When the Hall of Fame announces results of the baseball writers’ vote each January, the successful candidates are made available to writers in conference calls that day. The next day the Hall brings its new members to New York for a news conference at a midtown hotel. A week or so before the July induction ceremony, the new members are again made available to writers on conference calls.
Some writers, maybe most, see these opportunities as celebratory events in which they are privileged to participate. They are not my kind of writers. I didn’t grow up in the business learning to toss softballs at people I am interviewing and writing about. If there are tough questions to be asked, I was taught, ask them, whatever the circumstances. If I have the opportunity to question Mike Piazza or Donald Trump, I am going to ask the toughest, most relevant question I can.
I raise this issue now because in a conference call last Friday I had the audacity to ask – with the first question yet – Mike Piazza about the long-time speculation about him and steroids and how his long-time back acne (a common sign of steroids use) disappeared when steroids testing began. I have long written about Piazza and his magical back, but this was my first opportunity to ask him the question.
One writer’s reaction to my audacity was called to my attention by my daughter-in-law. I did not ask why she was even reading such nonsense. With a typical playground tone the writer viciously attacked me, saying among other things that I had crapped all over my legacy. It is his legacy he should be concerned about because with columns like that one he has none and very likely will never have one. He is a minnow in an Internet ocean of wanna-be writers.
But he is not worth spending any time on. What is important are his attitude and misrepresentation of my position, in case there are other writers or readers who feel the same way.
If a Mike Piazza is given a forum to be celebrated, should reporters refrain from asking him hard questions? If he has never explained why and how his back cleared up coincidental with the onset of steroids testing, should he not be given a chance to explain how he became a medical marvel? There are plenty of people with back acne who would like to know his secret. The writer of that vicious column ignored that aspect of my question.
Critics of my questioning of Piazza, this writer included, distort my questions. They assert that it was Piazza’s back acne that makes me believe he used performance-enhancing drugs. It has never simply been about his acne, only the miraculous disappearance of the acne at the exact moment that PED testing began. None of these critics have commented or even attempted to offer an explanation for the acne’s disappearance.
Piazza will go into the Hall of Fame next Sunday, courtesy of baseball writers who don’t care if cheaters and liars have bronze plaques in Cooperstown, but if anyone has any doubt about the former catcher and steroids, read this transcript of my questions and his answers.
The Q-and-A comes from a conference call held by the Hall of Fame last Friday. Piazza’s many passionate proponents will never believe that Piazza used PEDs, but they would do well to read what their hero said and didn’t say about steroids.
I should add that Piazza fans have always ridiculed me when I have written that he used steroids and offered as one element of proof the acne that covered his back for years. But again, no one has offered an explanation for its disappearance. I should also acknowledge that Piazza never tested positive for PED use. In his case, though, circumstantial evidence is as strong as it is with any player, including the vanishing acne.
Murray Chass: You have been the subject of much speculation about steroids use. For years during your career your back was covered with acne, which experts say is a telltale sign of steroids use. Your back completely cleared up when baseball began testing for steroids and remained clear until you retired. Could you comment on that?
Mike Piazza: Is there a question?
MC: The question is can you comment on the steroids speculation?
MP: Umm, I think at the end of the day Major League Baseball took steps to definitely implement testing. I think there’s no question that the game has moved on and I think it’s better because of that. I’m just glad and honored that the writers have voted me into the Hall and It’s something I’m really much looking forward to and very, very excited about.
MC: Would you talk more specifically about whether or not you used steroids?
MP: I’ve addressed that many times in the past, sir.
MC: OK, I don’t have any record…
At that point, the conference moderator cut in and said, “Our next question comes from the line of…”
I learned later that a participant was permitted one question and a follow-up so the moderator cut me off when I tried to elicit a legitimate reply from Piazza.
But he certainly never answered the question, leading me to conclude that his evasiveness was an admission that he had used PEDs. Otherwise, why not just flatly deny that he had used PEDs, concoct an explanation for the acne’s disappearance and proclaim the speculation baseless?
Piazza denied nothing, even though in his 2013 autobiography he denied using steroids. Maybe in this instance he figured evading was better than lying. Perhaps he was taken aback by the question, not prepared for it because this was to be a celebration, not an inquisition.
AGING BUT RAGING WORLD OF DAVID ORTIZ
David Ortiz is 40 years old and in his 18th major league season. He is also in his last major league season. That’s right. Before this season began he said it would be his last.
So what is he doing in the last season of his career? He began the post-All-Star segment of the season leading the major leagues in on-base percentage, slugging percentage and the total of those two statistics called OPS.
A baseball statistics analyst once told me that OPS – it hadn’t yet acquired its name – was the best way of measuring a player’s value. By that standard, Ortiz is No. 1. If the voting for most valuable player were conducted today, the Boston Red Sox designated hitter would have to be declared the unanimous winner, not just for the American League but for the major leagues.
Not only was the Dominican dandy leading the majors in on-base (.426), slugging (.682) and the total of the two (an eye-opening 1.107), but he was fourth in batting average (.332), second in runs batted in (72) and tied for ninth in home runs (22).
While Ortiz is having an extraordinary season, his pre-All-Star performance has not been unique. Elias Sports Bureau research found that Bryce Harper, Troy Tulowitzki, Joey Votto, Jose Bautista and Joe Mauer have led their respective leagues in on-base, slugging and OPS at the All-Star break in recent years.
Ortiz, who has been one of the standout clutch hitters in baseball, began his career with the Minnesota Twins, but was free to sign with the Red Sox as a free agent after Terry Ryan, the Twins’ general manager, made probably the worst mistake of his career.
I initially thought Ryan released Ortiz because he didn’t want to pay him what he wanted. Ryan, however, was classy enough to say that wasn’t right.
“I tried to trade David for the better part of a month and a half leading up to the meetings,” Ryan recalled, referring to the 2002 winter meetings. “I couldn’t find a partner, so I wound up asking release waivers on him. I was looking for a prospect or a player who could fit in here. It was a mistake. I was wrong; I was impatient.”
Ortiz has been a fixture and a deity in Boston ever since. Is he a future Hall of Famer? I’ll make that decision for myself in five years when he becomes eligible. That’s what the five-year waiting period is for.
Ortiz has two questions to overcome: As a designated hitter, does he deserve election, and how should we deal with his appearance on the 2003 list of approximately 100 players who tested positive for steroids use in the run-up to penalties for positive tests. Results were supposed to be anonymous, but some names, including Ortiz’s, surfaced in newspaper reports.
I suspect he will be the topic of a healthy debate.
Here’s a preview, an e-mail from a reader:
“Am I the only person who believes that David Ortiz is juicing and MLB has decided not to test him this season?”
I raised the question with a baseball official.
“Every active player is subject to the drug program,” he said. “One’s retirement plans have no bearing on testing.”
STRIKING OUT AND SCORING MORE
Explain, if you can, these developments:
Using the All-Star break as the common denominator, teams had struck out more often than last season but had hit more home runs and scored more runs.
The number of games was virtually the same – 1,331 this year, 1,330 last year, according to Elias Sports Bureau.
Here are figures per game for the last six seasons:
