Earlier this week, Umpbump reminded you about where we stand on the Hall of Fame candidates. Here’s what some other folks on the internets are saying about the eligible players:

• Joe Posnanski examines the merits of each and every Hall of Fame inductee in an attempt to better understand … something. He must have been an unbelievably hyper child.
• Baseball Think Factory alerts us to another great minor league gimmick. The Golden Baseball League (GBL) announced today that they have offered professional baseball superstar Rickey Henderson $1M if he elects to be enshrined in the National Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown as a San Diego Surf Dawg. Henderson played the entire 2005 season for the San Diego Surf Dawgs in the inaugural season of the Golden Baseball League. I don’t want to throw cold water on the Surf Dawgs, but last I checked players were no longer allowed to choose which cap they wear on their HOF plaque.
• Fox Sports’ Tracy Ringolsby chastises Rickey Henderson for not knowing when to hang up his cleats, saying, “From the Mets to the Mariners to the Padres to the Red Sox and Dodgers, Henderson put on an uncharacteristic performance. The last three years he struck out more than he walked for the first three times in two decades. His hit a paltry .228. He stole a total of only 72 bases, a figure he had surpassed in seven single seasons.” Why you gotta focus on the negative, Tracy?
• The Hardball Times’ Tom Tango makes his case for Tim Raines induction by comparing him to the best leadoff hitters already in the HOF.
• Boy of Summer thinks Harold Baines is not a Hall of Famer. Rob Neyer agrees. But MLB.com’s Scott Merkin thinks Baines belongs. Here’s my favorite line from Merkin:

Clutch hitting for Baines, who turns 50 on March 15, led to an amazing 1,628 RBIs despite only topping the 100-RBI plateau in 1982 (105) and 1985 (113) with the White Sox, and with Baltimore and Cleveland in 1999 (103).

As Neyer points out, Baines wasn’t particularly clutch. His impressive RBI total is due more to longevity — Baines played until he was 42. And good for him. But sticking around a long time doesn’t get you into the Hall of Fame. If it did Jamie Moyer would be a first ballot lock.

• LoHud Yankees Blog says older players should be judged by outdated statistics: “Nobody cared about on-base percentage in the 70s and 80s. Rice’s job was to swing for the fences. But now we know OBP matters. But Jim Rice can’t get in the DeLorean and take more pitches because it would make the Baseball Prospectus guys respect him more.”
• Athletics Nation’s Baseballgirl says she is feeling more forgiving of Mark McGwire lately, and wonders if BBWAA members feel the same.

Today, the Hall of Fame sent out the 2009 ballots. New names on the ballot include Rickey Henderson and a bunch of other guys. Here at Umpbump, we’ve never been shy about supporting or damning eligible HOF players. Here’s a reminder of what we’ve written about some of the leading candidates, as well as some more up-to-date views.

On Jim Rice

Nick: “[I]f Jim Rice is a Hall of Famer, than there are probably at least a hundred other guys with better careers than Rice who should go in too. For a guy who was a left fielder, who hit in the middle of incredible lineups, and who demonstrably got a huge boost from playing half his games in Fenway Park, Rice has no place in the Hall of Fame. People keep trying to argue that Rice was the best outfielder in the American League during his prime. But I’m not sure that Rice was even the best outfielder on his own team during those years, because Dwight Evans, who was one of the better defensive outfielders of all time, did just about everything equal to or better than Rice. Well, except pile up RBI, which was just a function of where Rice was penciled into the batting order anyway.”

Paul: “[W]e need to pose the question – Would Jim Rice have been a Hall of Fame caliber player if he were not drafted by the Boston Red Sox? … If we cannot penalize him for being a Red Sox (which I have no interest in doing), then we can’t credit him for it either…. During the games where Rice didn’t have the pleasure of hitting in Fenway, an argument could be made that Andy Van Slyke was a better player (since Andy played a more demanding position). Now that’s nothing to scoff at ordinarily since Van Slyke was a very good player – but he’s no Hall of Famer.”

Sarah: “In ‘77, ‘78 and ‘79, he was in his prime. He hit more than 35 homers in each of those three years, while also collecting over 200 hits — the only major-league player to ever accomplish that feat…In fact, though Rice is now remembered as a lead-footed, perennially injured slugger, he was actually possessed of the rare ability to hit for both power and average. Though his lifetime batting average of .298 and 382 total home runs may not look like much on their own, look at them together and the impact is powerful: out of all retired players, Rice ranks tenth in terms of batting average and homers. Needless to say, those players (Hank Aaron, Jimmie Foxx, Lou Gehrig, Mickey Mantle, Willie Mays, Stan Musial, Mel Ott, Babe Ruth, and Ted Williams) are all in the Hall of Fame.”

On Tim Raines

Nick: “I understand all you New York-based writers never noticed Raines because he played all those years in Montreal while you guys were too busy noticing Yankees and Red Sox like Jim Rice. But shouldn’t you at least take a look at his career numbers? Did any of the people who didn’t vote for Raines even consider that he was a superior player to former stolen base king and present Hall of Famer Lou Brock in just about every way imaginable? … I mean seriously. A .385 on base percentage? 808 stolen bases, 4th all time in the modern era behind only Henderson, Brock, and Ty Cobb? The highest stolen base percentage in baseball history at 84.7%?”

On Jack Morris

Nick: “Morris’s career ERA is high for a hall of famer, but that’s about the only reason I could see to keep him out. The man was the ace of every team he ever pitched on, including four World Series squads, and outdueled John Smoltz in the greatest game in World Series history. If the Hall of Fame is all about stats (which it is clearly not), then he could be kept out, but if it is about fame and glory, there has to be a place for Jack Morris, who was the greatest starting pitcher of the 80s.” I’ve changed my mind on Jack Morris, so I can no longer stand by this Jack Morris quote.

Coley: “1. Win Shares are a good stat. But they’re not all-important. There are HOF pitchers with fewer Win shares than Morris. Bruce Sutter had 168! 2. Morris never won a Cy Young, but he came darned close. He finished fifth or better in the Cy voting five times. He led the league in wins twice and in strikeouts and complete games once. He was a five-time all-star. And nobody won more games in the 1980s. 3. Yeah, his ERA was high. But his career ERA was inflated by a couple of rough years (1988-1990). You know what Morris did in 1991? He won 21 games and posted an ERA of 3.43. That’s HOF perseverance, baby!” I’m off the Morris bandwagon, too. I think Morris was a very good pitcher, the kind of guy it was easy to root for. But he was probably more hype than substance. All Star game appearances and Cy Young votes are nice, but those awards are highly subjective.

Paul: I don’t think Jack Morris belongs in the Hall. So what if he won the most games in the 1980s? Couple that with his ERA and what do you get? One lucky pitcher who was never consistently among the best.

On Andre Dawson

Nick: “The first 16 years of Andre Dawson’s career are virtually identical to the entire 16 years of Jim Rice’s, except that Dawson stole 318 bases to Rice’s 58, won 8 gold gloves to Rice’s zero, and hung around a few more years to hit 56 more home runs than Rice. Dawson was a complete player, whereas Rice was a one-dimensional slugger.”

On Mark McGwire

Paul: “Let me get one thing straight – I do not believe that McGwire was clean, and depending on the mood, may ridicule anyone who tries to insinuate otherwise. Which I guess puts me in the camp of people who think that a) steroid testing came far too late, b) we will therefore never know who was or wasn’t using, c) there’s no way that the town of Cooperstown or the Museum itself will lock out all those who played in the “steroids era”, so d) the Hall must admit all the elite players of their times, regardless of how loud the whispers may be. Let’s take this step-by-step.”

Sarah: “He was the most famous slugger of his era because of illegal steroids. He was one of the most intimidating physical presences in sports history because he took banned substances. He broke an untouchable record by injecting substances that gave him an unfair advantage. He hit 245 homers in a four year span by taking drugs. He finished seventh on the all-time home run list by relying on Slugger’s Little Helper. He made 12 All-Star Teams because he gained an unfair advantage over other players. In fact, every one of Big Mac’s Hall qualifications goes directly to his use of illegal PED’s. Unlike Barry Bonds, who likely would have been a Hall of Famer even without the drugs, Big Mac only achieved what he did BECAUSE of the drugs. And isn’t inducting him actually tantamount to endorsing drug use…?”

Nick: “I am starting to think that maybe if a player were to come clean, 100%, and take full responsibility for his mistakes (and I don’t mean the Andy Pettite “I only did it once and it wasn’t even wrong” thing), then maybe we should consider them for the Hall. Because players coming clean in an honest and humble way would be the best hope for healing the sport and moving forward. But until Mark McGwire comes clean, and there’s no sign that he ever will, I will keep rooting for them to keep him out of the Hall forever.”

On Ricky Henderson

Bill James: “If you could split (Rickey Henderson) in two, you’d have two Hall of Famers.”

What you said

Last year, we asked Umpbump readers who they would vote for and here’s what they said.

It’s really too bad. I love Bill Simmons. He’s funny. He’s to the point. And his Sports Guy blog is so delightfully long and rambling. Plus, he gives hope to bloggers everywhere that one day, you too may be plucked from obscurity by ESPN and get paid to do what you already do for free.

But in this column from last year which ESPN has just resurfaced, he’s not really that funny. And not really to the point. I didn’t like it then, I don’t like it now.

He gets off to a decent start:

Normally, I enjoy the week the Baseball Hall of Fame inductees are announced. Not this year. With Mark McGwire’s inclusion on the 2007 ballot, we have officially entered the Let’s Blackball the Potential-Steroids-Guy Era.

Some writers won’t vote for McGwire because he probably used steroids — keep in mind there’s never been proof that he did, other than a visible bottle of andro and those 135 pounds of muscle he added from 1990 to 2002 — which would be fine if they weren’t so pious about it.

135 lbs of muscle? Pretty funny. Okay. Pious? Yeah, fair point. What else you got, Sports Guy?

Not content with simply dismissing McGwire’s candidacy and moving on, they need to climb on their high horses and rip the guy to shreds. Of course, many of them would appear on any radio or TV show for 50 bucks and a free sandwich. We’re supposed to believe they would refuse the chance to take a drug that would enable them to do their job twice as well and make 10 times as much money? Yeah, right.

Totally valid. In fact, 50 bucks is what the Metro pays me per column (sandwich not included). Unfortunately, this may be the last valid point Simmons makes in this column, so take a minute to savor it. Go on. I’ll wait.

Ready?

Read the rest of this entry »

1. It’s good to see Goose Gossage finally get in, as he was clearly the most deserving person eligible for the Hall of Fame but not yet in. In hindsight, it’s just amazing that it took him nine ballots to get in, and that Bruce Sutter got in first. Goose Gossage’s best 12-year run was better than Bruce Sutter’s entire 12-year career by almost any statistical measure except saves, plus Gossage also had another 10 seasons of pretty decent work on either side of his peak.

A lot of people are talking about how the election of Gossage speaks to a continuing evolution in how the Hall voters view closers, and that the door is being opened to allowing more relievers into the Hall. I hope that is not the case. Only five relief pitchers have been elected to the hall of fame, and already one of them (Sutter) and arguably a second (Fingers) can be ranked among the least deserving players enshrined

Here’s hoping that Gossage is the last reliever elected until Mariano Rivera and Trevor Hoffman get the call.

2. Jim Rice only has one year of eligibility left, but if precedent is any guide, he is a virtual lock to get in next season, having secured a staggering 72.2 percent of the vote and falling just 16 votes shy out of 543 ballots cast. No player has ever gotten more than 70 percent of the vote without being elected the following year, and with the Rice supporters only needing to change the minds of a handful of voters and having a whole year to do it, it’s almost impossible to imagine that he won’t be in next year.

Which is a shame. Because if Jim Rice is a Hall of Famer, than there are probably at least a hundred other guys with better careers than Rice who should go in too. For a guy who was a left fielder, who hit in the middle of incredible lineups, and who demonstrably got a huge boost from playing half his games in Fenway Park, Rice has no place in the Hall of Fame.

People keep trying to argue that Rice was the best outfielder in the American League during his prime. But I’m not sure that Rice was even the best outfielder on his own team during those years, because Dwight Evans, who was one of the better defensive outfielders of all time, did just about everything equal to or better than Rice. Well, except pile up RBI, which was just a function of where Rice was penciled into the batting order anyway.

If Jim Rice is a Hall of Famer, than Dewey should have been a mortal lock. Jim Rice had a career OPS+ of 128, despite not playing through his late 30s decline phase, whereas Evans had a career OPS+ of 127. Evans had 345.5 career win shares (including 51.9 on defense), whereas Jim Rice had only 282 career win shares, ranking him 228th all-time (right between Sal Bando and Boog Powell). And though Rice averaged 6.0 runs created per game over his career, Dewey averaged 6.2, and again that’s including all the declining late-30s seasons Evans played which Rice didn’t.

And yet Evans got less than 5% of the vote and fell off the ballot after one year, whereas Rice keeps building momentum towards his eventual enshrinement? Crazy.

3. It was gratifying to see Mark McGwire’s vote totals holding firm at just a shade over 23 percent, hundreds and hundreds of votes shy of election, especially after a lot of people were predicting that he would see a big jump now that he had already been “punished” in his first year of eligibility.

I wrote a post in this space last year, arguing that we should never elect anyone tainted by steroids, because the Hall is an honor and not a right. I think my policy might be changing in the wake of the Mitchell report, after realizing just how widespread the abuse was. Now I am starting to think that maybe if a player were to come clean, 100%, and take full responsibility for his mistakes (and I don’t mean the Andy Pettite “I only did it once and it wasn’t even wrong” thing), then maybe we should consider them for the Hall.

Because players coming clean in an honest and humble way would be the best hope for healing the sport and moving forward.

But until Mark McGwire comes clean, and there’s no sign that he ever will, I will keep rooting for them to keep him out of the Hall forever.

4. Lastly, I was amazed and saddened to see that Tim Raines only got 24.3 percent of the vote. Fine, I understand all you New York-based writers never noticed Raines because he played all those years in Montreal while you guys were too busy noticing Yankees and Red Sox like Jim Rice. But shouldn’t you at least take a look at his career numbers? Did any of the people who didn’t vote for Raines even consider that he was a superior player to former stolen base king and present Hall of Famer Lou Brock in just about every way imaginable?

I don’t know who these guys are comparing Raines to, that they feel he falls short, other than Rickey Henderson, but Rickey Henderson was far and away the greatest leadoff hitter of all time. And I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that Tim Raines was the second greatest leadoff hitter of all time.

I mean seriously. A .385 on base percentage? 808 stolen bases, 4th all time in the modern era behind only Henderson, Brock, and Ty Cobb? The highest stolen base percentage in baseball history at 84.7%?

And as long as people are giving Andre Dawson extra credit for playing on bad knees, and Kirby Puckett free points for having his career cut short by glaucoma, and Jim Rice sympathy for mysteriously becoming sucky at age 34, shouldn’t Raines get some points for the even more insane numbers he would have put up if he wasn’t playing the last third of his career while battling Lupus?

So yeah, 24.3 percent, that’s ridiculous. I think Tim Raines is going to have to be the subject of my next Hall of Fame crusade.

Jim Caple is a Hall of Fame voter. Remember that when you read this snippet from a debate between Caple and fellow ESPN baseball writer Jerry Crasnick, where the two debate the HOF candidacy of Mark McGwire:

Crasnick: I’m afraid of saying “yes” on a guy like McGwire only to regret my decision later. Does that make sense?

Caple: Yes, it does, though really, I don’t know what we’re going to find out at this point. I mean, they weren’t specifically banned by baseball at the time. And to me, that makes all the difference. (And no, just being an illegal drug isn’t the same thing as being banned. For one thing, I believe a lot of players who took illegal drugs are in the Hall of Fame.) [italics are mine]

Good point Jim. Except that steroids were banned at the time.

MLB banned steroids in 1991. You should know that, Jim. It’s your job to know that.

Here is a history lesson, courtesy of Houston Chronicle baseball writer Richard Justice:

Commissioner Fay Vincent sent the clubs a memo in 1991 reminding them that players were forbidden from taking any illegal substance. He specifically mention steroids in the memo and encouraged the clubs to take a get-tough policy on players thought to be using steroids.What could a team have done if it suspected a player of using steroids? Probably nothing.Vincent simply wanted to be on the record as letting the clubs know that steroid use was against the rules and that they shouldn’t be afraid to confront a player.There was no testing for steroids until 2003 (after being part of the 2002 labor agreement).The notion that Bonds wasn’t breaking any rules is ridiculous. He was. He knew he was.

So there you go, Jim. Steroids have been BANNED and ILLEGAL since 1991.

But, hey, that means that for the first five years of his career, McGwire was (probably) merely taking illegal substances. But nothing banned, God forbid.

You know, the truth is I find a lot of Caple’s writing funny. But when he goes and writes things that demonstrate a lack on understanding of the game, it just makes it that much harder to stomach the omissions of Keith Law and Rob Neyer from the BBWAA.

PS. If you want to read a really good debate, check out the give and take between Gammons and Stark on the merits of Tim Raines’ HOF candidacy.

The Mitchell Report on steroid use in baseball will be released tomorrow and is expected to name at least 50 major league players, and perhaps as many as 80. But this morning, I’ve been thinking about a different scandal.

As part of Hall of Fame week on UmpBump, we posted a poll asking you to vote for players who ought to be in the Hall, but aren’t. The results surprised me. As of this writing, Shoeless Joe Jackson in the lead with 57% of the vote. I, like most baseball fans, know the outline of the story of the Chicago Black Sox and the 1919 World Series, but not the details. The one bit I remember most clearly is the story of the little boy who looked up at Shoeless Joe and pleaded, “Say it ain’t so.” Joe, as you might remember, is supposed to have replied, “It’s so, kid.”

So I started reading up on the scandal this morning, trying to string together half-remembered scraps of gossip from nearly 100 years ago. I came across an excellent repository at the the website of the Chicago Historical Society. The following paragraph especially caught my eye:

Throughout the Series, Hugh Fullerton, a sports writer for the Chicago Herald and Examiner, had been paying close attention to the rumors of a fix. He hinted about the selling of the Series in his newspaper columns and urged club owners to do something about gamblers’ involvement in baseball. Most people didn’t believe fixing the World Series was possible. Club owners, who knew better, were afraid the public would turn their backs on baseball if they admitted any wrongdoing, and refused to acknowledge a problem. (Emphasis added.)

Switch the dates and a couple of names, and the above paragraph could be about our own Steroid Era. And the similarities don’t end with club owners turning a blind eye out of fear.

1. Gambling was a problem in baseball for years and yet no one did anything. Rumors of thrown games went back to the 1800s and the earliest days of the game. Similarly, abuse of steroids, amphetamines, and HGH were a problem for years before any action was taken.

2. Fans of the game were initially skeptical about gambling’s impact on baseball. Even today some still maintain that you cannot really put in a fix on a baseball game because it’s such a game of inches and averages. How can one player—or even one manager, in the case of Pete Rose—really guarantee a loss? Likewise, even now, there are some fans who insist that steroids do not have much of an impact on baseball because, after all, you still have to hit the ball.

3. It took a major crisis for baseball to expunge gambling from the game. Interest in the 1919 World Series—the first after World War I—ran so high, the league made it a best-of-nine series instead of a best-of-seven. When it became clear that the Series had been fixed—and when next season, thrown games continued to be an issue—baseball finally took action, putting several players from the 1919 White Sox on trial. That’s strikingly like the Steroids Era. Executives at every level knew there was a problem, but it took a major crisis—a threat to one of baseball’s most storied records, the career home-run record—for real action to be taken. And again, the issue is being sorted out in court with the indictment of Barry Bonds.

4. Shoeless Joe and his fellow “Black Sox” were scapegoats for a problem that was bigger than themselves. Joe Jackson was born dirt poor and went to work in a textile mill at the age of 13. At a time when most players made between $6,000 and $15,000 a year, he was offered $20,000 just to throw a few games. And the Black Sox were far from the only players to give in to temptation. Yet Joe and his compatriots were caught and banned from baseball (even though they were never convicted by a judge). Today, players like Bonds, Jose Canseco, Rafael Palmeiro, Jason Giambi, and Mark McGwire have become lightning rods for their steroid use, even when we know that players at all levels used steroids and even though neither Bonds nor McGwire ever failed a drug test. And while players these days are highly paid, thanks to the strongest workers’ union in America, many star baseball players are still born into poverty, have huge extended families to take care of, and have an almost overwhelming financial incentive to cheat.

5. Even now, fans are ambivalent about the presence of gambling in the game. Many are content with Hall of Fame bans for gamblers and juicers alike. But as is clear from our poll, many feel that admitted gamblers like Shoeless Joe and Pete Rose should be eligible for the Hall, despite their lifetime bans from baseball. Many feel that these players should be forgiven—Shoeless Joe was, without a doubt, the best hitter of his era and set a record for rookie batting average when he hit .408 in his first full season in the majors. Pete Rose is one of the best hitters of any era, maintaining a .304 average over 24 seasons and amassing a record 4,256 career hits. Similarly, many fans want Barry Bonds and his 756 career home runs in the Hall of Fame. And many want Mark McGwire and his then-single-season record 70 home runs in Cooperstown.

What do I think? I think Chicago White Sox owner Charles Comiskey was a jerk—a jerk and a tightwad who promised his players bonuses and then reneged on his end of the bargain. According to the Chicago Historical Society:

Comiskey frequently made promises to his players that he had no intention of keeping. He once promised his team a big bonus if they won the pennant. When they did win, the bonus turned out to be a case of cheap champagne. Comiskey even charged his players for laundering their uniforms. In protest, for several weeks the players wore the same increasingly dirty uniforms. Comiskey removed the uniforms from their lockers and fined the players.

[...]

Comiskey had once promised [Sox pitcher Eddie] Cicotte that if he won thirty games, he would receive a $10,000 bonus. When Cicotte won twenty-nine games, Comiskey benched him with the excuse that Cicotte should rest up for the pennant games…Cicotte’s personal request, regarding the fix, was $10,000 up front.

I think it’s a travesty that Comiskey is in the Hall of Fame and Shoeless Joe isn’t. But two wrongs don’t make a right. Apologists can portray Shoeless Joe as an underpaid, naive, reluctant conspirator, who was acquitted a judge and hit .385 in the Series. However, Joe admitted to taking money to fix World Series games and admitted to throwing those games. And for that, he is and always should be banned from Cooperstown.

UmpBumpers, what do you think about the lifetime bans of Jackson and Rose? And should those named in the Mitchell Report suffer a similar fate?

It’s Hall of Fame Week at Umpbump. We’ll be taking a look at the guys on the ballot and giving you our take on who does and doesn’t belong in Cooperstown. Here’s one that may be considered a bit controversial – an argument FOR Mark McGwire. 

Card #401 of the 1985 Topps baseball card set. At the height of my card collecting days, this was the must-have. The Mark McGwire rookie card. Decked out in his Team USA uniform, the young Mac may be unrecognizable to those who do and will always associate their image of him with the gargantuan monster he would become in the 1990s. Despite all the evidence that seems to point towards his past use of performance-enhancing drugs, I’m still arguing that Mark McGwire’s plaque belongs in Cooperstown. 

It’s no secret that the only reason why Mark McGwire isn’t yet in the Hall-of-Fame is because of how baseball fans and Americans in general strongly disapprove of the use of performance-enhancing drugs.  So I won’t go into the numbers right here (maybe some other time). It really wasn’t that long ago when Big Mac was the darling of the baseball world. They called him “country strong” (which I think just basically means he’s big and, you know, white), and credited him and Sammy Sosa with popularizing baseball once again.  But this perception gradually changed beginning in 1998 when an AP reporter named Steve Wilstein noticed something in McGwire’s locker – a bottle of androstenedione. Then, the topic resurfaced once again in 2005, when Jose Canseco revealed in his book “Juiced”, that he had personally injected McGwire with steroids. In his butt cheek. I feel the need to point that out once again. Finally, on March 17, 2005, McGwire was called to testify in front of the U.S. House Government Reform Committee along with some of his fellow ballplayers, where he deflected all questions regarding the allegations of his own steroid use: 

“I’m not here to talk about the past. I’m here to be positive about this subject.” 

And with that line, McGwire became a pariah. The hero had fallen, and McGwire failed to garner even 24% of the vote a year ago when he became eligible to be inducted into the National Baseball Hall of Fame last year. But I’m here to argue that this is actually the wrong move. 

Read the rest of this entry »

Curt Schilling can’t go one month without shooting his mouth off. He’s simply not capable of it. So it should come as no surprise that, when he sat down recently with Bob Costas, Schilling said some fairly contentious stuff.

According to ESPN, Schilling told Costas that he felt that Mark McGwire and Barry Bonds’ refusals to address accusations of steroids use are tantamount to admissions.

From ESPN.com:

“If someone wrote that stuff about me and I didn’t sue their [butt] off, am I not admitting that there’s some legitimacy to it?” he said on HBO’s “Costas Now.”

Schilling said “this will be the steroids era forever” and proposed that Jose Canseco and Rafael Palmeiro should be punished for steroids use.

“Jose Canseco admitted he cheated his entire career,” Schilling said. “Everything he ever did should be wiped clean. I think his MVP should go back and should go to the runner-up.”

As for Palmeiro, Schilling said: “The year he tested positive, nothing he did that year should count, which I think would take away 3,000 hits for him.”

The only thing surprising about Schilling’s comments is that they come just two months after the Red Sox pitcher apologized for comments he made regarding Bonds’ alledged steroid use.

Here’s what Schilling said about Bonds:

“I mean, he admitted that he used steroids,” Schilling said Tuesday. “I mean, there’s no gray area. He admitted to cheating on his wife, cheating on his taxes and cheating on the game, so I think the reaction around the league, the game, being what it is, in the case of what people think. Hank Aaron not being there. The commissioner trying to figure out where to be. It’s sad.

“And I don’t care that he’s black, or green, or purple, or yellow, or whatever. It’s unfortunate … there’s good people and bad people. It’s unfortunate that it’s happening the way it’s happening.”

And here’s Schilling’s apology:

“Everyone has days and events in life they’d love to push the rewind button on, yesterday was one of those days. Regardless of my opinions, thoughts and beliefs on anything Barry Bonds it was absolutely irresponsible and wrong to say what I did. I don’t think it’s within anyone’s right to say the things I said yesterday and affect other peoples lives in that way.”

So it’s a little weird that Schilling, after publicly apologizing for criticizing Bonds’ steroid use, would again publicly criticize Bonds’ steroid use. Except that this is Curt Schilling and shooting his mouth off is what he’s best at. So it’s really not that weird at all.