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.

There is that great scene in Field of Dreams when Terrence Mann tells Ray why baseball matters:

The one constant through all the years, has been baseball. America has rolled by like an army of steamrollers. It has been erased like a blackboard, rebuilt, and erased again. But baseball has marked the time. This field, this game, it’s a part of our past. It reminds us of all that once was good, and could be again.

Well there are two glaring exceptions to this–two times in baseball’s history when the game was not constant, when it wasn’t the way it was supposed to be, when it reminded us of all that was bad, rather than all that was good.  The first time was the Black Sox scandal, and the second time was the Steroid Era.

One of the tired, hackneyed old saws about putting guys like Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, and Barry Bonds in the Hall of Fame is that we lack perspective, and we wont be able to put their achievements in context until several years have gone by and we know more about the true impact of steroids on the game.

Well, some years have gone by already, and we are getting more and more context, and it’s all pointing toward the same conclusion–namely, that steroids had a huge and ridiculous impact on the game for a few years, so much so that if you run statistical models on baseball performance over time, people like the good folks at Baseball Prospectus and elsewhere keep finding that performances in the years 1995-2002 were so far outside what is statistically possible under normal random chance that they can only conclude that a fundamentally different game was being played in those years.  Different because of rampant use of steroids.

My opinion on putting these guys in the hall of fame used to be that we should punish them by not putting them in on the first ballot to show our displeasure, and then let them in a few years later to reflect their numbers.

But I’ve changed my mind.  Let’s keep these guys out forever.

The defenders of the steroid users have come up with all sorts of ridiculous defenses. “The pitchers used steroids too.” So what? They’re cheaters too - keep them all out. “You still have to hit the ball.” Um, yeah, thanks a lot Captain Obvious. If Barry Bonds had used a metal bat whent the rest of the league was still using a wooden bats, he would “still have to hit the ball,” but would that mean he had earned all of the 2,567 home runs he would have hit? “It wasn’t illegal at the time.” Well, first of all, it was illegal in that it was against actual laws to possess and use steroids without prescriptions, just not against basball rules. But seriously, can we really make an argument that using steroids was not cheating at the time? Everyone knew it was cheating, which was why there were all the denials and secrecy.

But the main argument of the steroid defenders is that there is no incontrovertable evidence that any of these guys used steroids.  Of course, these people consistently overlook the testimony under sworn oath of guys like Bonds and Giambi in front of a Grand freakin’ Jury, and the drug test actually failed by Rafael Palmeiro, but even when it comes to guys like Sammy Sosa, the circumstantial evidence is so overwhelming that we really have to keep them out of the Hall.

Look, this isn’t a trial. We are not debating whether we are going to put these guys away for life or send them to the electric chair. There is no “standard of proof” in Hall-of-Fame voting wherein we have to hold these guys innocent until proven guilty “beyond a shadow of a doubt.”

Getting into the Hall of Fame is not a right or an obigation that automatically accrues to any player who reaches a certain benchmark set of numbers.  If that were the case, we wouldn’t need to vote at all. Rather, the Hall of Fame is an honor–the highest honor it is possible to bestow in this game–and it should not be bestowed on anyone unless we are absolutely, 100 percent positive that they deserve it.

I would say, if these guys are willing to swear under oath in court that they didn’t do steroids, then maybe we could let them in, but these guys couldn’t even deny it before the Congressional hearing.  The standard of proof needs to be reversed. Rather than needing to prove beyond all shadow of a doubt that these guys did do steroids before we can keep them out of the Hall, we need to prove beyond all doubt that these guys didn’t do steroids before we let them in.  But if there is any doubt, keep them out, especially since there is no way to get a guy out of the Hall once he is in, but there are many ways to put guys in later if we find out they deserve it.

Because I don’t want to be taking my grandchildren to Cooperstown 50 years from now and telling them that yeah, these 400 guys earned their way in, but don’t pay attention to those 15 guys because we found out later that they used steroids.

Because I want the Hall of Fame, at least, to be a place that reminds us of all that once was good, and could be again.

I was reading Philadelphia Inquirer baseball writer Jim Salisbury’s Baseball Notes column today. Salisbury (unlike David Aldridge and 67 other Philly newsroom employees) still has a job at the Inky. For better or worse.

Salisbury notes in his Notes that tomorrow is the day we find out which players will be in the 2007 Hall of Fame class. And for his part, Salisbury voted for nine guys, none named McGwire:

Nine players got a check mark next to their names on this scribe’s ballot - Ripken, Gwynn, Goose Gossage, Jim Rice, Lee Smith, Jack Morris, Andre Dawson, Bert Blyleven and Albert Belle. McGwire didn’t get one. He remains under review until we learn more about the steroid era and his place in it.

Whoah, take a step back there, Jim. Albert Belle? Really?

Here’s the thing about Albert Belle: I think there’s a legit argument to be made that Belle belongs in the Hall. But I’m not sure you can withhold a vote for McGwire, because you suspect he used steroids, but vote for Bell, who we know corked his bat, stalked his girlfriend, and, come to think of it, probably also used steroids (as the Sports Guy points out, all the signs were there).

Belle was a cheater and a total delinquent. He embarrassed the game on a regular basis. How can one possibly argue in favor of Bell, but against McGwire? It’s impossible. It can’t be done.

On a random note, Salisbury’s column includes one totally awesome tidbit. Apparently the Phils have a pitching prospect in their system named Josh Outman. Is that not one of the all-time great names for a pitcher? Just one question: When Outman makes it to the bigs, what will his fan club be called? We had Wolf’s Wolves, Thomie’s Homies, and Sal (Fasano)’s Pals. Is Outman’s Outmen too obvious?

After Sarah’s comprehensive post on Mark McGwire, I felt the need to weigh in. Because there’s one thing about the McGwire debate that bothers me more than anything else. Barry Bonds.

The McGwire decision will set a precedent. It will be the benchmark for how we vote on future tainted stars, most notably Bonds. And I don’t think the baseball writers have thought about that. Not really.

On the surface, denying McGwire isn’t so tough. He hit a bunch of homers and it’s easy to say he wouldn’t have been a Hall of Fame player without the homers and he wouldn’t have hit the homers without the roids. But voters will have to swallow hard before denying Bonds. Through 2006, Bonds leads all players in career walks (2,426) and intentional walks (645). He is 2nd on the list of all-time career home runs (734 (trailing Hank Aaron’s 755) and extra base hits (1,398), 3rd in at bats per home run (13.0), 6th in obp (on-base percentage) (.443), runs (2,152), slugging percentage (.608), and total bases (5,784), and 7th in RBIs (1,930). How do you keep the best player in the history of the game out of the HOF?

ESPN’s Jim Caple doesn’t think we should deny Bonds or McGwire. He writes, tongue-in-cheek:

You knew McGwire was taking andro in 1998’s home run chase and suspected he was taking something much stronger but nonetheless repeatedly wrote stories glorifying his deeds and crediting him with “saving baseball.” You now have no additional evidence other than those same old suspicions, but you are nonetheless repeatedly writing stories condemning his actions and blaming him for ruining baseball. Therefore you clearly must not vote for McGwire, because that was then and this is now.

Of course, there’s a problem with Caple’s argument. Because, we do know more now than we knew then. We know that McGwire was using steroids. At least, we know all that we feel we need to. When he went in front of Congress and passed on the chance to deny allegations that he was doping, McGwire essentially confessed.

SI writer Phil Taylor isn’t going to vote for McGwire, because he says McGwire’s legacy is steroid use, not home runs. That sounds like a pretty flimsy reason to me. How we view a player changes over time. Ten years ago McGwire’s legacy was home runs. He saved baseball, remember? Sure, right now, his legacy is steroids. But, ten years from now, when the steroids debate has died down, who knows? Maybe someday we’ll return to viewing Big Mac as a great power hitter, instead of a performance enhanced cheater. After all, this is the country that forgave Marion Barry, Kobe, and Ted Kennedy. The winds of public perception shift constantly. Here’s how Taylor describes his thought process on McGwire:

A debate is definitely necessary for McGwire, a serious internal debate. Is it fair to assume he used steroids? If he did, would he have been a Cooperstown-caliber player without them? Should we hold his steroid-use against him when we have no idea how many other players were doing the same thing?

Now this is where things get sticky. Am I the only one who gets nervous when baseball writers are trying to quantify things like, “would he have been a Cooperstown-caliber player without [steroids]?” I mean, is there anything more impossible to determine? Why even try? Well, Taylor isn’t afraid to try. He says:

Would he have been a Hall of Fame caliber player without them? McGwire is no Barry Bonds, who was headed for the Hall long before anyone suspected steroid use.

Oh god. Shoot me now.

You know, I don’t really care if McGwire gets into the Hall. But I hope against hope that I’ll never see the day when baseball writers are trying to decide if a player would have been good had he decided not to use steroids.

In the future, if a great player takes steroids, fails a drug test and is suspended, will that stop us from voting him into the HOF? What if Albert Pujols flunks a test and is suspended 50 games, but then returns to win three more MVPs? Will we block his path to Cooperstown? What about if Roger Clemens flunked a drug test?

As far as I’m concerned, we need to make a collective decision: either using steroids is a sin tantamount to betting on baseball and getting caught juicing should keep a player out of Cooperstown, or we’re just going to decide not to care all that much and treat steroids like any other drug.

If we decide that using steroids should keep a player out of the Hall, that’s fine. But baseball writers should remember that when they’re deciding not to vote for McGwire, they’re also deciding not to vote for Bonds and every great but possibly juiced player that comes after him.

Today during my lunch break, I was watching “Around the Horn” at the pizza place (it was more of a “linner” or “dunch” break–I was on a late shift). I noticed they were talking about the Mark McGwire issue. Monday, the Hall of Fame ballots went out with his name on them. Not the did-he-or-didn’t-he-inject issue—that’s basically settled—but the would-you-or-wouldn’t-you-vote-for-him issue. But I couldn’t hear what they were saying, alas, because the sound was off. (What’s the point of having “Around the Horn” on at the pizza place if you’re not going to have the sound on, folks?) So I did some research.

The only guest who seems to have anything published (and easily find-able on the internet) so far is the Boston Globe’s Bob Ryan. He’s not voting for McGwire:

That glorious weekend in St. Louis eight years ago? I now feel I was used. And I’m sorry, but I cannot get past that sad day in March 2005 when Mark McGwire appeared before the House Government Reform Committee and became the first American citizen to invoke the 4 1/2 Amendment. Asked if he had used performance-enhancing substances, he said, “My lawyers have advised me that I cannot answer these questions without jeopardizing my friends, my family, and myself.”

And then there was this classic: “I’m not here to talk about the past,” he whimpered.

Well, Mark, if you can’t bring yourself to talk about your past, I don’t see any reason why we should waste time evaluating it.

(Another guest was our favorite here on UmpBump, Chicago Sun-Times scribe Jay Mariotti. But he hasn’t written on the issue yet, it seems. Let us take a moment to be sad about this. Okay, moving on.)

Of course, the AP, being the AP, has already conducted an informal poll: 

The Associated Press contacted about 150 of the approximately 575 people who are eligible to cast ballots. Of that number, 125 responded. Of those, 74 said they will not vote for McGwire, 23 will vote for him, 16 are undecided, five refused to say, five aren’t allowed to vote by their employers and two will abstain.

That means if all the undecideds and those refusing to say voted for McGwire, and everyone else voted, McGwire would need 84% of the rest to get into the Hall.

Hmm, so, okay, math. Unless the self-selecting sample that responded is extremely skewed, I’d say that McGwire’s chances of getting in are…remote. (Red Roof Inn, anyone?)

To get another perspective, I tried to find someone besides Tony LaRussa who thought Big Mac should be in the Hall. I had to go all the way to Canada. Canada! Folks, I give you Stephen Brunt:

The Hall of Fame is a place reserved for very good baseball players, not necessarily the same thing as very good human beings. Pete Rose is excluded because he violated a rule that is written on every clubhouse wall. McGwire did no such thing. There was no rule. And all the while he was encouraged, lauded, made wealthy — and exploited to make everyone associated with the game more wealthy as well.

McGwire ought to be in Cooperstown, where his plaque can serve as a permanent reminder of the hypocrisy of the times.

Shame on him. Shame on baseball. Shame on the commissioner. Shame on the press. Shame on those who perpetuated the myth and prospered.

Hmm. Even that’s not exactly a ringing endorsement. I see a lot of shaming going on in that graf.

Let’s try AP sports columnist Tim Dahlberg, who points out that Maris himself isn’t in the Hall. (What, really?) Dahlberg invokes poor confused fans and grasping baseball bigwigs and then, as he gathers steam towards the end of his column, produces this tour-de-force:

McGwire became a very wealthy man playing baseball, and it wasn’t just because some team owner gave him his millions. That money came from fans who bought tickets, fans who scraped together enough money to bring their kids to the game to watch him play.

McGwire owes those fans something for their money.

Yeah, jagoff! Think of the children! Think of little Timmy. Tiny Tim! He sold his crutch to see you play!

But wait, there’s more:

If he didn’t do anything wrong, he should have taken the opportunity while under oath before Congress to say so. He didn’t, so now those fans and writers simply — and rightfully so — assume the worst.

McGwire may still some day go into the Hall of Fame. But it’s not going to happen until he comes clean — really clean.

You hear me, Mark? REALLY CLEAN!  Like hospital clean! Eat-off-the-floor clean! Zestfully clean!

I’m very upset. I need to go drink an entire bottle of wine, by myself, while watching Bridget Jones’s Diary and flipping through the Pottery Barn catalog. I’m just so overwhelmed thinking about the children. THE CHILDREN, MARK.

Oh, and if I could vote? I’d also go with “nay” on that one. Why? Well, because of the children, and little Timmy, and also the shame. But mostly just because even if there wasn’t a rule, there goddamn well shoulda been. You know? The players of today should know that integrity counts. And that even if there isn’t a rule, if it feels like cheating, it probably is. And you can make your millions and even break your records. But there’s a bunch of elitist media types waiting for you on the other side of the white light of retirement. And they will sit in judgment upon thee, and if you want admittance to the pearly gates of Cooperstown, you better remember it. Because goddammit, it was hard being the nerdy ones in high school. Now it’s your turn to pay, jock boy!