PDA

View Full Version : Should players who used PEDs be admitted to the Baseball Hall of Fame?


Viva Medias B's
02-10-2009, 11:17 AM
As a sidebar from the Alex Rodriguez steroid thread, which produced this debate within that thread, do you think that players who used performance enhancing drugs should be admitted to the National Baseball Hall of Fame?

I say "no" which would make me a hard-liner on this issue. As for the debate over whether other kinds of cheating like throwing spitballs should disqualify one from being admitted, I admit that is a legitimate question. However, I draw the line at the fact that possession and use of anabolic steroids is statutorily illegal, unlike throwing spitters. As for players who used amphetamines (some of whom are already in the Hall of Fame), that is a gray area too. Right or wrong, I am basically limiting my criterion on this issue to steroid usage.

Eddo144
02-10-2009, 11:43 AM
I voted yes, though I don't necessarily feel good about it. If it comes out that a large proportion of the best players of the last 20 years used PEDs, which I think it will, we can't just leave an entire two decades under-represented in the Hall of Fame. We'll wind up with less than ten players in the Hall from this era: Frank Thomas, Greg Maddux, Ken Griffey Jr. (probably), Randy Johnson, and...who else?

ChiSoxFan81
02-10-2009, 11:48 AM
I voted yes, though I don't necessarily feel good about it. If it comes out that a large proportion of the best players of the last 20 years used PEDs, which I think it will, we can't just leave an entire two decades under-represented in the Hall of Fame. We'll wind up with less than ten players in the Hall from this era: Frank Thomas, Greg Maddux, Ken Griffey Jr. (probably), Randy Johnson, and...who else?

And I am of the opposite mind. Let the dearth of players from this era be a testament not only against steroids, but to the players who did it the right way.

spawn
02-10-2009, 11:49 AM
Something I've kicked around is which is worse: gambling on baseball or the PED era. Yes, the White Sox throwing the World Series gave baseball a black eye, and Pete Rose betting on baseball has kept out the all-time hits leader. But which one has longer lasting ramifications? I'd argue it's the PED era. The proof is in the record books, with the two homerun records, arguably the most sacred of baseball records, going down to individuals who cheated.

Eddo144
02-10-2009, 11:54 AM
And I am of the opposite mind. Let the dearth of players from this era be a testament not only against steroids, but to the players who did it the right way.
And that's a pretty valid opinion, and I don't truly care very much about this one way or the other, but what do you do when someone's PED use if revealed after his election?

Why shouldn't we leave out players from before 1947, as a testament against segregation?

Oblong
02-10-2009, 12:01 PM
Yes.

Because we don't yet know the scope of all of this and probably never will. Unless we're willing to just write off everyone who's prime lasted until testing/punishment started. We don't know who used and who didn't use. Certainly it's up to the individual voters to weigh the effect but it's easy to do that with guys like McGwire.

but I'm unclear as to the reason for denying. Is it because their numbers are tarnished or is it just because of the whole cheating thing? To me they are different reasons.

It's just the black eye that baseball as a whole will have to live with. 30 years from now when we see the plaques of Clemens, Bonds, and ARod the stigma of steroids will still be there.

ChiSoxFan81
02-10-2009, 12:02 PM
And that's a pretty valid opinion, and I don't truly care very much about this one way or the other, but what do you do when someone's PED use if revealed after his election?

Why shouldn't we leave out players from before 1947, as a testament against segregation?

I honestly don't know what the answer would be if an elected player was later found out to have used PEDs. I'm not sure that given 8 years past a player's retirement, suddenly something would come to light that wasn't previously known. I guess you could ask yourself what you would do in the hypothetical situation that Pete Rose would have been found out after he was inducted.

As far as segragation goes, that's really a different argument. The players could only play against guys in their league. It was institutional, even cultural, not just a baseball issue. The only way to really rectify it is to recognize the great players of the Negro leagues alongside the MLB greats of the era. Sure, Babe Ruth didn't have to face Negro leaguers, but on the same token, they didn't have to face Babe Ruth either. Clean athletes had to compete against PED users.

FedEx227
02-10-2009, 12:26 PM
After this A-Rod thing, I say yes.

Just remember when we look back that this was the steroid era. It's gotten to the point now where there is no way you can find out everyone who did it, or not include people in that list, there is just no way.

When it was just Bonds, Clemens and McGwire I had no problem, but now we're getting into A-Rod, and god knows how many other players... I've pretty much given up.

Put them in, but make sure that when we look back at the eras we understand it's the steroid era. Just as you can go back to the 70s and say it was the "greenies" era or the "spitball" era, or the "deadball" era, we're just going to have to accept it.

voodoochile
02-10-2009, 01:01 PM
Something I've kicked around is which is worse: gambling on baseball or the PED era. Yes, the White Sox throwing the World Series gave baseball a black eye, and Pete Rose betting on baseball has kept out the all-time hits leader. But which one has longer lasting ramifications? I'd argue it's the PED era. The proof is in the record books, with the two homerun records, arguably the most sacred of baseball records, going down to individuals who cheated.

But that's mostly because baseball took action 80+ years ago to clean up the gambling mess. That was before steroids were invented or at least before they were widely known about.

It's very hard to clean up steroids because new ones are hitting the market all the time and they are getting better at getting results yet clearing the telltale signs out of the system faster and faster.

I honestly don't know what the answer is. Some people it's easy for me to say no to - Bonds, McGwire, ShammE*. Others I feel differently about maybe because they took a higher road when confronted with their use ala ARod (smoke screen though it is).

Problem is it's impossible to figure out whether these players are great because of the PED's or whether they merely are greater because of them. Would ARod be a shoe-in HOF player with a good chance to break the HR record without the drugs? Who knows? Maybe he's been taking them since he was 15 and would have been Ozzie Guillen without them.

I think it's too soon to pass judgment on these players at the moment. We need to see the scope of the cheating and we need to acknowledge that steroids and designer PED's are always going to be with us and we won't always catch every rat who took them.

I guess for now my answer is no, but this whole mess is so confusing and there's still so far to go just to unravel it all.

jabrch
02-10-2009, 01:18 PM
I would evaluate them on a case by case basis...To me, like the HOF, this is not black and white.

WhiteSoxJunkie
02-10-2009, 01:18 PM
Yes.

It's gotten to the point where a high number of players were using PEDs. Baseball can't just ignore that period of time. Some of the guys that used drugs (ARod, Bonds) put up incredible numbers that aren't just power numbers. Steroids will make a player hit a ball farther, but it doesn't improve hand eye coordination. The player still needs the skills to hit the ball. Barry Bonds is a career .298 hitter while ARod is at .306. And you can't ignore the fact that they were great players before they used steroids. Hell Bonds won 3 MVPs in the early 90s.

Eddo144
02-10-2009, 01:28 PM
Yes.

It's gotten to the point where a high number of players were using PEDs. Baseball can't just ignore that period of time. Some of the guys that used drugs (ARod, Bonds) put up incredible numbers that aren't just power numbers. Steroids will make a player hit a ball farther, but it doesn't improve hand eye coordination. The player still needs the skills to hit the ball. Barry Bonds is a career .298 hitter while ARod is at .306. And you can't ignore the fact that they were great players before they used steroids. Hell Bonds won 3 MVPs in the early 90s.
Is this true? I've heard otherwise, but I'm skeptical of both sides.

I do believe, however, that steroids will help bat speed, running speed, and other strength. Or else why would pitchers use them?

Steroids help with more than hitting homers.

GlassSox
02-10-2009, 01:39 PM
I vote NO!

It's illegal, it's cheating, and it should not be rewarded any more than it already has.

SOXPHILE
02-10-2009, 02:21 PM
No. I've been sick and tired of this crap for a long time, and this latest Rodriguez news just makes me angrier. Everyone is now under suspiscion. I have no problem throwing around names as possible users. Nobody's excluded anymore. Release all the names on the Mitchell Report. Test everyone, piss AND blood, as HGH and some steroids are not detectable in urine tests. If anyone tests positive, suspend them, and ban them from any HOF consideration, as all their numbers are under suspicion. Just because Mr. Madonna and anyone else admits they used "back in 2003, but not since", doesn't mean anything. How do we know ? This **** has to stop. I don't care if they wind up suspending 90% of the league. I can't trust any of the stats from the last 20 years.

Hendu
02-10-2009, 02:25 PM
Is this true? I've heard otherwise, but I'm skeptical of both sides.

I do believe, however, that steroids will help bat speed, running speed, and other strength. Or else why would pitchers use them?

Steroids help with more than hitting homers.

Recovery time is the big one. HGH allows pitchers to recover more quickly after outings, or players with injuries to come back sooner than normal.

guillen4life13
02-10-2009, 02:35 PM
Yes.

It's gotten to the point where a high number of players were using PEDs. Baseball can't just ignore that period of time. Some of the guys that used drugs (ARod, Bonds) put up incredible numbers that aren't just power numbers. Steroids will make a player hit a ball farther, but it doesn't improve hand eye coordination. The player still needs the skills to hit the ball. Barry Bonds is a career .298 hitter while ARod is at .306. And you can't ignore the fact that they were great players before they used steroids. Hell Bonds won 3 MVPs in the early 90s.

Agreed. While I think it's wrong to use PED's, this is not so cut and dry.

Here's a parallel issue: I know loads of college students who don't have ADD or ADHD who have used those types of drugs to help boost their academic performance (especially when it comes to hard science majors). Do you say that, when these guys graduate, that they don't deserve their diplomas because they had help? It's illegal to take prescription drugs without a prescription and there is a huge black market on college campuses for drugs like Adderall (sp?), Concerta, and Ritalin.

I'll be honest: a couple years ago I tried to use Adderall to pull all-nighters for studying or doing projects. It helped my academics. It also killed any appetite and sleep schedule I had and caused me some nice sores in my mouth from being dehydrated and jittery. That's why I haven't used it since. Does the diploma I come out with, or my GPA deserve an asterisk because I messed around with this stuff? I would say no.

I would also say that there's heavy incentive to use these types of drugs because a lot of my peers are using them, and when you get graded on a curve, their increase in performance adversely affects my grade.

So... I would say that it all has to go case by case. I think Bonds should be in the HOF. I also think that, if A-Rod is telling the truth, he should get in at some point also. Even if he hadn't juiced, he would probably go down as the best SS ever.

I believe this poll deserves an in between answer choice.

mcp5185
02-10-2009, 02:58 PM
I voted yes, though I don't necessarily feel good about it. If it comes out that a large proportion of the best players of the last 20 years used PEDs, which I think it will, we can't just leave an entire two decades under-represented in the Hall of Fame. We'll wind up with less than ten players in the Hall from this era: Frank Thomas, Greg Maddux, Ken Griffey Jr. (probably), Randy Johnson, and...who else?

I think you could find enough players from this era who don't have steroid suspicion. Besides who you named there's also Tom Glavine, John Smoltz, Mariano Rivera, Trevor Hoffman, Craig Biggio, Jim Thome, Manny Ramirez, Pedro Martinez, Jeff Kent, Curt Schilling, Mike Mussina, Roberto Alomar, Chipper Jones. I'm not saying all those guys are hall of fame material, but you can make a decent case for all of them.

turners56
02-10-2009, 02:59 PM
Absolutely not. They cheated in order to get ahead of everybody else. That's not fair to the people who did not use steroids.

WhiteSox5187
02-10-2009, 03:04 PM
I voted no, but it's tricky. If there was a way you could prove what percentage of guys used steroids I might change my mind. I'm tempted to say build a steroid wing of the HOF where the plaques of guys like Sosa, Bonds, Palmerio and A-Rod are.

Eddo144
02-10-2009, 03:33 PM
I think you could find enough players from this era who don't have steroid suspicion. Besides who you named there's also Tom Glavine, John Smoltz, Mariano Rivera, Trevor Hoffman, Craig Biggio, Jim Thome, Manny Ramirez, Pedro Martinez, Jeff Kent, Curt Schilling, Mike Mussina, Roberto Alomar, Chipper Jones. I'm not saying all those guys are hall of fame material, but you can make a decent case for all of them.
I'd be shocked if not a single player you named didn't take PEDs (particularly Kent, though Ramirez, Hoffman, Thome, and even Pedro wouldn't surprise me in the least).

See, it's not so easy, is it?

asindc
02-10-2009, 03:34 PM
By current standards, yes. After all, Gaylord Perry cheated, admitted to it, and joked about it several times on national television. Yet, he was voted in as "one of those lovable jokesters." I don't have the entire HOF roster in front of me, but I would be surprised if Perry is the only cheater in the HOF who was caught doing so before being elected in. Yes, steroids are different but cheating is cheating. Furthermore, as was asked earlier, do you kick someone out who was believed to be clean when elected but was subsequently found to have used PEDs during his playing days?

Madscout
02-10-2009, 03:56 PM
Cheating and taking advantage any advantage possible has always been part of baseball. From the spit/shine/you name it ball, to the short fence, to the corked bat, to even steriods...baseball has always about pushing the rules until they make a rule against it. It will remain that way until the next thing comes up.

Hendu
02-10-2009, 04:37 PM
Cheating and taking advantage any advantage possible has always been part of baseball. From the spit/shine/you name it ball, to the short fence, to the corked bat, to even steriods...baseball has always about pushing the rules until they make a rule against it. It will remain that way until the next thing comes up.

Yeah, how about the robo-body armor that allows some players to stand on top of the plate without worrying about inside pitches. It could be argued that Barry's massive elbow pad helped him as much as steroids/HGH did.

I voted yes not because I'm pro-steroids or think they aren't a big deal...but where do you draw the line? We can't just pretend this era in baseball didn't happen. It's not just an individual player or two, but the whole sport from management on down is complicit...heck, even the fans.

mrfourni
02-10-2009, 05:25 PM
Agreed. While I think it's wrong to use PED's, this is not so cut and dry.

Here's a parallel issue: I know loads of college students who don't have ADD or ADHD who have used those types of drugs to help boost their academic performance (especially when it comes to hard science majors). Do you say that, when these guys graduate, that they don't deserve their diplomas because they had help? It's illegal to take prescription drugs without a prescription and there is a huge black market on college campuses for drugs like Adderall (sp?), Concerta, and Ritalin.

I'll be honest: a couple years ago I tried to use Adderall to pull all-nighters for studying or doing projects. It helped my academics. It also killed any appetite and sleep schedule I had and caused me some nice sores in my mouth from being dehydrated and jittery. That's why I haven't used it since. Does the diploma I come out with, or my GPA deserve an asterisk because I messed around with this stuff? I would say no.

I would also say that there's heavy incentive to use these types of drugs because a lot of my peers are using them, and when you get graded on a curve, their increase in performance adversely affects my grade.

So... I would say that it all has to go case by case. I think Bonds should be in the HOF. I also think that, if A-Rod is telling the truth, he should get in at some point also. Even if he hadn't juiced, he would probably go down as the best SS ever.

I believe this poll deserves an in between answer choice.

I didn't vote because I really don't know what I think yet. But I think this is an interesting analogy.

Daver
02-10-2009, 05:28 PM
If amphetamines are considered a PED than there are a whole bunch of people that will have to get kicked out of the HOF if they are going to use it as a criteria for admission.

guillen4life13
02-10-2009, 05:56 PM
I think you could find enough players from this era who don't have steroid suspicion. Besides who you named there's also Tom Glavine, John Smoltz, Mariano Rivera, Trevor Hoffman, Craig Biggio, Jim Thome, Manny Ramirez, Pedro Martinez, Jeff Kent, Curt Schilling, Mike Mussina, Roberto Alomar, Chipper Jones. I'm not saying all those guys are hall of fame material, but you can make a decent case for all of them.

I think you could be suspicious of most, if not all of these players--especially those that didn't experience a drop in production when they entered their mid 30's or their drop in production began in 2005 when testing was first implemented. Those whose production drop was due to an injury are the wild cards (Pedro, Smoltz).

I think that, of the players listed, Mariano Rivera seems like the most likely PED candidate. Last season, at age 38 was arguably his best. There's a huge flag right there.

I personally think Alomar was clean because from 2003 onwards (starting at age 34 and before testing was implemented), his production took a huge dive, and prior to that he had been the epitome of consistency at the plate. Craig Biggio also looks like a player whose numbers naturally declined with age, though he did have some injuries.

But, again, no one (even Alomar and Biggio) on that list would come as a surprise if they were outed as users.

southside rocks
02-10-2009, 06:14 PM
I voted no, but I also realize that we may never know if some players who get voted in were using PEDs -- we will never have all the information about all the players during those years.

But the selection has to be made with the information we do have, and my personal feeling is that to put Jason Giambi in the HOF, for instance, would diminish the HOF election of someone like Frank Thomas.

If a player has been shown to have used PEDS -- steroids, specifically, and other hormone treatments -- then I think they should be struck from all HOF ballots.

But it's not an easy call, and that's only my feeling, not a hard and fast rule.

MrT27
02-10-2009, 06:31 PM
First we should clarify that not all PED are illegal or against baseball rules. Creatine can be picked up at your local GNC and is legal, can be used in baseball, and is still a PED.

Anyway I think we have to let them in. We will never k this know who did and didn't do them. Yes we have this list of 104 but what about the players who used illegal stuff and had a masking agent (like Bonds) did to cover it up in a test?
And also what happens if someone gets into the Hall of Fame and we find out later that he used illegal drugs during his playing days? Do you then kick him out of the Hall? If you keep him in how is that fair to the others you may have kept out?

Eddo144
02-10-2009, 06:40 PM
I voted no, but I also realize that we may never know if some players who get voted in were using PEDs -- we will never have all the information about all the players during those years.

But the selection has to be made with the information we do have, and my personal feeling is that to put Jason Giambi in the HOF, for instance, would diminish the HOF election of someone like Frank Thomas.

If a player has been shown to have used PEDS -- steroids, specifically, and other hormone treatments -- then I think they should be struck from all HOF ballots.

But it's not an easy call, and that's only my feeling, not a hard and fast rule.
I think the part in bold is really critical. You are totally correct that Giambi is not good enough for the Hall of Fame, even if his career, on the surface, looks better than Thomas's. We need to adjust Giambi's production to counter the fact he was a steroid user.

Whether this is something simple like subtracting 5 HR a season or taking 50 points off someone's slugging percentage or something more complex, it MUST be done. Just like we don't consider Edd Walsh to be better than Greg Maddux based on raw performance, as Walsh pitched in the dead-ball era while Maddux pitched during the livest-ball era.

Oblong
02-10-2009, 09:00 PM
I think the part in bold is really critical. You are totally correct that Giambi is not good enough for the Hall of Fame, even if his career, on the surface, looks better than Thomas's. We need to adjust Giambi's production to counter the fact he was a steroid user.

.

Giambi hit 4 HR in his career against Paul Byrd, an admitted HGH user. Do those get counted? Haven't more pitchers been busted than hitters? Shouldn't it cancel out of two PED guys are facing each other?

Daver
02-10-2009, 09:06 PM
Haven't more pitchers been busted than hitters?

Yes, by a comfortable margin in fact, but it doesn't matter, people are convinced that PED's are an offensive tool, just like they are convinced baseball is an offensive game, and when you get right down to it, perception is reality.

Luke
02-10-2009, 09:15 PM
I voted no only because I was thinking about the hypothetical player that tries it for a month and decides it's not for him.

The guys that have been busted; I would be just as happy to see them on the ballot, embarrassed year after year until they don't appear on enough ballots to go on.

Brian26
02-10-2009, 09:16 PM
If amphetamines are considered a PED than there are a whole bunch of people that will have to get kicked out of the HOF if they are going to use it as a criteria for admission.

First gambling and now speed. Pete Rose is never going to get in.

Frankfan4life
02-10-2009, 11:03 PM
I voted no but I also have some reservations. I know a lot of players took PED's, used corked bats or whatever to gain an advantage, but it's only the players who get caught who take the fall (unfortunately, life is not fair). Let's say you're on the highway and you and everybody else is going 80 mph but the cops single you out for a ticket. I don't think that telling the judge that everybody else was speeding is going to get you out of the ticket.

I think there should be some kind of punishment for the cheaters who get caught (though I'm not sure what it should be). If there is no punishment, what does this say to the players who played by the rules?

EuroSox35
02-10-2009, 11:54 PM
Yes, but I think there should be notes on the plaques to those who were proven to be guilty from failed tests (which is why those names/tests should be disclosed) or proof (like those signed checks in the Mitchell report) from any credible reports

The thing that makes me laugh is people that think that McGwire/Canseco invented steroids, and that most everyone else was clean during or before that time. People who cheated are or will be in anyways. People who cheated also probably got nowhere close to the stats Bonds, Arod, etc will get. Then you have the other ways of cheating, the pitchers using banned liquids or whatever gunk on the ball was getting an advantage and no worse then PEDS imo, and all that kind of stuff that was just as widespread

Nellie_Fox
02-11-2009, 12:05 AM
Yeah, how about the robo-body armor that allows some players to stand on top of the plate without worrying about inside pitches. It could be argued that Barry's massive elbow pad helped him as much as steroids/HGH did.It wasn't just a "pad." It was a brace, with a flange on the bottom half that locked into the top half as he swung, holding his elbow into a maximum-efficiency hitting position. That thing was a HUGE mechanical advantage, and baseball "grandfathered" it in when they limited elbow pads. When hockey changed the rules on hockey stick curve or goalie equipment size, everyone had to change, but MLB let Barry keep his elbow brace while no other player would be allowed to use one like it.

Eddo144
02-11-2009, 09:32 AM
I voted no but I also have some reservations. I know a lot of players took PED's, used corked bats or whatever to gain an advantage, but it's only the players who get caught who take the fall (unfortunately, life is not fair). Let's say you're on the highway and you and everybody else is going 80 mph but the cops single you out for a ticket. I don't think that telling the judge that everybody else was speeding is going to get you out of the ticket.

I think there should be some kind of punishment for the cheaters who get caught (though I'm not sure what it should be). If there is no punishment, what does this say to the players who played by the rules?
There needs to be some sort of punishment, yes, but why an all-or-nothing one? Why not just hold known PED users to a higher standard. Something like, "Player A hit 505 HR and was clean, while Player B hit 545 HR and was juicing, so I think Player A is better than Player B and will vote him into the Hall before I'd even think about Player B. But Player C was clean and only hit 292 HR, so he's still worse than Player B."

It's a huge gray area, and making some ruling such as use-of-PEDs=no-Hall-of-Fame is much too simplistic.

Eddo144
02-11-2009, 09:37 AM
It wasn't just a "pad." It was a brace, with a flange on the bottom half that locked into the top half as he swung, holding his elbow into a maximum-efficiency hitting position. That thing was a HUGE mechanical advantage, and baseball "grandfathered" it in when they limited elbow pads. When hockey changed the rules on hockey stick curve or goalie equipment size, everyone had to change, but MLB let Barry keep his elbow brace while no other player would be allowed to use one like it.
I always hated those pads. I can't believe Biggio actually got credit when he broke the hit by pitch record, considering he never needed to get out of the way of an inside pitch.

The idea I like regarding pads is that if you get hit by a pitch in the pad, it counts as a ball (or strike if you're over the plate). That way, players can still wear pads for protection, but not benefit from them competitively.

Oblong
02-11-2009, 09:51 AM
the pads should be limited on a case by case basis to players with a history of breaks in a certain area, like the forearm or elbow, and should cover only the area of the break. Otherwise it's too much of an advantage. Getting hit by the pitch and knowing it might hurt a lot is one of the risks of standing at the plate and should be a competitive factor.

I'm glad someone brought that up because that armor that Bonds wore bothers me more than any juicing/PED stuff did.

D. TODD
02-11-2009, 02:10 PM
I voted Yes. You can put an inscription on their plaque stating they tested positive, or that they did not test positive, but played during the "steroid era", etc. Most of the league used some sort or another, and all of the games, championships, etc. are baseball history. The stud hall of famers of this era did exist and can't be ignored in my opinion. It's silly to pick and choose which ones did and how much they did, and it's just as silly to ignore an entire era. Just make note of the time period and the way the game was played during their time.

D. TODD
02-11-2009, 02:16 PM
I think you could find enough players from this era who don't have steroid suspicion. Besides who you named there's also Tom Glavine, John Smoltz, Mariano Rivera, Trevor Hoffman, Craig Biggio, Jim Thome, Manny Ramirez, Pedro Martinez, Jeff Kent, Curt Schilling, Mike Mussina, Roberto Alomar, Chipper Jones. I'm not saying all those guys are hall of fame material, but you can make a decent case for all of them.
I have no way of knowing that these guys did not some sort of PED. They are all suspect it was just part of the game, sadly.

mcp5185
02-11-2009, 02:23 PM
I think the part in bold is really critical. You are totally correct that Giambi is not good enough for the Hall of Fame, even if his career, on the surface, looks better than Thomas's. We need to adjust Giambi's production to counter the fact he was a steroid user.

Whether this is something simple like subtracting 5 HR a season or taking 50 points off someone's slugging percentage or something more complex, it MUST be done. Just like we don't consider Edd Walsh to be better than Greg Maddux based on raw performance, as Walsh pitched in the dead-ball era while Maddux pitched during the livest-ball era.

How does Giambi's career look better than Thomas'? Thomas has better statistics in every category, although he has gotten those statistics in five extras years, but that shouldn't matter. Thomas also has better stats when broken down into 162 game averages, and he has one more mvp award. Giambi's stats really aren't hall of fame worthy, at least not right now, plus he has admitted to taking Steroids. Thomas on the other hand has hall of fame stats, and to this point there is no evidence he has taken steroids.

Thomas http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/stats?playerId=2370
Giambi http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/stats?playerId=3226

Eddo144
02-11-2009, 02:36 PM
How does Giambi's career look better than Thomas'? Thomas has better statistics in every category, although he has gotten those statistics in five extras years, but that shouldn't matter. Thomas also has better stats when broken down into 162 game averages, and he has one more mvp award. Giambi's stats really aren't hall of fame worthy, at least not right now, plus he has admitted to taking Steroids. Thomas on the other hand has hall of fame stats, and to this point there is no evidence he has taken steroids.

Thomas http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/stats?playerId=2370
Giambi http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/stats?playerId=3226
I said "if", for crap's sake.

No, Giambi's career does not look better than Thomas; I was using those two players as an analogy for how PED users need to be judged.

wsgdf
02-11-2009, 03:13 PM
I voted 'No'.

However, I do have an idea similar to the steroid wing mentioned earlier.

I could see a situation where a guy's numbers were clearly Hall-worthy where they are let in, but if a guy is implicated by a failed drug test or other evidence - then his plaque should be different and and an explanation of the player's involvement in PEDs should be displayed next to it.

Maybe they also wouldn't get to be part of the induction ceremony - or they could watch but not speak?

In other words - ARod gets a Roid plaque in the main hall and a note next to it that says he failed a PED test in 2003.

In a way I see this as a more 'honest' way of dealing with the situation.

wsgdf
02-11-2009, 03:15 PM
I voted Yes. You can put an inscription on their plaque stating they tested positive, or that they did not test positive, but played during the "steroid era", etc. Most of the league used some sort or another, and all of the games, championships, etc. are baseball history. The stud hall of famers of this era did exist and can't be ignored in my opinion. It's silly to pick and choose which ones did and how much they did, and it's just as silly to ignore an entire era. Just make note of the time period and the way the game was played during their time.

LOL - I guess my 'idea' was already out there.

LITTLE NELL
02-11-2009, 03:17 PM
No, cheaters should not be in the HOF.
Where's Commissioner Landis when we need him.

ChiSoxFan81
02-11-2009, 03:27 PM
No, cheaters should not be in the HOF.
Where's Commissioner Landis when we need him.

I just heard him roll over.

Paulwny
02-11-2009, 03:31 PM
Yes, but I think there should be notes on the plaques to those who were proven to be guilty from failed tests (which is why those names/tests should be disclosed) or proof (like those signed checks in the Mitchell report) from any credible reports

The thing that makes me laugh is people that think that McGwire/Canseco invented steroids, and that most everyone else was clean during or before that time. People who cheated are or will be in anyways. People who cheated also probably got nowhere close to the stats Bonds, Arod, etc will get. Then you have the other ways of cheating, the pitchers using banned liquids or whatever gunk on the ball was getting an advantage and no worse then PEDS imo, and all that kind of stuff that was just as widespread

I voted Yes. You can put an inscription on their plaque stating they tested positive, or that they did not test positive, but played during the "steroid era", etc. Most of the league used some sort or another, and all of the games, championships, etc. are baseball history. The stud hall of famers of this era did exist and can't be ignored in my opinion. It's silly to pick and choose which ones did and how much they did, and it's just as silly to ignore an entire era. Just make note of the time period and the way the game was played during their time.

I voted 'No'.

However, I do have an idea similar to the steroid wing mentioned earlier.

I could see a situation where a guy's numbers were clearly Hall-worthy where they are let in, but if a guy is implicated by a failed drug test or other evidence - then his plaque should be different and and an explanation of the player's involvement in PEDs should be displayed next to it.

Maybe they also wouldn't get to be part of the induction ceremony - or they could watch but not speak?

In other words - ARod gets a Roid plaque in the main hall and a note next to it that says he failed a PED test in 2003.

In a way I see this as a more 'honest' way of dealing with the situation.


Some of these guys have huge egos, I can see them not agreeing to any conditions about their names/ plaques and refuse to be inducted into the HOF.

Oblong
02-11-2009, 05:57 PM
I just heard him roll over.

Nah, he already rolled over when Jackie Robinson trotted on the field.

Oblong
02-11-2009, 05:57 PM
Some of these guys have huge egos, I can see them not agreeing to any conditions about their names/ plaques and refuse to be inducted into the HOF.
They wouldn't have a choice. They don't have to show up. But they can't stop the HOF from doing what they want. Even baseball can't stop the HOF from doing what it wants.

Daver
02-11-2009, 06:01 PM
No, cheaters should not be in the HOF.
Where's Commissioner Landis when we need him.

Then there are a whole lotta players that have to get kicked out, starting with Ty Cobb.

FedEx227
02-11-2009, 06:06 PM
Then there are a whole lotta players that have to get kicked out, starting with Ty Cobb.

Yup, let's get started:

-Every pitcher that used a spitball
-Every pitcher who used a foreign substance on the ball.
-Every player that used amphetamines.

There's not going to be a whole lot of people left?

Hendu
02-11-2009, 06:34 PM
Yup, let's get started:

-Every pitcher that used a spitball
-Every pitcher who used a foreign substance on the ball.
-Every player that used amphetamines.

There's not going to be a whole lot of people left?

And then we might as well place an asterisk on all the pre-integration HOFers who put up their numbers without having to face minority players in a meaningful game.

Woofer
02-11-2009, 07:34 PM
I voted no on this, but I feel that MLB has too much invested in A. Rod., Bonds, Clemens, McGuire, Sosa, etc. They ultimately will be inducted into the HOF because MLB will make sure of this. These are some of the games biggest names, and baseball will not allow this whole era to be unrepresented in the HOF.

Maybe any player who fails a test who later is inducted into the HOF should have a different Cooperstown plaque. The plaque should be made without the players likeness on it, or made out of a different material or color. Something that will stand out, or show some sort of a mark of shame.

Daver
02-11-2009, 07:54 PM
I voted no on this, but I feel that MLB has too much invested in A. Rod., Bonds, Clemens, McGuire, Sosa, etc. They ultimately will be inducted into the HOF because MLB will make sure of this. These are some of the games biggest names, and baseball will not allow this whole era to be unrepresented in the HOF.

Maybe any player who fails a test who later is inducted into the HOF should have a different Cooperstown plaque. The plaque should be made without the players likeness on it, or made out of a different material or color. Something that will stand out, or show some sort of a mark of shame.

MLB has no say whatsoever in what the Baseball HOF chooses to do.

Woofer
02-11-2009, 08:04 PM
MLB has no say whatsoever in what the Baseball HOF chooses to do.

I know this, but does the HOF have the balls to ignore these players once they are eligible for induction? I don't think that they do, so any player who fails a test should have that fact noted.

Daver
02-11-2009, 08:17 PM
I know this, but does the HOF have the balls to ignore these players once they are eligible for induction? I don't think that they do, so any player who fails a test should have that fact noted.

That is up to the voters, the same voters that refuse to induct relief pitchers and players that played mostly at DH, do you think these voters are going to embrace known cheaters with open arms?

Woofer
02-11-2009, 08:39 PM
That is up to the voters, the same voters that refuse to induct relief pitchers and players that played mostly at DH, do you think these voters are going to embrace known cheaters with open arms?

I think that both the HOF and MLB have a big stake in at least some of these guys getting in. This is a big business for both. I think that the voters will vote in those who end up polishing their images between now and induction time.

HebrewHammer
02-11-2009, 09:11 PM
I voted yes. There are already admitted cheaters in the Hall of Fame. Is there really that big of a difference between throwing a greaseball or taking dope?

Also, I think it takes more than a drug addict to make it to the hall. A great player isn't made by a needle. A great player can be helped by a needle, but it takes a lot more than just drugs to get into the HOF.

HebrewHammer
02-11-2009, 09:12 PM
That is up to the voters, the same voters that refuse to induct relief pitchers and players that played mostly at DH, do you think these voters are going to embrace known cheaters with open arms?

Did the cheater have a good relationship with the media?

InKennyWeTrust
02-11-2009, 11:51 PM
I know this, but does the HOF have the balls to ignore these players once they are eligible for induction? I don't think that they do, so any player who fails a test should have that fact noted.
Keeping Pete Rose out was the HOF's decision. Yes, they have the balls.

Save McCuddy's
02-12-2009, 12:08 AM
I voted yes. I think it ends up being too difficult to determine who used and how much/often. I also am quite convinced that more than one user has already been elected. Two inductees that I am confident were enhancing are Molitor and Henderson. It never did make sense that Molitor after a history of injury plagued seasons in his prime would close out his career putting up better numbers approaching 40 than he was at 26. Henderson just seems like a no-brainer. What wouldn't he have done if there was an edge associated with it.

It appears that there is concensus that many more than half of the players in the '90's were juicing with something. Among the pitchers who were enamored with steroids recooperative properties the percentages are staggering. Might be that Maddux was the only one who didn't -- or did he? I have heard arguments made that the Unit used consistently to break out of back trouble that plagued him from the very start of his career.

Unless there is a full scale inquisition and innocence is somehow proven and established for players with HOF resumes, there will be some doubt surrounding just about all but Maddux, Thomas, and Griffey. I think that the voters will selectively let some in.

Woofer
02-12-2009, 12:26 AM
Keeping Pete Rose out was the HOF's decision. Yes, they have the balls.

Pete Rose is a good example, but do they have the balls to exclude a whole generation of probable cheaters? I say no. I will go out an a limb and say that no matter what else happens, Clemens, A. Rod., and probably Bonds will get in. The worst that will happen to them is maybe they don't get voted in in their first year of eligibility.

BadBobbyJenks
02-12-2009, 06:36 AM
Case by case for me. Arod and Bonds were hall of famers with out steroids that vaulted into the discussion of best ever with steroids.

I am in the camp of having a steroid wing or whatever you want to do to show that a certain player was found guilty of using steroids. The Hall of Fame is a museum and a kid 20 years from now, walking into Cooperstown is not going to see an accurate depiction of this era if we keep everyone out who has used.

Paulwny
02-12-2009, 06:51 PM
They wouldn't have a choice. They don't have to show up. But they can't stop the HOF from doing what they want. Even baseball can't stop the HOF from doing what it wants.

A public relations nightmare for the HOF, none of the inductees at the ceremony or people in the audience booing or heckling an inductee during his speech.
The HOF is in a tight spot with these players.