players.  Manny Ramirez was considered by many one of the greatest hitters in the history of the game.  When he was named as a violator of the MLB policy he went to an overnight pariah.  Raphael Palmeiro was on his way to the Hall of Fame but hasn't been heard from since his positive test in 2005.

In 2006 Shawne Merriman, linebacker for the San Diego Chargers, was suspended four games for violation of the league's policy.  Instead of being treated like a criminal and cheater, the way Palmeiro, Bonds, McGwire, Sosa and Clemens have been, Merriman was voted the league's Defensive Player of the Year...the same season that he had been suspended for four games.  Many of the people who voted for Merriman as the best defensive player that year are the same voters taking a moral stand against PED users in the Hall of Fame.  The Shawne Merriman example is just one of many situations where a player from another sport is given a clean slate when he returns from suspension while Major League Baseball players come back from suspension knowing that they have just thrown away their chance for a Hall of Fame career and the public's trust.

Why is all of this attention paid to MLB and not to the other sports?  Simple.  Baseball is still that national past time.  I will not question that the NFL is the most popular sport in the United States and has been for a long time.  However, baseball has a larger impact on our national psyche.  If you mention specific numbers to sports fans, regardless of what sport they follow, they can likely tell you who the number belongs to.  61 automatically refers to Roger Maris.  714 automatically brings up Babe Ruth. 755 is Hank Aaron.  These are the sacred numbers of baseball history.  These are the number chases that captured the nation's attention.

What is the equivalent to these numbers in other sports?  I recently asked a friend of mine, who is a big football fan, who held the record for all time rushing yards.  He had to look it up and then was surprised at the answer (Emmit Smith).  I asked him who threw the most career touchdown passes and who scored the most career points.  He had no idea.

Ask a sports fan what the number 56 means and more often than not without thinking about it they will just say DiMaggio.  Ask a hockey fan who has the record for most goals in a a season and you'll likely get a blank stare.

Say .401 to a baseball fan and they'll just tell you Teddy Ballgame.  Ask a basketball fan who had the highest Field Goal percentage in a season and most people won't have a clue.

Regardless of the current popularity of football, baseball is still the national past time.


The Cheaters argument:
Every time the topic of steroids and PED's comes up there is a parade of angry callers to sports radio shows who usually say something like "they're cheaters and cheating is wrong so these are bad people."  I am not condoning cheating and I am not condoning the use of PED's, despite what this next argument may say.

We cannot just automatically go with the simple argument that cheaters are bad and these players cheated so they are bad people.

We need to discuss this a little bit more thoroughly.  Yes.  It is absolutely wrong to cheat.  The argument I hear from a lot of people is this:  "I don't want my kids to think it is ok to cheat."  That's a great philosophy, but are the people blaming the players for teaching their children the wrong message teaching the right message themselves?  There are always gray areas to every argument and we seem to apply alternate severity to alternate situations.  Don't forget as a society (sports fans society) we allowed the cheating to flourish despite clear signals there were issues.  Now, after years of  watching this happen we are all of a sudden (in the last ten years) horrified at what is happening.

A few years ago Don Imus, a "shock jock" radio host, was embroiled in a controversy over some horrendous, disgusting remarks he made about the Rutgers Women's basketball team.  The comments he made were offensive and indefensible.  The problem in this discussion is not whether what he said was offensive, the problem is why he thought he could say them.  Imus had been in broadcasting since 1968, meaning by the time the Rutgers issue erupted in 2007 he had been in the field for nearly 40 years.  His entire on-air personality to that point was someone with politically incorrect outspoken and often offensive opinions.  This persona had gotten him high ratings and legions of fans.  Every time he made an off color, offensive statement he received supportive phone calls from fans, higher ratings and higher salary.  All of this not only condoned his outspoken behavior, it encouraged it.  So it is completely illogical for people to get up in arms over the disgusting comments made by Imus in 2007 when they had encouraged him to be offensive for years.  (again I am absolutely, positively not defending Imus or his comments.  I am just making a point that if we were offended by those comments, why were we not in an uproar over comments he had been making for years.)

Steroids are a similar issue. As far back as the 1970's it was widely known that baseball players were using amphetamines for "energy boosts".  There was little outrage or demand for penalties.  In the late 1980's Tony Mandarich played offensive line for Michigan State and it was a poorly kept secret that he used steroids.  Instead of punishing Mandarich the sports society named him "Michelin Man", put him on the cover of Sports Illustrated and chuckled as he was drafted second overall by Green Bay and became a "draft bust".  I had mentioned the article by Tom Boswell earlier in this article.  During the ABC broadcast of Game 1 of the 1988 World Series, moments before Jose Canseco blasted a Grand Slam to give the A's a lead, Joe Garagiola and Vin Scully discussed the article which mentioned the very real possibility that Canseco was using steroids.  Garagiola said that it was unfair for Boswell to question Canseco and Canseco had publicly said that Boswell was a liar.  Bottom line, Canseco was allowed to continue doing what he was doing and society punished Boswell for asking the question that everyone else ignored.  By ignoring it, as a sports society, we condoned Canseco's (and anyone else's) use of PED's.

We still do this.  We can argue all we like that cheaters are bad and cheating is bad and we don't like cheaters but what we say and what we do are completely at odds.  The old argument that actions speak louder than words is still true.  Use this past ALCS as an example.  I sat in my living room watching the Red Sox fans taunt the Tigers Johnny Peralta with stadium wide chants of "Steroids, steroids", clearly demonstrating that as a society we no longer accept this behavior.  Less than an hour later, when David Ortiz blasted a Grand Slam to put the Red Sox back in the game, the Fenway faithful erupted in ecstasy.  Had they forgotten that Ortiz failed a drug test back in 2003?  Likely not because Manny Ramirez who also failed a test in 2003 (and several since) is still persona non grata in Beantown.  Instead of booing the player who had previously failed a drug test, Boston residents actually voted for Ortiz in the recent mayoral election (he came in third by the way).  A similar example is Andy Pettite.  In 2007 Andy Pettite admitted that he had used HGH.  Since then Andy Pettite has been given several contracts, won a World Series and watched as his team mate Alex Rodriguez is treated like the worst human being in history.  Pettite is lauded and promoted while Roger Clemens, his former training partner, is vilified and subject to Federal prosecution.  These are just a few examples of the way every fan base of every team reacts.

Why?  As a society, isn't our position that cheaters are bad people?  So how do we justify turning Barry Bonds into the highest example of cheating while we vote for Ortiz as a public official.  Why have we drawn the distinction between the two?  I have never met any of these people and I am not able to judge them as human beings.  Everything I hear about Pettite and Ortiz is positive.  They are friendly, positive people who do a lot to benefit their communities (and help their teams win).  These are not bad people.  Yet every time someone tests positive for a banned substance, people bring out the same old angry argument that cheating is  bad and cheaters are bad people.

Bonds, on the other hand, was the focus of almost all steroid talk in the early 2000's and was portrayed as evil by the media.  I have never met Barry Bonds and I cannot judge him as a human being.  From everything I hear about Bonds he can be surly, angry, bitter, hard to deal with and down right mean.  I have also heard many times that he does many charitable things and donates large amounts of money that he does not discuss, take credit for or want anyone to know about.  When Bonds was an active player I was far from being a Bonds fan.  My opinion of him was that he was arrogant, selfish and over rated.  Admittedly, my opinion was based solely on the fact that Bonds always played on teams that were direct rivals of teams for whom I am a big fan.  Bonds also falls directly into the question of how we, as a society, react to cheaters.  Whispers of whether or not Bonds was using PED's started in the early 1990's, shortly after he signed with the Giants.  By that time Bonds was already a two time MVP, two time All Star, three time Gold Glove Winner and on his way to the Hall of Fame.  After the whispers and suspicion began (and continued) Bonds was voted as the National League Most Valuable Player five more times and finished second another time.  These votes come from the same people who vote for the Hall of Fame and took a moral stand against steroid users reaching the Hall of Fame last year.  If using steroids is the sin that the media has told us it is why were these same people voting for players they suspected of using steroids and therefore encouraging the cheating behavior.

My argument here is not that we should turn Pettite and Ortiz into villains or that we should view Bonds as a saint. The point is that it is not acceptable to shout from the mountain tops that all cheaters are bad and villains then pick and choose which people we want this to apply to.  We need to discuss this a little more before we just blindly start reacting to these situations.

I am sure that many of you readers disagree with me.  Please send me your views so we can continue to discuss the situation.

Don't forget to check back next week for part two of the Hall of Fame Controversy.

TRIVIA QUESTION:

Mentioned in today's article were Carl Erskine and Sandy Koufax.  How many combined no-hitters/perfect games did these two have in their career?

Answer to Last Week's Trivia Question:

Waiting on deck as Bucky Dent was recovering from the foul ball off his ankle was Mickey Rivers.  Rivers noticed a crack in Dent's bat and had the bat boy bring one of his own.  According to legend, Rivers told Dent "Hey homey, use this bat.  It has a lot of hits in it."  Dent used Rivers's bat to hit his infamous Home Run.  Years later Rivers made statements that implied the bat may have been corked.