Greene County Daily World: Blog: If They Don't Win It's A Shame

If They Don't Win It's A Shame

Posted Monday, June 15, 2009, at 3:21 PM
<< Previous | Read comments | Respond | Email link | Next >>

Bad Bill Dahlen

This past Sunday afternoon I was reading an article on the 2009 Baseball Hall of Fame voting and began looking at this year's Veterans of the pre-1943 era. For some reason, they initiated a separate election for pre-1943 players, I'm not sure why. I knew a little bit about everyone they had on the list except for one person and that was William Frederick "Bill' Dahlen. Consequently, I was forced to do some research to find out who this guy was and where he played. 'Bad Bill', as he was called, played for several teams and amassed some 2457 hits in his career with a decent .267 lifetime batting average. Many consider him the best position player not in the Hall, but I'm not sure I would go that far.

Bad Bill was the Manager of the Dodgers, or rather the Brooklyn Superbas in 1910, which became the Brooklyn Trolley Dodgers in 1911. As I read about Bill Dahlen and the Trolley Dodgers on that Sunday afternoon, I drifted off to sleep. Nothing like being kicked back on a quiet Sunday afternoon; taking a nice relaxing nap on the couch to prepare me for the week ahead.

I would have bet good money that my dreams would have drifted off towards baseball, but somehow I got sidetracked and I was dodging trolleys. Other than riding on trolley cars in San Francisco a couple of times, I've never really spent any great amount of time around trolley cars, but there I was on this peaceful Sunday afternoon, just dodging trolley cars in my dreams as they were coming at me from everywhere, or so it seemed.

Having the most uncomfortable couch in the Western Hemisphere, I awoke with my hip hurting after about an hour of being chased by trolleys. As I fixed myself some dinner, I couldn't get over those dreams and I thought about those trolley cars even while I was eating. I remembered a philosophy class that I had taken years ago and the problem of the trolley car. As the afternoon wore on, I decided to relook the 'trolley problem' and see what I could remember of my long ago class.

The "trolley problem" is stated thusly:

A trolley car is running out of control down a track. Right in its path are 5 people who are tied to the track. You can throw a switch, which will send the trolley down a different track which will save these 5 people. The problem is this, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you throw the switch?

This was an old morality question which had been argued many ways by many different people. Since you have become involved in this problem, what would you do? If you are truly involved and have the necessary means to throw the switch, then you basically have two choices, either you do nothing and let 5 people die or you throw the switch and kill one person. Are you up to playing God and making that decision? Would both decisions be considered immoral?

I don't have the answer for the trolley problem. Myself, I'd throw the switch, but that doesn't mean I'm right. Does that make me a modern day Snidely Whiplash or just a totally confused Dudley Do-Right? That is a heck of a decision to make knowing that to save multiple lives you must elect to kill one.

That "trolley problem" was proposed by the British philosopher Philippa Ruth Foot who was born a 'Bosanquet'. Her father was an Englishman, Captain William Sidney Bence Bosanquet of the Coldstream Guards and her mother was Esther Cleveland, the first and only child to be born in the White House, the daughter of President Grover Cleveland.

Esther's older sister, Ruth, who was born between the two Presidential terms of Grover Cleveland, was called Baby Ruth. The Curtiss Candy Company stated for years that the "Baby Ruth" candy bar was named after her, although many dispute this claim since she had died of diphtheria as a child of twelve a couple of decades prior to the release of this new candy bar. However, the release of this candy bar, just so happened to coincide with the rising popularity of Babe Ruth, the baseball player. You just knew this had to get back to baseball, didn't you?

Speaking of baseball, Grover Cleveland sure rings a bell doesn't it? A Hall of Fame pitcher born during the first Cleveland administration, Grover Cleveland "Ol' Pete" Alexander, was one of the best pitchers who ever played the game. He still has won more games than any other pitcher in the game, except for Cy Young and Walter Johnson.

In 1952, a really horrible movie was released about the life of Ol' Pete called "The Winning Team". Ol' Pete was the only baseball player to be named for a President and portrayed on film by a future President, Ronald Reagan.

By the way, there's a book at Amazon and probably elsewhere, entitled "Bad Bill Dahlen: The Rollicking Life and Times of an Early Baseball Star". You never know, it might make a good Father's day gift for someone, someone who is a Father and likes baseball and has four kids who could pool all their money for one very neat present. Just a thought, if anyone is searching for ideas.

Comments
Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]

Good post Simmons, but I respectfully say that Don Mattingly is the greatest position player yet in the Hall. Never heard of Bad Bill but I would put Donnie Baseball against the greatest of all time.

-- Posted by midnightrambler on Tue, Jun 16, 2009, at 2:11 AM

On just pure numbers I think the nod has to go to Andre Dawson as the best of the rest now that Rice is in. Though I think you could make a pretty serious case for Dale Murphy once the statistics are normalized for era.

Murphy had a great facial mole too. I've always felt that there weren't enough good moles in Cooperstown.

Heck, I'd be just fine with voting in his mole.

-- Posted by GarthHudson on Tue, Jun 16, 2009, at 10:41 AM

Mike Myers would have a field day with that Mole.

-- Posted by Mr. Robato on Tue, Jun 16, 2009, at 11:15 AM

I've got to go with Gavvy Cravath, just look at his stats against his peers. Don't think he had any visible moles, but he did chew a lot.

-- Posted by simmons on Tue, Jun 16, 2009, at 1:23 PM

Nothing wrong with chew.

-- Posted by Mr. Robato on Tue, Jun 16, 2009, at 3:57 PM

The greatest position player not in the hall, Peter Edward Rose. Baseball is played between the lines and he was the greatest ever between the lines, ask his teammates as they was collecting world series rings.

-- Posted by geewowwe on Tue, Jun 16, 2009, at 4:38 PM

I concur Mr Robato...And I concur geewowwe, the hall is not complete without #14, the captain of the World Champs!

-- Posted by CHatton on Tue, Jun 16, 2009, at 9:51 PM

Pete belongs in the Hall...As for McGwire, Sosa, Alex R, and Palmero, I hope none of them make it.

-- Posted by Mr. Robato on Wed, Jun 17, 2009, at 7:01 AM

Pete does not belong in the Hall of Fame.

Please save your:

A) He deserves to be in as a player, and anything that happened after his playing days does not apply

B) There's a precedent allowing other scumbags into Cooperstown

C) He bet on his team to win

arguments for another time. They mean absolutely nothing.

Pete knew the rules, and chose to break them.

If you're interested in sports with predetermined outcomes try professional wrestling, jai alai, or the NBA.

-- Posted by GarthHudson on Wed, Jun 17, 2009, at 9:46 AM

If you are going to keep the entire generatin of the steroid era out of the hall, then Rose has no business in there either. He knew exactly what he was doing.

If you want Rose in, then you have to throw away all the rules, heck, vote Shoeless Joe in while you are at it.

-- Posted by Lil' Hahn on Wed, Jun 17, 2009, at 11:37 AM

In the trolley dilemma, many times the scenario presented can be even more complex. In one version I was presented there are many people the trolley will plough into, as mentioned. However, the one or two people on the side switch are beloved sons or daughters. I, too, think I would pull the switch for the greater good in the first scenario described by Ol Simmons. I can't say I would in the second. I would hate myself either way, I think. Now, if it were my ex-spouse.... Just kidding!

-- Posted by Neverhadittolose on Wed, Jun 17, 2009, at 12:07 PM

This should make everyone go nuts, not only Pete Rose, but also Bonds, Sosa, McGwire, A-Rod, and Palmero, they all should get in, Say what you want they was good for baseball. Fans pay big dollars to go watch a pro baseball game, and they are more likely to enjoy a slugfest than a pitchers dual. The steriod home run was good for the game, maybe saved the game. Why wouldn't Pete bet on his team to win, didn't bother me a bit, as long as he didn't bet on them to lose.

-- Posted by geewowwe on Wed, Jun 17, 2009, at 3:06 PM

geewowwe - I tend to agree. If you start disallowing people for illegal/immoral activities - where do you draw the line? Many players from the 50's, 60's and 70's used amphetamines - there was no drug testing, and that is a performance enhancing drug, too. Maybe it's just best that we let the voters decide who to let in and out, and let them use their own judgement in the matter, instead of some arbitrary exclusionary rule. Like, the steroid era - we will never have a complete list of who did and didn't will we? So, is EVERYONE suspect?

-- Posted by Lil' Hahn on Wed, Jun 17, 2009, at 3:37 PM

"Why wouldn't Pete bet on his team to win, didn't bother me a bit, as long as he didn't bet on them to lose."

From the investigation we learned that there were days when Pete would not bet on them to win, in other words, he knew something as manager that told him that was a bad bet. So in effect, when he didn't bet on them to win, he was letting his bookie know about that inside information and in fact, he was betting on them to lose.

"where do you draw the line?" - maybe somewhere before another Taylor Hooton decides that steroids is the answer. If you allow these sports heroes to be honored for their performances under these infuences, what are you telling the young aspiring ballplayers of the future?

http://www.taylorhooton.com/message_from...

-- Posted by simmons on Thu, Jun 18, 2009, at 3:42 AM

Ok, Sims, fair enough. What about the players from the '50s who took bennies? Should they now be kicked out of the Hall?

Will the young aspiring players of today decide that alcoholism is becuase Mickey Mantle was one, and he is now in the Hall? Or, taking speed?

Again, I have to ask, how will we know who did and didn't take 'roids? Should ALL be suspect?

IMO, it is BASEBALL itself that gets the indictment. They did nothing, from the commissioner on down, to stop this from happening or even slow it down, until it was way too late.

The policies in effect today and now should be message enough for the young aspiring ballplayers of today.

I think it is best left up to the voters themselves to use their judgement, on a case by case basis. That would include Rose, too.

-- Posted by Lil' Hahn on Thu, Jun 18, 2009, at 8:30 AM

Again, I prove to the world that I can't proofread at all ...

This sentence:

Will the young aspiring players of today decide that alcoholism is becuase Mickey Mantle was one, and he is now in the Hall?

Should read:

Will the young aspiring players of today decide that alcoholism is ok becuase Mickey Mantle was an alcoholic, and he is now in the Hall?

-- Posted by Lil' Hahn on Thu, Jun 18, 2009, at 8:32 AM

OK, Richard, I'll start off by giving you a hard time about your proofreading. You misspelled 'because' and 'judgment', but I only do that because you were giving yourself such a hard time about proofreading so I thought I'd help.

"Will the young aspiring players of today decide that alcoholism is ok becuase (sic) Mickey Mantle was an alcoholic, and he is now in the Hall?" No sir, that isn't a good analogy. There are many scouts, coaches and managers telling young kids that they have talent but are not big enough for professional baseball, so they need to bulk up. When the weightlifting and supplements don't do enough then they turn to more exotic methods. There's no one out there telling them that they need to become alcoholics to be professional baseball players. Mickey knew what he had wasted over the years and, to his benefit, before he died he faced the nation's youth and told them not to do what he had done. Alcoholism will not enhance your performance. Mickey's talents were so great that he became a great ballplayer in spite of himself.

"Should they all be suspect?" In the era of the steroids, unfortunately, yes. People make mistakes and do things that may seem right to them at the time when it should be obvious that they are wrong. People can justify in their minds that a wrongful act is not really wrong, that it is necessary and cannot be wrong. These people who chose to use performance enhancing drugs did so at risk and no matter how they justified it, they knew the risk. For this risk they were paid a very handsome sum of money and enjoyed very wealthy lifestyles. However, they were wrong and it would be equally wrong for us to tell the youth of today that it wasn't wrong. If you honor these people, that is exactly what you are doing. You are sending a message to our kids that it is ok to cheat; it is ok to abuse your body with steroids, drugs and hormones; and it is not only ok to lie, but it is ok to worship and honor those that do.

"I think it is best left up to the voters themselves to use judgement (sic) on a case by case basis." I couldn't agree more with you and that is precisely how it is done. However, we as a free society should always exercise our right to express our opinion. If I feel that someone does not deserve to be in the Hall, I will raise my voice to try to influence as many writers as I possibly can to preclude him from getting selected. Conversely, if you feel the opposite then you have the equal right to argue the opposite.

"That would include Rose, too." Not exactly, my friend. Pete signed an agreement with the Commissioner back in 1989 that he would be banned for life. Pete's case is very different from the PED abusers. One part of Rule 21 subparagraph (d), which hangs in every MLB clubhouse, states:

"Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible." It doesn't say whether you bet to win or to lose. And just to be sure that you fully understand the significance of this rule; please reread the final two words... 'permanently ineligible'.

Pete Rose knew this, he knew it well. He even stated to the Commissioner that he knew it. Yet over the years he continued to place bets on his team by phone...from the dugout...from the very clubhouse where Rule 21 is posted. Then for years and years to follow, he lied. He lied right up to the time it was going to become financially profitable for him to not lie anymore. Just before the release of his book, My Prison Without Bars, he finally told the truth...well, at least part of it. The book is just Charlie Hustle doing a little more Hustling.

-- Posted by simmons on Thu, Jun 18, 2009, at 1:57 PM

So, what's the rule then? All players from the steroid era are ineligible?

(And, really, judgment only has one "e" - I didn't know that. But, then I went to school in Bloomfield)

-- Posted by Lil' Hahn on Thu, Jun 18, 2009, at 3:24 PM

I think you are right about each case of the 'roid issue is different.... some of the guys that used it early in the 80's/90's were just doing the trend in all sports. by the late 90's it was determined it was NOT the right thing....

and I think they need to be in a Wing of the HALL all by themselves.... WITH THE ASTERISK!...

-- Posted by silerCityDude on Thu, Jun 18, 2009, at 10:05 PM

If anyone thinks Rose should be in, ask yourself this? Why did he sign an agreement for a lifetime ban? He banneed himself by his actions and by signing an agreement keeping him out. He did the crime, now do the time. And thanks for simmons to pointing out what Rose was really doing by NOT betting on a certain day or certain pitcher. It drives me nuts when people say it was ok for him to bet when he bet the reds to win. It was a loud and clear message that it was a bad day to bet them when he didnt bet. We wont even get into his tax problems or his association with steriod pushers. Correct me if I am wrong, but didnt his son get caught with roids as well? Same people pete was associated with? Then again, doesnt matter, he signed a paper saying he agreed to be banned from baseball so why should we care when he agreed with the ban?

-- Posted by Greeneman on Fri, Jun 19, 2009, at 1:25 AM

Obviously you have found a hot point ol' buddy. Baseball is sacred to many of (us), and i believe that many of our opinions, particularly relating to PEDs, are because our heroes records are falling like dominoes. The people we saw as deities on the diamond when we were young and starstruck now have stat lines that look like a backup first baseman in 2000. I would like to think true baseball fans recognize this, and also understand that there is a difference in baseball eras. . . e.g.(deadball era, raised mound era, steroid era) The numbers at the turn of the century were huge power years largely because of PEDs, one would have to be incredibly naive to believe otherwise. It is my favorite sport, but i am not afraid to say that after the two labor strikes they had at the end of last century i was nearly ready to give up on them, whining professional athletes making millions of dollars ....yadayadayada. McGwire and Sosa brought casual fans and a few hardened ones back into the boxscores. The long ball bought peoples attention and helped make the game relevant once again. The owners saw this and as businessmen,capitalized, that is their profession. Long balls sold tickets and merch. and they were more than ready to stroke the golden goose. Turning their heads would be laughable, as most were promoting, if not outright providing their players with direct access to "trainers" that could help develop this marketable power. Everybody was presumably happy until the unthinkable happened, our childhood idols records begun toppling. Then the critics circled like they were at a witch hunt in old Salem. We had literally watched this not so slowly unfold for ten years, and then Hanks record fell, the unatainable was attained, and we felt cheated, or at least I did. The numbers which for so many were the lifeblood of the game suddenly became not so absolute,skewed at least, and detestable at worst.

In the last hour i have seen pharmaceutical commercials for high blood pressure, herpes,attention deficit, moodiness, two boner commercials, and a suspect one that will enlarge that part of the body that they wont mention. Our society would eat old tires if they thought it would give them any positive edge. So why are we surprised when our athletes we put on a pedestal for their performance, take something that they think will give them an edge. At that time their employers refused to test them for these PEDs, because they were reaping huge rewards from their employees use of them.

I realize that ball players use of these substances is cheating, but i also understand that sports science has come a long way in 100 years. To expect "trainers" to not use technology and modern medicine to extract the most out of their cash cows is unrealistic.

I wonder,if there was a mint tray on the first tee of all of our golf courses, that held a sugary treat. This treat would cure your ills, make you feel better, and shave 6-8 strokes off your score that day. How many of us would take that mint? Im pretty sure i would...but they dont let me vote for the hall of fame.

-- Posted by midnightrambler on Fri, Jun 19, 2009, at 4:24 AM

Excellent post, midnightrambler! Particularly this point:

"Turning their heads would be laughable, as most were promoting, if not outright providing their players with direct access to "trainers" that could help develop this marketable power."

By their inaction, the owners and this "commissioner" were sending a clear message to the players: We don't care!

(Also, I found out that "judgement" is a perfectly acceptable alternate spelling, although chiefly British. Ref: MacMillan's Student Dictionary).

-- Posted by Lil' Hahn on Fri, Jun 19, 2009, at 7:18 AM

As far as PED's, it comes down to if the Players KNEW what they were taking were within or outside the rules. Baseball itself, primarily Bud Selig, is just as accountable as the players. The rules haven't always been clear.

-- Posted by BloomburgBanter on Fri, Jun 19, 2009, at 8:07 AM

Well said Rambler.

-- Posted by Mr. Robato on Fri, Jun 19, 2009, at 10:53 AM

Were the Commissioner and the owners complicit because of their inactivity during this timeframe? Sure they were and there is plenty of blame to go around if you need to place blame elsewhere than at the source.

It is absurd for anyone to think that these players didn't know what they were doing. They not only knew what they were doing, they knew it was wrong. You don't go to such extremes to hide what you are doing unless you know you are wrong.

Here's a quote from Greg Anderson, the personal trainer for Barry Bonds. This is the same Greg Anderson who continues to go to prison rather than testify against his old buddy.

"The whole thing is, everything that I've been doing at this point, it's all undetectable. See the stuff I have, we created it, and you can't buy it anywhere else, can't get it anywhere else, but you can take it the day of (the test), pee, and it comes up perfect." Quote Source: Recording, SF Chronicle, October 16, 2004

It will all come down to the sportswriters who select the inductees to the Hall of Fame and these folks are mainly just like us, baseball fans. I'm hoping that they will make the right decisions and we shouldn't expect to see any of these Club PED members in the Hall.

One man who I have a lot of respect for, plus enjoy reading and listening to is George Will. George has this to say about the stats and records from the steroid era:

"(Barry) Bonds' records must remain part of baseball's history. His hits happened. Erase them and there will be discrepancies in baseball's bookkeeping about the records of the pitchers who gave them up. George Orwell said that in totalitarian societies, yesterday's weather could be changed by decree. Baseball, indeed America, is not like that. Besides, the people who care about the record book - serious fans - will know how to read it. That may be Bonds' biggest worry." Quote Source: Townhall.com, May 12, 2006

There doesn't need to be any asterisks for the true baseball fans who really appreciate the game. These stats are tainted and we all know it (some of you refuse to admit it), and that is how we will look at these numbers for the rest of our lives.

Rambler, I'd pass up that mint tray, but if you happen to see a bourbon and coke out there, I might take you up on it.

-- Posted by simmons on Fri, Jun 19, 2009, at 11:01 AM

I think the bourbon and Coke definitely improves one's game.

-- Posted by EggMan on Fri, Jun 19, 2009, at 1:12 PM

Egg, I may just run a little experiment today.

-- Posted by simmons on Sat, Jun 20, 2009, at 6:15 AM

As a matter of fact I ran a little experiment with this article. Some of you may have noticed that I sneaked a little philosophy problem into the article. Just wondered how the responses would track and so far, I have had one person comment on the trolley problem (plus a nice email concerning the trolley problem, which I will answer) and the rest of the comments went to baseball (HoF, PEDs and cheating). I'm beginning to worry about you people. ;>)

-- Posted by simmons on Sat, Jun 20, 2009, at 6:21 AM

As far as the baseball PED issue. The biggest loser is the naive minor league player who didn't take steroids. He was doubly wronged. It was not only that all the competitors he met in the minors were juiced up. Roster spots on the big club were taken up by cheaters who would never have made it otherwise and veterans who would normally have been gone long before (Bonds, for example). These guys also lost chances at career records since even if they did make the big dance, many times it would be years later.

-- Posted by Neverhadittolose on Sat, Jun 20, 2009, at 12:09 PM

Neverhadittolose, excellent point...not to mention the money they lost to the juicers.

Experiment fell flat on its face today...just not enough data points yet.

-- Posted by simmons on Sat, Jun 20, 2009, at 3:09 PM

Been two weeks, Simmons, send blogs.

Redoubt visible for the first time in about three weeks tonight, with snow on most of the mountain.

Global warming.

-- Posted by M Boyd on Sat, Jun 27, 2009, at 9:47 PM

Did you get enough data points this past weekend to finish your experiment?

-- Posted by Mr. Robato on Mon, Jun 29, 2009, at 7:09 AM