Using their logic, the BBWAA has to keep Tom Glavine out of the Hall of Fame, right?

72 Comments

Many Hall of Fame voters have said that everyone who played in the steroid era is under suspicion or, at the very least, share culpability because they did not say or do anything to combat the scourge of PEDs during the 1990s. Specific fingers have been pointed at the player’s union and its leadership for standing silent.

Even the publicly anti-PED Curt Schilling has said that, yes, he is partially culpable on these grounds, and that it justifies his exclusion from the Hall of Fame, at least for now:

“If there was ever a ballot and a year to make a statement about what we didn’t do as players, which is we didn’t actively push to get the game clean, this is it … Perception in our world is absolutely reality. Everybody is linked to it. You either are a suspected user or you’re somebody who didn’t actively do anything to stop it. You’re one or the other if you were a player in this generation. Unfortunately, I fall into the category of one of the players that didn’t do anything to stop it. As a player rep and a member of the association, we had the ability to do it and we looked the other way, just like the media did, just like the ownership did, just like the fans did. And now this is part of the price that we’re paying.”

Against that backdrop, J.C. Bradbury makes an interesting point:

 

I don’t think that Glavine, who was probably the most visible and active player representative during the steroid era, will have a particularly hard time getting in nor should he. But really, if you’re going to play the “everyone was responsible and the whole era is under suspicion” card, you have to give Glavine a hard time, right?  I mean, no less an authority than Curt Schilling has told you that it’s OK to do it.

Watch next December: I bet there will be Hall of Fame voters who quote Schilling here and submit more blank ballots or, at the very least, unreasonable ones, feeling they now have intellectual cover, such as it is, to punish even more players than they’re currently punishing.

Dustin Pedroia going back on injured list

Getty Images
4 Comments

Welp, that didn’t last long. Red Sox second baseman Dustin Pedroia is going back on the injured list with more knee issues. If it matters the Sox say it’s not a big deal and they expect him back sooner rather than later, but they also said that his post-2017 knee surgery was just a “cleanup” at first and that basically cost him a year. So.

Pedroia has played in six games and is 2-for-20 with a walk.

I don’t think it’s hyperbole to say that Pedroia’s career may be nearing an end. Sure, he’s under contract for two more years after this season, but he’s also in a unfortunate spiral that so many players experience in their mid-to-late 30s.

Running a website like this makes it all the clearer, actually. When you search a player’s name in our CMS, you get every post in which he appears in reverse chronological order. Just about every long-tenured player ends with about six posts in which he is alternately placed on and activated from the disabled/injured list. Then an offseason link to a big feature in which he’s written about as being “at a crossroads” followed by something vague about “resuming baseball activities” and then, inevitably, the retirement announcement. I can’t count the number of guys whose careers I can tick off in that way by browsing the guts of this site.

I hope that’s not the case for Pedroia. I hope that there’s a “Pedroia wins Comeback Player of the Year” post in the future. Or at the very least a silly “Miller’s Crossing” reference in an “And that Happened” in which I say “the old man’s still an artist with the Thompson” after he peppers the ball around in some 3-for-4, two-double game. I want that stuff to happen.

It’s just that, if you watch this game long enough, you realize how unlikely that is once a player starts to break down.