CSS Button No Image Css3Menu.com
New! Search comments:
(NOTE: Relevance, Author, and Article are not applicable for comment searches)
If the Hall of Fame is meant to be a moral judgment, then certainly PED users don\'t deserve it. If one views the Hall of Fame as a memorial of the players who did the best and had the most effect on the game, then intent is irrelevant.
I don\'t know how much benefit any suspected PED user gained. I also don\'t know how much of baseball was using. Considering how much is completely unknown, I think making decisions based on the scraps we do \"know\" (based generally on circumstantial evidence) is extremely faulty. By the estimates of various players, more than half of baseball players were using. Why should we scapegoat \"poster boys\" for something that was widespread? That just seems like an attempt to irrationally find a target for moralistic anger.
In addition, how about the widespread use of \"greenies\" (amphetamines) in baseball for decades? So widespread that they sat in candy dishes in the locker room for use? Should we disqualify everyone who played baseball since at least 1970 on (because it\'s no secret that everyone used them from time to time)? Do we decide that one drug is okay, but another is a moral crime that shows unworthiness for the Hall of Fame?
I realize that I\'m unlikely to sway someone who\'s dead-set on denying suspected PED users from Hall of Fame induction, but I find both the moral and enhanced-performance arguments against such players to be pretty unconvincing.
With such widespread drug use (and such complete ignorance as to their effects), it seems far more logical to call it an \"era effect\" and continue electing players based on their era-adjusted numbers (offensive numbers jumped during the so-called \"steroid era\" so adjusting for that will lower the numbers of those who benefited from that era).
It\'s a rationalization, but not a silly one. All things being equal, it\'s better to have an elite position player prospect than an elite pitching prospect. Position player prospects are much more projectible and much less likely to suffer major injury and wash out completely.
Of course, all things aren\'t equal...Price is a better pitching prospect than Moustakas is a position player prospect, so you\'d definitely rather have Price. But it is quite true that one day we might look back and decide the Royals got the better player.
This is not a perfect comparison, but I remember 4-5 years ago or so, people will talking about how Minnesota blew it by taking Joe Mauer over Mark Prior, because Prior was dominating at the major league level. Just a few years later, it\'s already clear who\'s going to have the better career. (And while Mauer was taken #1 overall, at the time of the draft, Prior was seen as the clear best prospect...Minnesota selected Mauer due to expected price and maybe due to his being a home-town hero).
Sorry, I meant \"except for very small things, like a runner on base pushing the pitcher to the stretch,\" of course.
\"It\'s harder to think of concrete examples in baseball because in baseball events are so seperate from each other\"
I think you pretty much answered why we should assume momentum doesn\'t exist as the default position. It\'s all about dependent events versus independent events. In boxing, one hit followed by another is a dependent event...the first hit changes the likelihood of the second event. But in baseball, there\'s no apparent link between one at-bat and another (except for very small things, like a runner on base pushing the pitcher to the windup). In the absence of that clear dependency between events, shouldn\'t we assume (as the default, barring actual evidence) that momentum isn\'t in play?
Also, this is in-game momentum. The article talked about game-to-game momentum. There\'s no clear evidence (that I can see) that there\'s game-to-game or match-to-match momentum in football, boxing, soccer or basketball.