Rob Neyer wrote an article about keeping an open mind during Hall of Fame voting season, about putting process ahead of results, about how being thoughtful is more important than coming up with the right answer. I should be supportive of these sentiments, I know. But these sentiments are being deployed alongside a rather poor example of being thoughtful. Neyer writes in the comments, in response to a reader saying there's no more evidence Jeff Bagwell used PEDs than Barry Larkin:
Really? None at all?
Let me suggest a thought experiment, AstroB.
I would like you to assign numbers to two players, representing the likelihood that they used steroids at some point in their careers.
The players are Derek Jeter and Edgar Martinez. Go.
Did anything happen in your mind at all? Did you arrive at identical numbers for each player?
My guess is that you did not. My guess is that you came up with a higher number for Martinez than for Jeter.
That’s because of evidence. And it’s there for Larkin and Bagwell, whether you like it or not.
Neyer refers to "evidence," but I don't think a thought experiment rises to the level of evidence. So let's look at the record and see what it says.
Because if we look at players who have actually been identified as taking steroids or other performance-enhancing drugs—either through the Mitchell report or suspension by MLB—they aren't any bigger than the average player. The average PED user was 73 inches tall and 193 pounds. The average MLB player over the same time span was 74 inches, 195 pounds. If you cherry-pick a handful of examples (Barry Bonds, for instance), you can get an impression that PED users are larger than the typical MLB player. But considering the entirety of the available evidence, there's no support for the idea that larger players use PEDs at a higher rate than smaller players. Players that used banned substances during the "steroids era" came in all shapes and sizes.
What if Neyer wasn't referring to body type, but position? Designated hitter has different offensive requirements than shortstop and no counterweighting defensive responsibilities. But let's look at changes in home runs per plate appearance between the two positions in the pre- and post-"steroids" era:
SS_HR_PA | DH_HR_PA | |
1980-1992 | 0.011 | 0.031 |
1993-2011 | 0.017 | 0.038 |
Difference | 0.007 | 0.007 |
That's right, folks—the increase in home run rates for shortstops and designated hitters was essentially identical. DHs do hit more home runs than shortstops, but that's always been the case. This suggests one of two things:
- That shortstops took steroids at similar rates to designated hitters, or
- That steroids were not the primary cause of increased home run rates.
Of course, both could be true – they're not mutually exclusive.
So I agree with Rob Neyer when he says everyone should be be thoughtful and consider all the available evidence when approaching these issues. I just wish he'd lead by example and do those things, too. Most people would tell you that someone like Edgar Martinez is more likely to have used performance enhancing drugs than someone like Derek Jeter. But that popular supposition isn't evidence of steroid use by Edgar (or any other big damn slugger), it's evidence of a preconception that distorts our perspective on baseball history during the past decade or so. Proponents of a "clean Hall" are truly proponents of a Hall without the defining power hitters of an age, while pitchers and players at defense-first positions are largely free from scrutiny. But the evidence we have at hand tells us that players of all stripes – pitchers and pinch-runners as well as power hitters – were guilty of the same crimes. Continuing to paint sluggers with a different brush than everybody else makes it easier for Hall voters to label players as "clean" or "dirty" but it does so at the expense of telling the truth about an entire generation of players.
Thank you for reading
This is a free article. If you enjoyed it, consider subscribing to Baseball Prospectus. Subscriptions support ongoing public baseball research and analysis in an increasingly proprietary environment.
Subscribe now
I asked the reader to imagine Derek Jeter and Edgar Martinez. I did that for a reason.
If you imagined Derek Jeter and Edgar Martinez and found not even a scintilla of difference between the likelihood that each used steroids during their careers, then I applaud you. And I submit you are extraordinarily uncommon.
I guess I don't get your point. You say "My guess is that you did not. My guess is that you came up with a higher number for Martinez than for Jeter. That’s because of evidence." How so? The evidence says that steroid users weren't any bigger. The evidence says that more pitchers than position players used steroids. The evidence says that the first player caught under MLB's testing policy was Alex Fucking Sanchez. Though I don't disagree that it's probably true that more people would suspect Martinez, I think it flies completely in the face of the evidence. What am I missing?
By the way, suspicion of Bagwell taking steroids doesn't count as "evidence" or even "circumstantial evidence." Thinking that something is so doesn't supply proof that it is.
Low-value evidence is still evidence. I had no opinion on the steroid use of either Edgar or Derek before this discussion. Because Rob Neyer suspects Edgar more than Derek, and Rob Neyer is more likely to know something I don't know, I now ascribe a higher likelihood to Edgar than Derek as a potential steroid-taker.
Now, that evidence is very weak, to be sure. But it is some evidence.
On other issues: I believe the weights used to say that steroid users didn't get bigger are worthless; those are their listed weights and they did not rise with muscle gain.
I assume the subtraction difference in shortstop HR/PA is due to rounding. It certainly appears that the home run rate relative to baseline was much greater for shortstops.
As a general rule. I believe that Rob's making differentiations or proposing people should care about a "scintilla" of difference is misguided; if we say that Jeter had a 6.3% chance of taking steroids and Edgar had a 6.4% chance, that doesn't support making differentiations in treatment except at the most severe margins. There's also a good argument that we should not use such wispy evidence against people when they have no control over such evidence.
In short, I think Rob's use of the term "evidence" appears adequate, if not particularly helpful. The fact that I went to business school is some evidence tending to show I am more likely to be an accountant than the average human. I am not an accountant; my assertion of that (alleged) fact is quite a bit stronger evidence against the theory that I am an accountant.
Actually, this is not evidence - this is the fallacy of arguing from authority. Just because someone intelligent and well-known says that something is true or likely to be true or more likely to be true (etc) doesn't make it true or provide evidence that it is - it still has to be proven.
On another forum, I argued about what California's Three Strikes law actually is. By any definition, I am an expert in this field. You should take my word as having more value than a New York lawyer's, or a California lawyer without expertise in criminal law, because I have actual expertise in this subject.
If we are talking about the relative values of Ron Santo and Ron Cey in this forum, the argument from authority would be somewhere close to worthless; most of us have some expertise. But if we're talking about actuarial studies, I'd take the word of an actuary.
I know very little about Edgar Martinez personally. Someone who knows almost anything about him knows more than I do. I assume that Rob Neyer does.
Without getting into a political debate, the cases are very similar, using your definition of what is evidence and what isn't. If general suspicion that Bagwell took steroids based on some thoughtless comments that he made and the fact he was a big dude that hit home runs is enough to keep him out of the hall of fame, then by your argument, general suspicion that Barack Obama was not actually born in America based on the fact that he took years to produce a birth certificate, changed his name, and had a Kenyan non-national father should be enough to keep him out of office. By your definition, both of their cases are rife with what you call "low-value evidence".
Note: I am not a "birther", I'm just saying it's the same argument.
Obviously, by fact that Obama is president, the general public has discarded that "low-value evidence" as value-less or at least inconclusive, and decided it wasn't enough of a concern to deter electing him.
By the same token, using the "low-value evidence" of Bagwell's PED usage (which amounts to speculation only), to keep him out of the hall of fame is hypocritical and pretty silly to boot.
The net evidence for Bagwell being on steroids is much greater (and less susceptible to proof otherwise) than the totality of the evidence that Obama is not a natural-born citizen. The speculation based on the initial lack of a long-form birth certificate is some evidence. There is lots of evidence regarding the birther claim, and the evidence that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii is overwhelming. This does not mean there is not contrary evidence.
Bagwell (or Martinez or Jeter) cannot generate that kind of evidence of non-steroid use. These situations aren't comparable in that way. But even if they were, I didn't say what you ascribe to me. (I think it's me, anyway. If I've misfollowed the track of this conversation, I'm sorry for that.)
I never, ever said Bagwell should be out of the Hall based on that evidence, and observed that using such sorts of evidence to make decisions about what should happen to people creates some fairly serious issues. The conclusion that I did say that, I'd submit, seems based on a theory that anyone who says such speculation is evidence must necessarily be a steroid hawk; this theory is mistaken. (I would vote for Jeff Bagwell for the HoF; I do believe Bagwell likely took steroids, and I do not believe it likely that Edgar did, but my estimates are soft.)
"The net evidence for Bagwell being on steroids is much greater (and less susceptible to proof otherwise) than the totality of the evidence that Obama is not a natural-born citizen."
I don't believe there's very much evidence re Obama. But I believe the evidence against Bagwell is just as, if not more circumstantial. The difference between what I said and what you said is the "I believe" that I added. You are starting from an assumption of fact, one that I happen to not agree with, and it flaws your point. I am presenting an opinion of mine as an opinion, and my conclusions are drawn from that. I'm not claiming that what I say IS true, I am saying that I believe it to be true. lmarighi says this in his/her comment as well, and it's a valid point that presenting opinion as fact is not helping me agree with you.
Glad to read you would vote for Bagwell, but the same argument you presented above is the one being used by sportswriters who say they WON'T vote for Bagwell, and that's where I have problems.
Guilt by association is not guilt, it's just a cliché. Three hundred years ago, some white dudes lynched some black dudes, and were bastards for doing so. I am white, but that does not mean that I am a murderous racist, nor does it increase the likelihood that I am. Bagwell was a home run hitter during the so-called "steroid era" of baseball. Others can claim that increases his likelihood of having used steroids, but that can never be used to definitely say one way or the other without some tangible evidence, as each individual is an individual. Just because there were more individuals who chose to use PED's during that time period, it does not imply one way or another whether Jeff Bagwell or any other individual is more or less likely to be one of those people. Arbitrarily, people seem to have decided Bagwell was a user, and that Roberto Alomar was not. Why?
Getting back to the point, my whole problem with the concept of "low-value evidence" as you presented it is that it seems completely arbitrary and assignable based on the whims, opinions, and suspicions of people that have no factual or tangible evidence otherwise. Just as such nonsensical sixth-sense claptrap would be inadmissible in a court, it seems absurd to apply it to something that will affect Bagwell's life in a very real way.
I will save my second point for another post...this one's too long as is.
"Bagwell (or Martinez or Jeter) cannot generate that kind of evidence of non-steroid use."
I disagree with your implication that it is beholden on Bagwell, Martinez, or Jeter to prove their own innocence in the face of accusations that are based only on suspicion. I'll even call it ridiculous. If you and others think Bagwell was a steroid user, then prove it. It is not his responsibility, it's yours. Particularly if you happen to wield the ability to keep him out of the Hall of Fame, a decision that will impact the life of a real man in a very large way.
From the5th Amendment of the US Constitution (sorry if you're Canadian...I'm going to use this source because Bagwell is a US Citizen):
"No person...shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."
This isn't a criminal charge, but by assuming guilt based on circumstantial evidence and putting the onus on Bagwell and others to prove their own innocence, writers with HOF votes are denying Bagwell the benefits, prestige, and historical context that will benefit him and his family for generations. I don't think I'm being dramatic either, as HOF'ers are given increased career opportunities post-baseball compared to other retired players. In legal contexts, the 5th amendment was written to prevent just this sort of thing. Just because this isn't legal (and therefore doesn't violate the 5th Amendment), doesn't mean that such an accusation and expectation doesn't violate the moral spirit of the rule.
I think the whole concept of putting the burden on those guys to prove their innocence against suspicion is reprehensible, when their future is what's at stake, not the futures of writers hiding behind a keyboard without fear of reproach.
When you say you expect readers would think Edgar Martinez would be more likely to have taken PEDs, do you mean because he has a higher career slugging percentage? Because as far as I can tell that is your bit of evidence. Or is it because he's from Puerto Rico and a high percentage of those that have been caught using PEDs are of latin origin? Notice I didn't say a high percentage of those that used, I said a high percentage of those who have been caught.
But looking at character/personality, teammates, and career arc, I put the chances of Jeter having done PEDs much, much higher than Martinez. I'd say 15% for Jeter and 2% for Martinez.
But this is really a discussion about the connotation of the word "evidence," isn't it? I don't doubt the denotation of the word works for what you were saying, but the connotation feels very strong to me -- it feels like somewhat unassailable, like videotape of a murder in a trial rather than "he's bigger."
Colin has done this, but I do think he's stopped short of real analysis by lumping all the shortstops together and all the DH's together. If only because that's not how Hall of Fame voters think about this issue. They are thinking about Jeff Bagwell specifically and Edgar Martinez specifically.
For the guys who did do steroids -- Bonds and Clemens, say -- I think it's reasonable to present a reasonable argument about their candidacy for the HoF.
But this discussion is moot, imho. I mean, who cares if we mock? It's not like those that vote against Bagwell based on his looks are actually listening...
Alomar is in the hall.
I think the point Neyer is sort of making is that perception is hurting Bagwell more than anything else. Nobody thinks of shorstops as sluggers, and slugging in the 90's is associated with PEDs, therefore somebody is more likely to think a slugger used than a shortstop.
I don't agree with the conclusion that such a factually baseless perspective is good reason to keep Bagwell out of the hall while players such as Alomar (who had a huge spike in Home Runs in the middle of the steroid era) make it in.
It's not like there's some new stat that all of a sudden will make a Larkin a Hall of Famer, or a new stat that prevented people from voting for Dale Murphy. Look at the inertia that kept Bert Blyleven out of the Hall of Fame.. it's not like he magically gained wins or strikeouts or received a retroactive Cy Young Award. People voted for him because "everyone else was". Similarly, I think most voters are not voting for steroid users because "everyone else isn't". Whoever has the loudest voice ends up swaying the opinion one direction or another.
If you're going down that road -- Jeff Bagwell specifically -- how do you 'prove' he didn't use steroids?
You can't -- just like they can't prove he did. All you can hope to practically do is prove that their assumptions about why they think he did steroids (he was good, he had muscles, he didn't look like a traditionally good player) are wrong. Which is what Colin was doing.
When you say this, what's the piece of evidence that is convincing? Are we dividing 1B into hulking (Frank Thomas) and non-hulking (Wally Joyner, another "obvious" 'roid user)?
I agree that engagement is a good route, but the targets tend to move when people do not verify that the "evidence" they are using has no value.
Also, considering Bagwell v. Larkin, I tend to suspect Bagwell more because he played with Caminiti, and I have the suspicion (again, not really evidence) that teammates influenced one another in PED use - that there were certain teams with a culture of use.
All that is to address the "gut feeling" question posed by Neyer. I don't really care that players used and I tend to assume that many current players still use PEDs. I also believe it's widespread in every competitive sport.
I think pretty much every team had one person or another using. The only team that seemed actively against it was the White Sox and even that wasn't a unanimous voice.
Strength-related (ISO, HR/FB, homer distances, spray charts, batted ball speeds, fastball velocity, bench press reports)
Health-related (games played per season, career longevity, average days lost per injury relative to norms for those injuries, post-injury performance)
Body-related (weight, body fat, body part measurements, acne)
Other (affiliation with known users, affiliation with suspicious labs/doctors/trainers, incidents of overt anger or violence, test results, accusations from others)
Did I miss anything? Obviously some of these are far more shaky pieces of evidence than others.
- Strength: A powerful player may have achieved power through chemical means, or player who's already naturally powerful may have less motivation to use than a player who thinks he could add power to his game through PED use.
- Health: Is a player's durability linked to artificial means of boosting his endurance, or is an injury-prone player more likely to try a PED to stay on the field?
- Other: Does an affiliation with a known user mean a player's more likely to have used, or is it more accurate to say that almost all players played with users. It could also be that there's an inverse relationship here - does having had Canseco as a teammate make someone more likely to have used, or are the users who played with him simply more likely to have been implicated already, leading to a lower chance of another random teammate of his (who hasn't been implicated) having used?
That's one of the issues with the approach many take: the "evidence" is based on conforming to the narrative, but that narrative was written without even trying to understand whether that "evidence" increases or decreases the probability that someone used, or whether it can give us any insight at all.
THOSE "journo standards", indeed.
And just to echo earlier posters, I also thought of the identical number for the likelihood of Jeter and Edgar being users (0, although that number could be totally wrong for one or both). Seriously, I like Rob Neyer, but I'm pretty disappointed in his apparently unwillingness to talk about evidence and to just imply that if you want actual evidence you are just dumb.
More: "It's a matter of discussing, researching, thinking." Researching? How is Lynn Henning, or Rob Neyer, or anybody going to research the evidence regarding whether Bagwell used? Are you going to look at his medical records? Or just ask people what they think? What part of this process is going to give us fruitful knowledge, and what's the point?
So any time you'd like to explain yourself, please feel free.