The Chris Moeller Archives

Peer evaluations

It turns out Ryne Sandberg had plenty to say all those years. The soft-spoken former Cub, inducted into the Hall of Fame on Sunday, used part of his induction speech to criticize the players of today who "swing for the fence every time" and mug for the cameras. Many in the Chicago media believe Sandberg was taking a veiled shot at former teammate Sammy Sosa when he spoke the following lines-- "A lot of people say this honor validates my career. But I didn't work hard for validation... I played (the game) right because that's what you're supposed to do-- play it right and with respect. If this validates anything, it's that turning two is more important than finding the little red light in the dugout camera."
Ouch. Sometimes the battle to be the "Mr. Cub" of a given generation resembles the backstage of a Miss America pageant.

In truth, I'm torn over the content of Sandberg's speech, though I want to point out that I think it's always a plus when someone uses an award speech to say anything meaningful at all. Sandberg's right, in particular, about the focus on the long ball. I've long argued that a large reason for the influx of home runs is simply that everybody's swinging for them. A generation or two ago, a team might have only 2 to 4 players in their line-up that took upper-cut swings. Now each team has 6 or 7, including the middle-infielders, who, like Sandberg, used to be the exception. (This is why strikeouts have gone through the roof as well.) My first thought when I read the excerpts of Sandberg's speech was that Ryno had been reading Whitey Herzog's book. Of course, that's a great compliment.

My other thought, though, was that Sandberg's criticisms were making him worthy of one of the world's most exclusive and discriminate fraternities, and that's not a compliment. Every year, it seems, we get more and more Hall of Fame members lecturing us on the proper credentials for induction. We have guys like Bob Feller harboring public resentment towards the larger contracts given to younger players. "Rapid Robert" and others have been outspoken opponents of Pete Rose's enshrinement. Frank Robinson told us earlier this year that he believes any player found to have used steroids should have his numbers erased from the record books. And every two years, the group votes as a whole to deny Hall entry to each and every candidate on their Veterans' Committee ballot.

Their comments too often seem self-serving, and, in the case of Sandberg and a lot of new inductees, a way of ingratiating themselves to their new fraternity brothers. Sandberg told the press Sunday that he idolized players like Mike Schmidt and Pete Rose when he came up in the Phillies' organization. And who wouldn't. Or shouldn't. But Sandberg touched a nerve with me when he juxtaposed that with a speech that included a direct reference to steroids in the modern era, "In my day," Sandberg said, "if a guy showed up 20 pounds heavy, he was out of shape and in trouble."
This takes me back to the Robinson comment. There's little doubt these Hall-of-Fame sluggers hated to see their old records topple during the last decade. Robinson was passed by another player (Sosa) on the all-time home run list just last week, and Sandberg lost his record for career home runs by a secondbaseman in recent years to Jeff Kent. It's fair to say, of course, that today's players have clinical advantages that players of previous generations didn't have, but what else is new? Isn't the technology that allows a doctor to take a tendon out of a leg and put it in a shoulder (Tommy John surgery) also an unfair advantage? Steroid users were operating within the rules of the day-- and I might add, they were often more hard-working and committed to health than their forebears.

The deeper you dig into all of this, the murkier it gets. The less hypocritical Hall of Famers, like Bob Gibson, have admitted that their competitive natures probably would have led them to steroids during their careers had the resources been available-- and not explicitly forbidden. We know that, as a group, players in the 1960s popped amphetamines like candy, and Tom House, a retired pitcher, has told us that steroids were readily available in the clubhouse as far back as the early '70s, when he played with an Atlanta Braves team that included the all-time home run king, Hank Aaron.

I would never peg Ryne Sandberg as a steroid user, but then, based solely on physique, I would have never pegged Rafael Palmeiro, either. A former teammate of Sandberg's suspended for steroids on Monday, Palmeiro may very well be one of the modern players Sandberg was referring to in his speech. Still, it would be difficult to separate any two players by generation when theirs overlap by more than a decade.

I'm not trying to sully Sandberg's well-deserved induction, though it may appear that I am since I just slandered him into the steroid scandal, but my point is the danger of proclaiming your own achievement by making a villain of others. I happen to agree with everything Sandberg said. And there's no doubt he played the game the right way during his career. I just think I liked him a little more when I thought he didn't have to tell us.

---

Now, as for Palmeiro. It would be very easy to come down on this guy, if not for being a cheater, than at least, for being a hypocrite, since the guy was lying to Congress as his colleague, Mark McGwire, took a public flogging for his silence. But I'm not going to do that, and the reason is this-- I believe Palmeiro's story. There is no way this guy would have been knowingly taking steroids, especially during the month he was to testify before Congress. (Though I guess that doesn't mean he never used them.) This just shows how murky the water has become. The line between "steroids" and "steroid-like substances" shifts constantly, and it seems more than likely, at least to me, that Palmeiro thought he was toeing the right side of the line, which he's almost obligated to do when you consider the capitalist natures of both the American and National professional baseball leagues. I've said on the radio that the biggest problem facing baseball in this regard is that they have no system in place to tell baseball players what they can do. It's time to acknowledge these players' competitive natures, and establish a uniform outline.

Sanctimonious sportswriters will line up and take their shots when these modern players are considered for Hall of Fame induction, but the writers will be doing the wrong thing if they elect to scapegoat the best players of the era for the sins of the league itself, which allowed the home runs to fly while the turnstiles spun. Other groups, besides the ballplayers, benefited from the baseball resurgence of the late 1990s, including the writers themselves, who flocked to the publishing houses in record numbers. Let's make sure the focus of reform stays on the future, rather than the past. (Hey, didn't Mark McGwire try to tell us that?) Baseball would be well rid of steroids, but it would be better rid of its hypocrites.

---

10:30pm update: This is just too juicy-- although ludicrous. Jose Canseco tells Sporting News radio that he suspects Major League Baseball and/or the players' union may have spiked Palmeiro's urine sample.

posted by CM @ 9:53 PM