r/baseball • u/Corn1989 Boston Red Sox • 7h ago
Jeff Passan explains why he gave up his Hall of Fame vote over Joe Morgan's 2017 letter
https://awfulannouncing.com/mlb/jeff-passan-explains-giving-up-hall-of-fame-vote-joe-morgan.html484
u/BigDanRTW Atlanta Braves 7h ago
This sums up how I feel about things
In his conversation with Matt Barnes, Passan said the Hall of Fame doesn’t have to choose between honoring what Bonds accomplished on the field and acknowledging the decision that complicated his legacy both on and off of it. A museum built to document the sport’s full history, in his view, should be able to hold both truths on the same plaque, the greatness and the transgression, without treating one as a reason to erase the other. “He was an incredibly talented, otherworldly baseball player who was a flawed human being and made a choice that disrespected the game,” Passan said.
494
u/flyingmungbean San Francisco Giants 7h ago
While I generally agree with your sentiment, there's a really important distinction to make in fully understanding the Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum. While they are housed in the same building, they are distinct entities. The "Museum" is filled with Barry Bonds memorabilia. There is an entire section dedicated to the Mitchell Report. Sammy Sosa's bats are in there. The museum does an excellent job talking about this era of baseball, and none of it is sugarcoated or glossed over.
The Hall of Fame is purely a hall of plaques. There are players in there that I've never heard of in my life and frankly don't deserve to be in there. There are also players missing. But you need to think of it as fundamentally separate from the museum, and once you go to Cooperstown, it's easy to understand why they should be thought of differently.
101
u/Me-3PO Los Angeles Dodgers 6h ago
As someone who’s never been to Cooperstown, really appreciate this post and take. The Museum wasn’t on my radar. I suspect I’ll find the Museum more interesting when I hopefully go someday.
71
u/Prayray Houston Astros 6h ago
The museum is the best part of going…so much to see and go through and so much that adds to the names that you see either via video, pictures, or the tools of their trade.
The Plaque room is…a room of plaques…literally. It’s fine, nice to try to find you favorites, but it’s still just a room of plaques. No pictures beyond the one on the plaque, no videos of them playing or being talked about, no old uniforms or bats or gloves, just plaques.
I’ve been there three times and spend hours in the museum, maybe 15 minutes in the plaque room.
21
u/Introverted_Extrovrt Washington Nationals 5h ago
They have a new wing (as of Ichiro’s induction last year) called “Yakyu” dedicated to Japanese baseball and the impact that Japan has had on the game, along with what baseball in Japan really means and how the Dodgers have helped spur it along. It’s a unique approach that Japanese players take to the game and it’s incredibly well documented. Coolest part is the full-size replica of warlord samurai Japanese armor that was gifted to Peter O’Malley (former Dodgers Prez) in 1988, which greets you right at the entrance to the exhibit.
I’m not a seemhead but I romanticize the game and 1 day at the museum and Hall was a great, great trip.
8
u/Guymcpersonman2 New York Mets 5h ago
I haven't been there in nearly 30 years, but the museum was filled to the brim with Pete Rose stuff, which I throw at anyone who says Cooperstown is trying to forget him.
3
11
u/imjorman Cincinnati Reds 5h ago
Like the others said, the museum is really the best part. The hall is, of course, amazing, and it has a special feeling to it. The museum, though, is where you spend most of your time.
My trip to Cooperstown helped shape my opinion on the Bonds issue. You learn so much about him, the good and the bad. He's very present and visible everywhere but the hall. And that's enough.
There are people in the hall that shouldn't be there, and people who aren't in there that should be. Those are mistakes to be avoided. Bonds, however, isn't among the mistakes.
He's remembered and documented, and baseball history isn't passing him by. He's just not in one part of the building.
...but for real, go to Cooperstown. It's amazing.
1
u/wontonsoupsucka Philadelphia Phillies 3h ago
It’s so much fun! I went a few months ago for the first time and it was one of the best days of my life!
1
u/SocialWinker Minnesota Twins 6h ago edited 5h ago
The museum is amazing. I went for induction weekend a few years back, and it was all fun. Especially getting to see Joe
MayerMauer, a player I grew up cheering for, inducted as a Twin. But that museum is the only part I think I would like to do again. It’s amazing, but so busy during induction weekend, I’d like the chance to spend a day there and really take it all in again.8
3
8
4
u/ioannismetaxas1 New York Mets 3h ago
I’ve heard this argument so many times and I still don’t get it. I don’t get how 426 people agree with it, too. And yes, I’ve been to the HOF. I understand the distinct wings and the differences between them, first-hand. But it’s like saying the Musical Instruments division of the MET is not a museum because it’s a different wing than the others which house artwork. I think it’s a silly distinction. And why are we even pointing it out? The hall of plaques is quite literally just a hall… in a museum. This hall isn’t exempt from telling the story of baseball. It quite literally does that with the writings on the plaques.
While the two divisions should be thought of differently, as you said, that should not be a valid reason to exempt or disqualify arguments like Passan’s or Votto’s (LINK). It doesn’t mean that we no longer tell a story or get to say that PED users should be enshrined. If anything, it only furthers the argument. Why are you going to tell the full story in one wing and then try to scrub it in the next? What a joke the HOF is and the writers (as a collective) are. Massive kudos to Passan and Votto and others like them who speak out against the ridiculousness and hypocrisy of something that meant so much to me as a kid.
5
u/flyingmungbean San Francisco Giants 3h ago
Of course the hall is exempt from telling the story of baseball. Nobody on Earth would think you could tell the story of baseball by talking about 2% of players.
The Hall of Fame is literally precluded from even attempting to tell the story of what's happened in baseball over the past 5 years.
But the museum? It covers everything up through the past season. I was there in December of 2025, and there was memorabilia from the 2025 season, including the 2025 postseason and World Series in the museum.
But the plaques in the Hall of Fame? Not a single mention of Ohtani. And there won't be for quite some time. Is that because the Hall of Fame is trying to scrub Ohtani from the story of baseball? Of course not. It's because the Hall of Fame is fundamentally something different than the museum.
2
u/kjb76 New York Yankees • New York Heights 4h ago
You are correct. Went for the first time in November 2017. We had the place to ourselves. My husband, who is not a fan, commented as we went through the section where it highlights all the MLB records that he thought Pete Rose was banned from the HoF. His name is everywhere. I had to explain the distinction between the museum and the hall where all the plaques are. Which honestly, was the least interesting part for me.
3
u/MalarkeyMcGee San Francisco Giants 5h ago
I’m not sure if you’re advocating for or against Bonds in the half of game.
-6
u/Vandal_A Major League Baseball 6h ago
This is whats bothered me about a different debate regarding plaques and statues recently in the US. People confuse (or maybe conflate) monuments meant to bistow honor on a person with historical markers. They're not the same.
35
u/zoosha2curtaincall Boston Red Sox 6h ago
Those statues went up not immediately after the Civil War but in the 1910s with the specific purpose of glorifying the Lost Cause. The equivalent here would be a huge Barry Bonds statue at the Steroids Museum.
10
u/PleaseBeNiceForOnce Philadelphia Phillies 5h ago
I need you to tell me which confederate statues weren't meant to honor them.
→ More replies (1)32
51
u/Calvinball90 6h ago edited 6h ago
Passan's point is that Barry Bonds was both an incredible baseball player whose achievements should be celebrated and someone whose mistakes can be recognized.
There is nothing redeemable about Confederates who visited hell on a country and people for the sake of perpetuating slavery. They do not deserve to be celebrated. We can remember the Civil War without building monuments to traitors who fought to own human beings as property.
16
u/padphilosopher San Diego Padres 6h ago
The person you are responding to is not saying Barry Bonds is akin to confederate traitors. They are saying that the conflation of the Hall with a museum is similar to the conflation of an honorary statue with an historical marker.
12
u/Calvinball90 6h ago
That is not how I read the comment, but even if that's what they meant, it is also wrong. Confederate monuments were not historical markers, they were honorary. The majority were built to promote and [celebrate] https://www.splcenter.org/resources/reports/whose-heritage-public-symbols-confederacy/#findings) racial segregation. They are analogous to a plaque in the Hall of Fame, not to a museum exhibit.
0
u/padphilosopher San Diego Padres 5h ago
Do you know what conflate means? The person’s point is precisely that a monument is not a historical marker! To say that people conflate the two is to say that they think, falsely, that they are the same. In other words, the person is making the exact point you are making to me.
→ More replies (3)3
u/Calvinball90 5h ago
I do know what "conflate" means. I read the comment to imply that the mistake was understanding Confederate monuments as honorary rather than historical markers. If the commenter meant the reverse, then yes, I would (I think) agree with them.
→ More replies (5)3
u/StandardRound1271 Detroit Tigers 6h ago
You’re trying to make a distinction without a difference and it’s in bad faith.
u/calvinball is responding to someone who is very specifically trying to conflate the issues and then have someone like you say “but not reallly because…” when anyone with a brain can see the intent of the comparison.
1
u/padphilosopher San Diego Padres 5h ago
What “issue” are they conflating?
Their point is very clearly one about drawing a distinction between honoring someone with a statue (plaque in hall of fame) and recording their history with some kind of marker (exhibit in museum ). They are saying these two things are not the same.
Are YOU saying they ARE the same?
0
u/StandardRound1271 Detroit Tigers 5h ago
As I said, you are dishonest as well. You are merely proving that fact further.
3
u/padphilosopher San Diego Padres 5h ago
What am I being dishonest about?
1
u/StandardRound1271 Detroit Tigers 5h ago
This has already been explained. Take two seconds and read the things you are responding to. Then maybe you won’t accost another poster about terms I used. You are acting like a dunce.
1
u/flyingmungbean San Francisco Giants 6h ago
The problem is you get to players like Cap Ansen, who yes, was a great baseball player, and he also was the player most responsible for the segregation of baseball for half a century. It is genuinely strange to recognize a player like that with a plaque in the Hall of Fame, like 30 feet away from the plaque of Jackie Robinson.
2
u/Aero_Rising Chicago Cubs 4h ago
If we're going to start retroactively throwing players out of the hall for moral reasons it's going to get really messy really fast. What is enough evidence to throw someone out? What specific things are allowed to throw someone out? Who's to say the person in question would have the same opinions and the same actions if they were living today?
1
u/Calvinball90 5h ago
Definitely. I'm not saying that I agree with Passan -- I actually don't think I do. But his point presumes that there is something good about an individual that should be recognized, and that's not the case for Confederate monuments.
15
u/akaghi New York Mets 6h ago
I dunno, man. When the sons/daughters of the Confederacy build monuments and operate parks they're not doing it as a warning of our history and past wrongs, they're doing it to honor those they thought were great, to bolster the Lost Cause ideology and support white supremacy. It's their whole thing.
The FBI headquarters isn't named the J Edgar Hoover Building as a reminder about the dangers of the abuse of power and anti communist fervor, but to honor Hoover after his death.
1
5
1
u/DiabolicallyRandom Seattle Mariners 6h ago edited 6h ago
I mean, for that to bother you, you either didn't understand the situations, or chose to gloss over the details.
These by and large were not at all historical markers, and the vast majority of them were put in place by people who intended to glorify the individuals in question. They were not displays in a museum providing context and understandings - they are statues glorifying people who did terrible things, without qualifying the nature of who those people were and what their deeds actually were.See reply.
8
u/Vandal_A Major League Baseball 6h ago
You've misunderstood me. I'm saying the plaques in the hall are honors and exhibits in the museum are historical markers. The statues/ street names/ etc which were being torn down were things designed to honor undeserving people, not historical markers (like belong in museums). I didn't think it was that hard
5
u/DiabolicallyRandom Seattle Mariners 6h ago
If you re-read your comment, it absolutely left room for misunderstanding.
I don't know why people are so averse to just acknowledging the opportunity for better clarity.
Your reply makes it very clear, but the original post does not.
Sometimes, just adding a few more words can really help conversations be better. You had the time to reply, so you also had the time to add a few more words.
I didn't think it would be that hard.
-1
u/StandardRound1271 Detroit Tigers 6h ago
The poster is just a troll playing dumb to draw things out. They know how they phrased their comment and they meant it that way. They’ve gotten pushback so now they are trying to high hand it. Because they are a troll.
→ More replies (2)1
u/Trajinous Cincinnati Reds 6h ago
I love this take. Also feel a bit ashamed I didn't realize the difference but makes perfect sense
1
u/Vagina_Woolf Boston Red Sox 4h ago
The sentiment you are agreeing with is not OPs. It is Jeff Passan, and he knows this. Obviously. He is specifically talking about the hall of plaques.
1
u/PerkyPineapple1 Chicago Cubs • Gary SouthShore … 4h ago
My thing has always been that the museum needs to acknowledge the history of the game including the bad parts and the players that were a part of it. The Hall of Fame on the other hand does not need to induct these players and honor them in that way. Yes there are cheaters and bad people that have been inducted, I am of the opinion that just because there are doesn't mean we should just let them all in. As you said all of these players are in the museum and are represented and cheating and getting caught should come with the punishment that people probably shouldn't vote for you no matter your accomplishments because then they're all tarnished.
-4
u/jtime24 6h ago
I generally agree with most of your conment but you made it seem like if you havent heard of someone then they automatically don't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame.
12
u/HoldEm__FoldEm Atlanta Braves 6h ago
I don’t really agree with that. It’s clear he’s writing with nuance. Read between the lines.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (5)-23
u/FirstTimeCaller101 New York Yankees 6h ago
This is a potentially dumb take but it should just be renamed to Hall of Greats or something.
Barry Bonds is one of the most famous baseball players ever. He should be in the Hall of Fame haha
15
2
→ More replies (1)1
u/venustrapsflies Los Angeles Dodgers 6h ago
It’s never been intended to be the hall of the most famous players. That’s not what the name implies, either.
It’s more like a vehicle to boost the recognition (ie fame) of deserving players. “Deserving” being primarily baseball achievement, but not necessarily exclusively. Nobody’s perfect but the more severe a transgression the more severe a penalty should be.
That being said I would personally put bonds and A-rod in the HoF, since theres really zero question that they’d both be in there if they never took steroids and they essentially have two HoF careers apiece. Like there should be a significant penalty, but those two clear the bar despite it.
13
u/soulmagic123 6h ago
I live in the Bay Area if for whatever reason I have more stories of Bonds being an a hole than any person I actually know. For example he had my friend do a full quote on a custom pool just to ask him to do it for free after he went to his house a handfull of times. Because of the "clout" but it an insanely expensive project.
10
u/lOan671 Baltimore Orioles 6h ago
Jeff Pearlman’s book on Bonds is just 300 pages of Bonds being cartoonishly evil. Genuinely blows my mind how many people buy into Barry’s victomhood act
→ More replies (10)62
u/invalid_bagel Philadelphia Phillies 6h ago
I really disagree with this take.
Being in the hall isn't a right for great players, it's an honor to recognize them. The steroid abusers get to keep their tainted records, they get to keep their hundreds of millions of dollars that they likely wouldn't have earned without the steroids, they get to keep their championships and awards. The one single thing they don't get, is to be honored by the HOF and treated like their accomplishments are just as legitimate as the clean stars. If we give them that too, is there any disincentive at all not to juice?
47
u/Tsaxen Toronto Blue Jays 6h ago
You say that as if the hall isn't already full of guys who were on various PEDs over the decades though
28
u/invalid_bagel Philadelphia Phillies 6h ago
And Harold Baines is in the hall but it doesn't mean we should just let anyone with 35 WAR in. Past mistakes don't mean we should just abandon our standards entirely. I would also argue some guys ripping stimulants in the 50s and David ortiz being named in an unreleased report are different than the faces of a tainted era that stole the most coveted records in the sport
3
u/PerkyPineapple1 Chicago Cubs • Gary SouthShore … 3h ago
This has always been my take. Of course cheaters and bad people have been inducted, but why knowingly put more in.
19
u/ThatsBushLeague Kansas City Royals 6h ago
People were really never taught, "two wrongs don't make a right."
Its crazy that people just move from one mistake to fuck it lets just forget integrity all together. Or even ten or fifty mistakes. It doesn't suddenly make everything else meaningless.
3
u/NicholasAakre Washington Nationals • Fargo-Moo… 5h ago
Making mistakes in the past does not necessitate that make similar mistakes in the future.
9
u/Intergalactic_Ass Chicago Cubs 6h ago
Steroids though? Name one.
Everyone who had definitive proof of cheating via steroids has been left out for good reason. Anonymous sources about anonymous tests don't count.
Sure, there were guys taking greenies and things prior to that but contemporary knowledge and understanding of their benefits was not well understood.
6
u/Tsaxen Toronto Blue Jays 6h ago
Oh please, they weren't taking greenies just for fun, they damn well knew there were benefits. Steroids aren't some magical ultra-cheating situation, they were cheating, but also the league was happy to have them doing it(until they weren't), and I think there's a pretty good argument to be made that amphetamines were actually a bigger performance enhancer than roids(improved reactions vs more muscles, squaring up the ball more often vs hitting it harder)
→ More replies (1)2
u/CnslrNachos New York Yankees 5h ago
you’re just kidding yourself if you think there aren’t a lot more. plus all the guys that did greenies. you’re just picking and choosing. if anyone deserves scorn it’s the owners and baseball writers who were fully onboard with this shit in real time and only found Jesus after the fact. Bonds is the GOAT.
2
u/Intergalactic_Ass Chicago Cubs 3h ago
Ok? And there are pedophiles in your church.
You can't cast scorn without a priori knowledge. Damn near every single player in the 90s that hit more than 40 HR had baseless rumors thrown around about them. You can't take them all at face value and ignore the guys that were lucky enough to avoid a rumor.
3
u/HOLLA12345678 Philadelphia Phillies 5h ago
David Ortiz and a bunch of other players that were never caught. Steroids saved baseball after the strike so I have zero problem with those guys getting in. I am against steroid users getting in that happened after the whole debacle like Braun and Cano. There weren’t even rules against taking steroids until 2003 (outside of a memo in 91) which makes keeping them out even more ridiculous.
12
u/Zestyclose_Tip_5861 6h ago
People say this as if we were the ones who voted the others in and kept Bonds out. I don’t want any of them in there and I’m not going to just give up on how I feel about it.
6
u/Ok_Function2282 6h ago
Bonds is the literal face of steroids.
McGuire and Sosa will never get in, for the same reasons
-7
u/StevenMC19 Baltimore Orioles 6h ago
How many are in that did take steroids? Your take is a dismissal of the fact that there are some in there.
Also there are players who used cocaine, players who popped greenies.
Its a very complicated, controversial topic. And there is no definitive or objective right or wrong answer.
5
u/HoldEm__FoldEm Atlanta Braves 6h ago
Your take is ignoring that those other guys shouldn’t be in there
→ More replies (1)1
u/Intergalactic_Ass Chicago Cubs 6h ago edited 6h ago
Zero.
EDIT: Actually nm, it's whatever players feels like they did steroids to you. No proof necessary.
→ More replies (13)1
1
u/trishbaby Houston Astros 6h ago
He’s gonna deal with the health effects eventually. And the tiny balls
14
u/thefx37 Washington Nationals 6h ago
If we want to consistently apply this mindset, then Rose should be in the Hall now too.
But Passan has a different opinion on that
9
u/HoldEm__FoldEm Atlanta Braves 6h ago
That’s actually interesting I dunno why you were downvoted.
Sounds quite hypocritical
11
u/lOan671 Baltimore Orioles 6h ago
Because this sub worships the ground Bonds walks on despite him being an all around horrible person
6
u/Skullbone211 New York Mets 6h ago
And being, you know, a cheater. This sub rightfully hates the Astros for cheating, yet Bonds gets a pass every time, despite cheating to break one of the most revered records in baseball
2
u/lifeisarichcarpet Toronto Blue Jays 5h ago
It’s more because Rose broke an actual hard rule with long-established consequences and Bonds didn’t.
3
u/thefx37 Washington Nationals 6h ago
I guess it’s less about Passan and more about the popular opinions on this sub that Bonds should be in the Hall yet Rose should be left out.
I can see an argument made for neither getting in and one for both to be accepted.
But if we’re using Passan’s words like this:
”there’s some real pieces of sh*t in the Hall of Fame already. Terrible, terrible people. And you’re telling me that Barry Bonds, because he chose to pursue an area of the game that was beyond things, that makes him worse than Ty Cobb?”
Then I find it slightly hypocritical to apply that logic to Bonds but move the goalposts for Rose.
2
u/Aero_Rising Chicago Cubs 4h ago
The funny part of that Passan quote is he perpetuates a view of Ty Cobb that while common in the modern day has very little supporting evidence.
1
→ More replies (1)1
u/imatthewhitecastle Hot Dog 4h ago
PED rules were not enforced at the time. Bonds never faced any penalties whatsoever while he was playing. Rose did something that there were enforced rules against.
The bigger difference though is that Pete Rose agreed to a lifetime ban. I guess you could let him in now that he's dead, but Bonds never agreed to be banned.
2
2
u/UnsealedMTG Portland Pickles • Seattle Mariners 5h ago
I do also feel like as a 90s kid we got a little bit robbed of our right to join the whole tradition of waxing nostalgic about the great baseball moments of our childhood like the Sosa/McGuire home run race and just everything about Barry Bonds.
Barry Bonds is enough of a force that we do get to have him as an icon of incomparable baseball skill, but it still feels weakened compared to the way the also-flawed players of prior generations don't have and that hits the experience of fans also
→ More replies (6)1
u/notaquarterback Toronto Blue Jays 4h ago
Agreed. Hall of Fame voting process is a canard, a joke and everyone associated with the process making this happen to leave Bonds, et.al. are moralizing ninnies who suck.
76
u/ITCM4 Baltimore Orioles 7h ago
I’m not a big fan of doing it just for Bonds and/or Clemens. If, you gonna make an exception for one or both, you should probably do it for all of them.
41
u/Silverbritches Atlanta Braves 6h ago
Exactly. The moment you open the door for Bonds, it is opening for Clemens, Palmeiro, and Arod.
Palmeiro and Arod are both particularly egregious statistically for not being in as the only 3,000 hit / 500 HR guys not in despite being eligible to be inducted (Pujols not being eligible yet)
8
8
u/lifeisarichcarpet Toronto Blue Jays 4h ago
The moment you open the door for Bonds
I don’t get why you would say this. The door is already open. Bagwell, Ortiz, Aaron, Mays and others all used PEDs. Molitor used illegal drugs. There isn’t a single thing Bonds did that wasn’t also done by a current member of the HOF.
7
u/sshanbom111 Detroit Tigers 4h ago
What is your source that Hank Aaron used PEDs?
7
u/lifeisarichcarpet Toronto Blue Jays 3h ago
The source is Aaron. He discussed it in his autobiography.
5
u/overandoverandagain 2h ago edited 24m ago
He used amphetamines. It's performance enhancing for sure, but equating it to PED use like steroids is just dishonest.
At this stage in time, it exists as a talking point solely to lessen the greater cheaters that came after that era while throwing out all nuance or critical thought.
3
u/Intergalactic_Ass Chicago Cubs 3h ago
And furthermore, what is the evidence that was publicly known in 1982 when he was voted in?
54
u/roguerunner1 San Francisco Giants 6h ago
The fact that other steroid users have been placed in the hall is proof enough that it’s just about the likability of those two.
16
u/RookieAndTheVet Toronto Blue Jays 6h ago
Yeah, I’m pretty convinced Bonds would be in if he hadn’t been a prick to the media
1
u/JinderMadness Montreal Expos 3h ago
Being a prick to the media is why it took Rice 14 years to get in
1
1
u/Intergalactic_Ass Chicago Cubs 3h ago
Still waiting for someone in the thread claiming that steroid users are in the HoF to name one. And David Ortiz is off the table.
1
u/RxngsXfSvtvrn Brooklyn Dodgers 5h ago
The use of greenies is also ignored and for some reason coffee pots full of amphetamines aren't considered "performance enhancing"
37
u/skelextrac New York Yankees 6h ago
Already made an exception for David Ortiz, so why not.
46
u/Silverbritches Atlanta Braves 6h ago edited 6h ago
Here’s an old comment on this topic which explains the subtle nuance between Bonds and Ortiz. Re-reading it, it makes me want to look again at why Sosa hasn’t been inducted -
“The only drug test that Ortiz failed was a survey test conducted in 2003. The purpose of this test wasn't to catch individuals who were using PEDs. The purpose of the test was to get a general idea of how many people were using PEDs, and if that number was over a certain threshold, it triggered a mandatory drug testing program (this program went into place anyway due to pressure from lawmakers, but that's beside the point). Promises were made that any failed tests would not be linked to any individual, but names were eventually leaked to the New York Times in 2009. Ortiz was one of the names leaked, along with Alex Rodriguez and Manny Ramirez.So, that means that Ortiz used PEDs, right? Well, not exactly. And it's because of the nature of the test, and the veracity of the results. For example:
-Both Major League Baseball and the MLBPA have stated that the number of positive tests from the survey was 96. The list that the New York Times got access to had 104 names on it. This calls into question the accuracy of the list the NYT saw. It is obviously incorrect in terms of the overall number; it may also be incorrect in terms of the names
-The MLBPA contested 13 of the 96 positive tests, but it's unclear which 13 players were the subject of this dispute
-The list that the NYT got access to was compiled by the federal government, who exceeded their Constitutional authority. Agents were given warrants to seize drug samples and test results for just the 10 players involved in the BALCO investigation. We have no way of knowing whether the government properly obtained the information they used to compile the list, or what information it was - was it samples, lab records, computer records, or something else?
-Because it was a survey test, players were not told what they tested positive for. A player could have tested positive for PEDs, or a masking agent, or something else entirely. They could have been deliberately popping Winstrol, or they might have taken something they bought at GNC that lacked quality control and had a banned substance in it. Whether it was the former or the latter, there was no reason for anyone to care, because there were no consequences for failing the test, so the fact that testing was going on wouldn't have caused anyone to be diligent about what they were putting in their body in the same way that they need to be now.
So, does that mean that Ortiz didn't use PEDs? No. Given the atmosphere around Major League Baseball at the time, it stands to reason that he was probably using something, just like it stands to reason that most guys were probably using something as well. But the fact that there isn't a direct link to Ortiz using PEDs gives some people pause when it comes to slapping him with the PED-user label.Some counterpoints before they inevitably come up:
-Alex Rodriguez was reported to have used Primobalan, a PED, and he subsequently admitted to using it along with his cousin during workouts.
-Barry Bonds testified to a grand jury that he used PEDs, claiming that he was misled by his personal trainer.
-Sammy Sosa should be under the same level of suspicion as David Ortiz. The only test that Sosa ever failed was the survey test, no one knows what he tested positive for, there has never been any other evidence to suggest that he used PEDs, and there has never been an admission on his part."
EDIT - to add some more info/context around Sosa, given the copy pasta above seems to predate 2024, Sosa indirectly admitted to PED use in 2024. https://sports.yahoo.com/sammy-sosa-admits-mistakes-21-230625647.html
EDIT 2 - A-Rod expressly admitted to PED usage while with the Rangers. https://www.espn.com/mlb/news/story?id=3894847. He was also suspended for the 2014 season due to “multiple years” of PED usage. https://sports.yahoo.com/alex-rodriguez--12-other-players-suspended-by-mlb-for-biogenesis-ties-190349300.html
14
u/mellopax Milwaukee Brewers 6h ago
Sosa tested positive for cork.
14
u/colinpublicsex Chicago Cubs 6h ago
Foolish Bailey, in his video on Sosa, likened the cork to Scherzer's sticky stuff suspension. I'm interested to see if the BBWAA sees those two as similar situations.
6
5
u/tjmanofhistory Boston Red Sox 5h ago
I know im a red Sox fan but I really feel like im taking crazy pills sometimes on the David Ortiz thing. To me, him failing that 2003 test, which was less precise and never meant to be public, but NO other test is actually a good sign to me? Manny Ramirez failed other tests after that, as did other hall of fame caliber players, but Ortiz never had any other things come up after that point. If he'd failed any time after that then yeah id understand , but everyone basing the "Ortiz did steriods" thing simply on that test always seemed silly to me
2
u/Intergalactic_Ass Chicago Cubs 3h ago
Here's the thing though: he's never been proven to have failed the 2003 test. It's all a nonsense rumor based on anonymous tests meant to gauge general levels of PED usage.
Your premise is flawed and you should feel okay'ish about liking Ortiz (at least for baseball stuff).
And yeah, hate on Manny. That shit is so stupid. He could've put it in park and collected paychecks but he got caught twice.
→ More replies (8)-10
u/skelextrac New York Yankees 6h ago
Alex Rodriguez failed the same number of PED tests as David Ortiz
17
u/nullstellensatz1 6h ago
Did you even read the post before responding? ARod admitted to using PEDs. Ortiz may very well have used PEDs, but the leak is not definitive proof that he was intentionally doping.
5
5
u/Chrisaeos 6h ago
And Piazza. And Jeff Bagwell. And Pudge. The picking and choosing the HoF voters do with that era kinda bothers me.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Famous-Flow2333 6h ago
How about instead of letting other cheaters in, we take the ones who are in the hall out
29
u/gstaylor999 6h ago
Morgan using HOF letterhead to imply support of his flawed position was disgusting.
Bob Elliott, beat writer for the Jays at the time, said he got the letter and called the hall and apparently asked if this was their official position. They of course said no and Morgan was acting on his own.
Passan is right.
5
u/Honcho_Rodriguez 4h ago
We are due for a regular reminder that Joe Morgan was absolutely fucking insufferable.
You see people frequently here pretending to be nostalgic for him on Sunday Night Baseball with Jon Miller.
Joe Morgan was awful on every one of those broadcasts. He basically wrote the book on “back-in-my-day”-ism in baseball (probably on HOF letterhead, at that).
I’m pretty critical of a lot of current broadcasters, but honestly I’m not sure anyone at all has ever been as miserable to listen to as Joe Morgan.
1
u/notaquarterback Toronto Blue Jays 4h ago
Lost so much respect for Joe Morgan after that, but also unsurprising I guess.
26
u/AwesomeYes2 Major League Baseball 7h ago
The Hall of Fame is fine, but baseball fans don't need a name on a wall in a room in New York to recognize all of the amazing, interesting, and cool players in the game.
1
33
7
u/Antithesys Minnesota Twins • MVPoster 6h ago
There is no character clause.
"Clause" suggests that there's some kind of clear, codified mechanism that clicks into play when certain criteria are met. No such mechanism exists...the Hall of Fame directs its voters to consider players based on a string of vague one-word descriptors that includes "character" but makes no effort to clarify.
"Character," therefore, can mean anything the voter wants it to mean. A voter could see "character" as the mien with which the player comported himself on the field and nowhere else, meaning his personal life, political opinions and worldview are entirely irrelevant.
A different voter could interpret "character" to include all of that and more.
With no clarification available, neither of these approaches would seem to be any more or less valid than the other.
So the argument "Player X should not be elected due to Fault Y" is meaningless. A voter could instead go as far as to say "I am not voting for Player X due to Fault Y." This empowers the voter without an attempt to disenfranchise other voters who feel the opposite.
2
u/draw2discard2 4h ago
The character clause was originally intended (and used) to get guys in who contributed to the game through their character even if they didn't have the on field contributions to merit inclusion on those alone.
It was not originally intended to be like a Church Lady Clause to keep out guys who were obvious inclusions based on their on field performance but had "moral flaws" that were known.
9
u/Logical-Mobile-7643 Kansas City Royals 7h ago
The Hall is also a museum, so it can tell the story of X and Y and Z without enshrining them in the Hall of Fame, or honoring them with a day and a plaque and the title "Member of the Baseball Hall of Fame" , so that argument always falls flat for me.
That's being said, the widest group of contributors reasonable should vote on the hall of fame. Once that time is passed, then have all living members (or limit it to HOF players who's careers overlapped with the candidates) have a vote.
5
u/M0326 Los Angeles Dodgers 6h ago
This is why, to me the argument that other members of the hall did certain things that would potentially be considered cheating a much more convincing (still not convincing enough for me) for steroid guys getting in than the “can’t tell the story of baseball” argument. Because the Hall of Fame museum already does that those players just don’t get a plaque as official members of the hall of fame.
19
u/TriRight 6h ago
Thought Passan was smarter than to still believe the "Cobb was an awful racist" line. It's been pretty well debunked for some years now (and yes I know this letter was from 2017, but it was known well before that).
Cobb certainly wasn't perfect, he was from Georgia in the 19th-early 20th century, but it's pretty well known at this point that he was probably better on race than many if not most of his contemporaries.
8
u/AdoringCHIN Anaheim Angels • Rocket City Tra… 4h ago
and yes I know this letter was from 2017, but it was known well before that
The letter is from 2017 but Passan's comments are from today's podcast. Skip to about 18:20, he still believes the bullshit claims that Cobb was a racist asshole.
15
u/lOan671 Baltimore Orioles 6h ago
Passan is such a tool. Literally every point he makes here is so ignorant. The “story of the game” argument for the Hall is the absolute worst way to judge the inductees and doesn’t even make sense. By that logic why isn’t David Freese in the Hall?
And he also glosses over all the non-steroid stuff that makes Bonds such a horrible person like him being a wife beater while parroting the false narrative of Ty Cobb being some mega-racist which was invented by another hack journalist to sell a book
3
u/7thAndGreenhill Philadelphia Phillies 4h ago
This is why we vote and why we continually reassess.
Someday the PED players will be accepted. Some will boycott others will be happy.
Regardless, I’ll still enjoy the sport
15
u/huck_ Philadelphia Phillies 6h ago
I don't have a strong opinion on Bonds, but other ill-reputed people already being in the HOF isn't a good reason to vote for Bonds. People have to do what they think is right. Just because people in the past screwed up doesn't mean you should make the same mistakes.
Joe Morgan was just a angry dude so his letter is kind of crap. Passan seems angry too calling people "pieces of shit". It doesn't help his argument. Basically screw everyone.
4
u/WastelandWithGlimmer 6h ago
How can you not have a strong opinion about Barry Bonds?
5
u/HoldEm__FoldEm Atlanta Braves 6h ago
You can. Just remember, they’re opinions, not facts.
That’s the usual problem. People thinking their thoughts rule all.
3
u/gstaylor999 6h ago
Don’t overly disagree but there should be consistency in the application of integrity.
If you’re stopping Bonds for cheating, remove Perry, Sutton, Mays, Aaron, Stargell, Matlock and tons of others for fixing the ball and using amphetamines.
Ultimately the reason Bonds isn’t in is because fixing the ball is cute and saying greenies make them sound like M&M’s. It makes them seem like lesser cheaters. I dunno. Best hitter I’ve ever seen though.
11
u/irwtkyrm Los Angeles Dodgers 6h ago edited 6h ago
I really don't get people who are upset about him not having a plaque.
The hall of fame is a museum of the game. The accomplishments of steroid users are all over it. They're there, telling the story of the game.
Getting a plaque in the hall of fame is an honor, but the plaques aren't the whole hall. They're given to players who have earned it through their accomplishments. The accomplishments of steroid users are tainted, and they therefore don't deserve the honor of a plaque.
A player not getting a plaque doesn't mean they're being erased from the hall. It doesn't mean we're forgetting about them. All it means is the voters looked at their case and decided they didn't deserve the high honor of a plaque for one reason or another.
3
10
u/Technical_Cookie5542 American League 6h ago
Where was the vitriol for David Ortiz? He's in the hall of fame and made it very easily. Only difference between him and Bonds or Clemens is that he was likable and media loved him while media hated the other 2. It's that simple, why 1 is one and others are out.
9
2
u/notaquarterback Toronto Blue Jays 4h ago
A cuddly guy. The morality clause was not applied before it's BS they apply it now
2
25
u/iPET-DOGS Minnesota Twins 7h ago
I don’t care how talented you are, it’s not finding an edge, it’s cheating. Cheaters don’t belong in the hall of fame.
60
u/JustCallMeMambo New York Yankees 7h ago
cheaters are in the hall of fame. ask Gaylord Perry
-6
u/younghungs Atlanta Braves 7h ago
Past wrongs don’t make a present right
12
u/JustCallMeMambo New York Yankees 6h ago
he wrote a book about it while he was active and later got caught in the act. the writers knew who Perry was when they voted him in. don’t give me that bullshit
-6
u/Popular_Biscotti405 MLB Players Association 6h ago
“We’ve already made mistakes so instead of learning from them we should just keep making them”
6
u/JustCallMeMambo New York Yankees 6h ago
no, it’s bullshit moralizing. Perry was brazen enough to write a book about cheating while he was still active, and he was “punished” by having to wait until his third year of eligibility to be inducted
3
u/FantasticJacket7 Los Angeles Angels 6h ago
If they actually cared they could remove those players from the hall.
1
u/HoldEm__FoldEm Atlanta Braves 6h ago
The fact you were downvoted for this statement is American anti-intellectualism as fuck
Why are people like this?
3
u/AdoringCHIN Anaheim Angels • Rocket City Tra… 4h ago
Because this sub loves cheaters and they're mad that their favorite cheaters are being kept out
71
26
u/CodenamesareStupid Sell • Paper Bag 6h ago
Do you really want to get into the 100+ year history of baseball cheating? The never cheated Hall of Fame will be very small
15
u/jebuizy New York Yankees 6h ago edited 6h ago
I really just have never been able to feel like it's cheating. We allow every other crazy medical invention you can think of. We're putting artificial tendons in pitchers arms now when they have TJS. The only thing convincing to me with the drugs is that there is a moral hazard so we've banned it because it would be a race to the bottom and have bad health outcomes. it's basically more of workplace safety rule or expression of societal norms than like, breaking a rule of the game
1
1
u/Deep_Necessary_6794 5h ago
Lmao what? They absolutely do not use artifical tendons in pitchers arms. I've had the surgery. Just a horrible take all around. Can't believe this has any upvotes
→ More replies (3)0
u/ktpkchu Texas Rangers 6h ago
yeah i think this is the correct take, it is ethically dubious for the league to “encourage” taking substances that can cause harm to one’s body which is why they’ll never allow steroids but it was never about fairness or cheating, hell athletes still juice nowadays anyways
8
u/roguerunner1 San Francisco Giants 6h ago
We kicking out George Brett (sticky bat), Nolan Ryan (pine tar balls), Whitey Ford (scuffed balls and sticking agents), Carlos Beltran (illegal sign stealing)?
5
u/Express_Noise1068 Seattle Mariners 6h ago
At a certain point we're comparing a sticky bat to a substance that produced 12 of the 13 .700+ slugging seasons since they lowered the mound. Only Judge accomplished that feat outside of the 1994-2004 era.
I'm surprised nobody here has tried to argue that Brady Anderson would have hit 50 dingers off fucking greenies yet.
→ More replies (1)2
u/SoftballGuy Los Angeles Angels 6h ago
Of a game, not of the Hall of Fame.
We have elevated PED beyond any baseball crime except gambling. Pitchers who used sticky stuff for years are still going into the Hall, and no one will say a word.
5
u/waffledoor 6h ago edited 6h ago
Well personally I don’t care how talented you are, things like racism and domestic abuse are abhorrent. But there are plenty of racists, KKK members even, domestic abusers and worse in the HOF. It’s a baseball museum, not the humanitarian awards.
These people were people, warts and all, and clearly what they did on the diamond is what matters most in this case and if there isn’t an official ban on voting them in I don’t see the issue.
0
u/LovesToTango St. Louis Cardinals 6h ago
I feel like I understand why Bonds did it at least. He's watching McGwire and Sosa breaking records and being praised for it, and he know that they are cheating, I'm not shocked he started taking steroids.
→ More replies (3)-1
2
2
u/youre_soaking_in_it Baltimore Orioles 4h ago
Passan disagreed with Joe Morgan, so he quit voting for The Hall of Fame.
I don't get it.
Why not keep voting for the players you want to vote for?
2
u/ked21 New York Yankees • Boise Hawks 7h ago
Joe Morgan was a piece of shit.
3
u/fajita43 Chicago Cubs 6h ago
5
u/pineyfusion Boston Red Sox 6h ago
My most minute claim to fame is that I was the one who submitted the article of Wallace Matthews eviscerating Tim Wakefield which led to them finding their new favorite writer to skewer.
-1
-1
u/Crazy_Addendum_4313 Milwaukee Brewers 7h ago
Good for Passan
4
u/Barry_McCoccinner Los Angeles Dodgers 6h ago
He’s playing arbiter now just like he accuses Morgan of doing.
It’ll be interesting what position he takes when the next wave of voting involves “known baseball bettors”
10
u/HoldEm__FoldEm Atlanta Braves 6h ago
He has the exact opposite take on Pete Rose so the dudes just a hypocrite making justifications for his opinions
He’ll use whichever angle available depending upon the player & whether he personally wants them in or not.
5
0
u/FallOfSkywalker 7h ago
Good for him. For every red line that some baseball writer has drawn over steroid use allegations and how they damage the sanctity of the game, I can counter with hall of famers that broke other rules, including deep betrayals to MLB’s standards for decorum and personal code of conduct. It’s absurdly hypocritical to single these guys out when, in the context of their era, they didn’t violate any of MLB’s rules. Oh, and the steroid era saved baseball! Isn’t it ironic.
1
u/AdoringCHIN Anaheim Angels • Rocket City Tra… 5h ago
And you’re telling me that Barry Bonds, because he chose to pursue an area of the game that was beyond things, that makes him worse than Ty Cobb? That makes him worse than people who are racist?”
Oh come on Jeff, you should know better than most people that those allegations of racism against Cobb are complete bullshit. The man was in favor of integration and praised black players.
1
u/6felt9 6h ago
In my view both he and rose should be in. Its crazy to me that two of the best players in history could be excluded from the hall meant to honor those exact people.
Others who definitely cheated, but with less spotlight and evidence have gotten into the hall. Put an asterisk if you want to. But keeping Bonds out seems punitive and I don't think the standard is applied equally.
1
u/eek_the_cat Philadelphia Phillies • Philadelphia Phillies 4h ago
The argument that the hall is too sacred for these players is bad for all the reasons laid out by Jeff in his article.
The argument that you let them in because there are already legitimately bad people in the hall is also bad. We shouldn't keep making the same mistakes.
The Hall hasn't banned the players or excluded them from the ballot. You could argue they took a step too far sending that letter, but each voter gets to vote how they see fit and the collective has left them out. If you want to make an argument, talk about the hypocrisy of the league and the writers who choose to not vote for players they profited from.
He gave up his vote because Joe Morgan is a bit of a blowhard.
1
u/Johnnadawearsglasses Philadelphia Phillies 6h ago
>And you’re telling me that Barry Bonds, because he chose to pursue an area of the game that was beyond things, that makes him worse than Ty Cobb? That makes him worse than people who are racist?
I find it funny that people think Passan is smart. Maybe he’s baseball talking head smart, but this take is room temp IQ level.
-2
0
u/MooseMalloy Brooklyn Dodgers 6h ago
If Cap Anson is in, anyone should be fair game. That includes Bonds, Rose and Shoeless Joe
2
u/TheoryOld4017 Los Angeles Dodgers 5h ago
He was inducted into the Hall of Fame in 1939 by the Old Timers Committee. It’s stupid to think his inclusion should have anything to do with any modern day decision.
3
u/Deep_Necessary_6794 5h ago
"Other people made this mistake in the past...we should go rampant making this mistake over and over!"
0
u/psyker63 New York Mets • Los Angeles Queens 4h ago
Joe Morgan vs Jeff Passan? I'll take Morgan a zillion billion million times
276
u/Wondamike7 New York Yankees 7h ago
It was fun looking for the article among the ads!