Bonds = Gaylord

This title may not only seem off topic for a White Sox blog, but also bigoted. I assure you, it's neither. Recently, there's been some debate over whether or not Pierzynski is a cheater. The cause of this discussion is a faked hit-by-pitch that occurred during a Ricky Romero start against the White Sox where the Sox were nearly no-hit. AJ pretended to be hit on the foot (which he didn't appear to be), and headed to first base. Umpire Tim "The Terrible" McClelland accepted AJ's claims, and awarded him first base. Alex Rios immediately followed with a 2-run home run. The Jays still won, but Romero was denied his no-hit bid.

Rob Neyer seems to have ignited the "AJ's a cheater" argument. To me, not only is this ridiculous, it's completely irresponsible on Neyer's behalf. Calling a player a cheater is a big deal. What he said about AJ was no different than claiming a player is on steroids without any significant evidence. Except..well..what AJ did wasn't really cheating. It might be frowned upon, but it's not cheating. It's not against the rules to try and trick an umpire. Fact is, it's commonplace.

When a player traps a fly ball and tries to sell it as a catch, is that not the same thing? When a player turns his back on an inside pitch, but also leans into the pitch to get hit, is this not the same thing? They both involve theatrics to convince an umpire that something happened, which didn't. The reason is to help their team win. This is not wrong. Players should do this. There's a reason Buck Martinez, former catcher/manager and TV announcer for the Blue Jays, gushed at AJ's intelligence after the play, and throughout the series. He's a former player, and he knows the deal.

But anyways, you may be curious as to what this all has to do with Bonds being a Gaylord. Well it all started when I got all uppity and began responding to people on Fan Graphs' article that basically showed their stat-nerd writers are running out of numbers to crunch. Neyer, a stat nerd revolutionist himself, had his opinion treated as gospel by his nerdy minions. Anyways, it all led to me making a post that kind of enlightened myself to a point I had never even thought of. One poster, named "Walt", said that cheating is not accepted in baseball. I disagreed, saying that aside from PED use, cheating is widely accepted. In fact, it's often celebrated, and all one need to do to support this fact is look at the Hall of Fame.

There's several players currently in the Hall that did the same things that AJ did, but because that's not cheating, they're probably not quite "cheaters". But then I thought of one particular player. Gaylord Perry. Perry was notorious for doctoring baseballs. He wasn't just a spitballer, but he also greased up baseballs to a ridiculous extent. He was caught, and suspended for this while he played. His own catcher, Gene Tenace (coincidentally a Blue Jays alumni coach) had this to say: "I can remember a couple of occasions when I couldn't throw the ball back to him because it was so greasy that it slipped out of my hands. I just walked out to the mound and flipped the ball back to him." I got that from Wikipedia, and they have it referenced from somewhere else. Just in case. They also mention he approached Vaseline about endorsing their product because he used so much of it...and not to keep his skin baby soft.

But anyways, the point is, if Perry knowingly did all these things, how did he get elected to the Hall? I thought the Hall of Fame shunned cheaters. No Mark McGwire's allowed. No Barry. No Clemens. Right? Isn't that the assumption? But really, is what Perry did and what those guys did any different? Actually, considering for much of the time steroids weren't outlawed by baseball - and doctoring the ball was during Perry's era - doesn't that make Perry worse?

Truth is, I don't know. I'm not sure I really want to think that hard about it because I don't really like the thought of juicers in the Hall. But if Gossage gets in under the reasoning that Sutter got in...doesn't that same logic imply that cheaters should get in if Perry (among others) got in? They were all just trying to get an edge, right? Some used drugs, others used Vaseline. Is that really so different?

I'm not making a claim so much as I'm posing a question. I'm curious as what other people think about this. What is it that upsets us so much about PED use, but not other forms of cheating that have the same overall effect? If Perry had broken sacred records, would people still be so nonchalant about his Hall of Fame status? I'm not saying they would. I'm not saying they wouldn't. I'm saying it's worth thinking about.