Does Keith Hernandez Deserve the HOF?

[jalbright]

So because alcohol is legal and some people abuse it, this is all OK???

I don't think anybody said cocaine is OK. What has been said is that coke use doesn't disqualify someone from the Cooperstown. We all recognize the destructive effect of cocaine, just as alcoholism has that effect. Alcohol was even illegal during 1919-1933. It didn't disqualify people. Some guys have used amphetamines without prescriptions, which is also illegal. None of these substance abuse issues have led to more severe punishments from baseball than have come with steroids. I'm not one of the "Keep all juicers out" crowd, but feel that there's something inimical to the sporting ideal in better players through pharmeceuticals that makes me willing to keep those who were arguably boosted into HOF territory by juicing out. An imperfect solution, I'll admit, but it's the best I can come up with. My feeling is that these issues are best dealt with on a case by case basis rather than a blanket pass or condemnation. However, with the drugs that are clearly destructive in terms of athletic performance, the HOF cases for those users definitely paid a price already. That isn't true with PEDs. That is a part of the calculation involved for me.

[milladrive]

Ok
The responses that I've received are so incredible; I don't know where to start. The spin and minimizing of baseball's drug scandal is really too much.

Here is what I'm reading here: Because people abuse alcohol, other more dangerous illegal drugs are OK? really? Yeah alcohol ruins lives. It's a terrible thing. That's makes cocaine OK?? How many more lives would coke ruin, if it were legal? It's way more powerful and addictive than alcohol. That's why it's illegal.

No, it's illegal because there's more profit in fighting it than accepting it and taxing it. Contrary to what way too many folks think, if blow were decriminalized, not only would the U.S. save the taxpayers about $55,000/year in housing non-violent convicts, it wouldn't magically turn America into a nation of junk-heads. It would also put the non-taxpaying drug dealers out of business almost overnight and guarantee a quality product (much like tobacco, alcohol, caffeine, and any other legal addictive drugs). Not to mention, remember how excited most people were when they turned 21 and could finally drink legally, only to find within a few months they were already taking the privilege for granted? But heaven forbid any politician even touch on the topic of decriminalization of recreational drugs. I mean, gun to my head and given the forced option, I for one would choose anyday to be in the car with the pothead behind the wheel over the inebriated. Naturally, I'd rather not be in the car with either, but I've never known someone high on marijuana to drive their car into oncoming traffic, or even so much as lose their inhibitions. But when the water has been all boiled down, how much of a difference is there between the criminalization of alcohol and the criminalization of all of today's Schedule I drugs/meds?

Even better, and I'm paraphrasing is that it's OK for people to ruin their lives, but when they ruin the record book, we take great offense.

That right! Their lives are not ours to control! The record books affect 100 years of legitimate stats and the millions of people who follow the game. (I'd say 150 years, but there was that pesky gambling thing for the first 50 years.)

Here is a little refresher course of history that I copied.

The Pittsburgh drug trials of 1985 were the catalyst for a baseball-related cocaine scandal which resulted in....

*snip*

AND we know that there were many more. They don't even mention Dwight Gooden.

So because alcohol is legal and some people abuse it, this is all OK???

First, I won't speak for others, but I'd curious to know the source of that article, as well as its footnotes. For all I know, it could've been pulled from anywhere between Sports Illustrated to Highlights. Second, the question you posed in bold is precisely what you're arguing in reverse. So because alcohol is legal and some people abuse it, this is all OK??? Well, I ask, so because cocaine is illegal and some people abuse it, it's all not okay?

JR, I suspect you are too young to remember just how prevelent cocaine use was in the late 70s and early 80s. Yes, some people ruined their lives but alot of people used it recreationally without suffering any real consequences. Baseball players being affluent young people I would say that if Hernandez's 40% overstated the case it wasn't by enough to be grossly wrong (although that number would probably include those who tried it only a few times and were into regular users). We'll never know and I don't really care who did or didn't.

But we care soooooooo much about who did steroids. As if our blessed records may get skewed. Did you read my article? Players were doing it during the game. Players like Tim Raines, who many say is a HOFer. Recreation ??? hardly I'm amazed at the apologies for this from the same group that wants to hang the steroid users.

--I don't recall saying anything one way or the other about steroid users. Perhaps when you respond to someone you should stick to responding to what they actually said rather than making up a viewpoint for them.

Don't'cha hate when people put words in your mouth? I don't mind fielding this one, leecemark.

Again, I'll speak only for myself. I make no excuses for those who were sniffing during the games. What they did during their off-time -- and I don't mean between innings -- was their own private business, as long as they could come in the next day and perform. One of the primary reasons so much emphasis is placed on PEDs is that, unlike cocaine, steroids carry into the next game, and the continued use of them makes the body bigger and stronger in ways Wonder Bread can only dream of doing. Addiciton to cocaine (and alcohol) ultimately does more harm than the user had anticipated, though it must be pointed out that the majority of cocaine (and alcohol) users don't become addicts.

I don't have an issue with players doing coke, grass, or alcohol, as far as voting for the HoF. It hurt their performance and they'll get no credit, but if they are still good enough, I see no problem in voting them in. There are dozens of very good players who did not work out enough, lose weight, study or practice as much as they could have. I see no point in punishing them for 'hurting' their team.

The legal versus illegal point is a moral issue. Grass was pretty much illegal everywhere from 1950-1990. Today it's a lot less. We have hall of famers from that era, and I'm sure many used grass. We have hall of famers from when prohibition existed. Now it's not illegal, but I'm sure many of the players during prohibition drank.

As much as it might 'seem' like baseball suffered in those years, it's apparent that it's still here, much like it's still here while we get through the steroid era.

As for the Hall, I like to discount stats when performance was enhanced, which Keith's wasn't.

Amen, sir. Amen. ...especially to that last line.

[JR Hart]

Well apparantly I'm silly and naive for not liking my baseball players snorting coke in the clubhouse and during the game. I guess it was OK for drug dealers to infiltrate big league clubhouses, becasuse it was evil big brother's fault that coke was even illegal. Also,from what I read, it's OK for fans to pay money to watch players who poison their body, with whatever substance, and not be their best, because it's the players business, if they decide to ruin their careers. And most unbelievably, it's OK for players to ruin their lives by not the record book. That's pretty sacred. (wasn't the ball incredibly juiced in 1930? didn't they raise the mound? and on and on)

Now someone will write that's not what I'm reading, but that is exactly what I'm reading. And that's fine if one believes that. I just never will. The cocaine era hurt baseball. It's been trivialized by history (and here.)

Back to Keith Hernandez. As I said, he's basically just Mark Grace, with a better glove. He's not close to a HOFer in my opinion.

[jalbright]

It's a shame people hurt themselves and the game by cocaine use. It's a shame they mess with alcohol to excess. It's a shame when they do other things, too. But if the Hall is limited to saints, it would no longer honor the best players in the game. Now, the Hall does allow for consideration of other behavoir. If you say Hernandez isn't good enough, and needs a boost, which you won't give him due to consideration of his coke use, that's fine. If you say you think him borderline or just over the line, but the coke use moves him under the line, I at least am fine with that. But your words certainly seem aimed at a blanket condemnation of all cocaine users no matter how well they played, and I, among others, see that as excessive.

[1905 Giants]

Personally I think anyone who did coke made an idiotic choice, but if they were a good player they still belong in the Hall. As for Keith, I'm torn.

[milladrive]

Just saw an editorial piece this morning on the topic. Definitely worth a read, and definitely makes a strong argument in favor of Hernandez's worthiness.

[davewashere]

I find it bizarre that cocaine use has become an issue for prospective Hall of Famers. Baseball players have been abusing their bodies since the game started. I just don't see what that has to do with measuring their careers for Hall of Fame worthiness. It's not like Keith Hernandez is an advocate for cocaine use. There are plenty of others who used cocaine, including Hall of Famers, so does Keith Hernandez get singled out because he would only be a marginal Hall of Famer?

I take that back, because he's not being singled out. I've heard the argument made for Tim Raines as well, except I would actually consider him to be better than a marginal Hall of Famer. Does Tim Raines get punished because cocaine is a stimulant, and running fast was a big part of his game? I think it's a stretch to basically call cocaine a PED, but some writers want to make that argument.