PDA

View Full Version : HOF Ballot Announced: Liars, Cheaters, and Scumbags Included


Pages : [1] 2

RKMeibalane
11-28-2012, 05:34 PM
2013 HOF Ballot Released (http://baseballhall.org/news/museum-news/big-names-biggest-honor)

It would be nice for baseball to reward players (Bagwell, Biggio, Piazza) who played the game the right way by enshrining them, as their numbers are good enough. I hope Edgar Martinez makes it in eventually, as people may evaluate Frank Thomas in a similar fashion, although he spent a large portion of his career playing first base.

DumpJerry
11-28-2012, 05:37 PM
:thechoice

Mr. Jinx
11-28-2012, 06:07 PM
2013 HOF Ballot Released (http://baseballhall.org/news/museum-news/big-names-biggest-honor)

It would be nice for baseball to reward players (Bagwell, Biggio, Piazza) who played the game the right way by enshrining them, as their numbers are good enough. I hope Edgar Martinez makes it in eventually, as people may evaluate Frank Thomas in a similar fashion, although he spent a large portion of his career playing first base.

And you know those guys were clean how? The names that became public are just the tip of the iceburg.

TDog
11-28-2012, 06:08 PM
The Bonds vote will be interesting. I don't expect Sosa to have much support, but there is the school of thought thta Bonds would have been worthy without the home runs.

I wouldn't vote for Bonds or Sosa or McGwire if I had a vote. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I'm of the belief that blatantly cheating to gain an advantage is egregrious enough to nullify the achievements.

It really isn't about numbers anyway. I'm guessing that there are people who will vote for Omar Vizquel in five years who won't vote for Barry Bonds this year.

Maybe players no one suspects of cheating were cheating, too. But there is a difference between voting for a someone who disgraced the game and someone whose actions would have disgraced the game if outed. I would like to think that Tim Raines was clean, of steroids anyway. Maybe Raines will get enough support for the Hall of Fame to put up another plaque featuring an Expos cap.

RKMeibalane
11-28-2012, 06:22 PM
And you know those guys were clean how? The names that became public are just the tip of the iceburg.

I don't, but I also don't know that they weren't clean, and I don't advocate punishment just because they played in the same era as Sosa, McGwire, Bonds, etc.

thomas35forever
11-28-2012, 07:10 PM
The first real test of the Steroid Era. Will be interesting to see how the voters respond, but I hope no one accused gets in.

WLL1855
11-28-2012, 07:17 PM
"A wretched hive of scum and villainy."

RKMeibalane
11-28-2012, 07:18 PM
The first real test of the Steroid Era. Will be interesting to see how the voters respond, but I hope no one accused gets in.

Sosa and McGwire definitely won't. Sosa's lone MVP award is tainted by PED use, and McGwire's numbers aren't anything special outside of his home run totals.

The situation revolving around Bonds and Clemens is much more interesting, as both had numbers worthy of the HOF before their alleged PED use occurred. Whether the voters take this into account is something I can't predict.

Moses_Scurry
11-28-2012, 07:31 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if someone like Sosa doesn't get enough of a percentage to remain on the ballot.

chicagowhitesox1
11-28-2012, 07:54 PM
I don't think it's right Biggio, Bagwell and Piazza get a pass when more than likely they all used too.

SOXfnNlansing
11-28-2012, 08:05 PM
It's something how the Hit King is banished for life and most people are fine with that and this new cheating bunch has a lot of people wanting to look the other way because they would have been in the hall before they took drugs. What if Pete got 3000 hits and bet on games after that. Where is the argument that 3000 hits gets you in (in that era) and he would have been eligible for his career when he wasn't betting on games?

None of them should be in the hall.

Golden Sox
11-28-2012, 08:43 PM
I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that Bonds, Sosa and the rest of the juicers will eventually be inducted into the HOF. They might not live to see their inductions but I still think they will get in eventually. Historians have a way of reinventing history. If you would of said thirty years ago that Walter O'Malley and Ron "The Scab" Santo will be in the HOF most baseball fans would of laughed at you.

Bucky F. Dent
11-28-2012, 09:18 PM
Shoeless Joe First!

WhiteSox5187
11-28-2012, 09:49 PM
I don't think it's right Biggio, Bagwell and Piazza get a pass when more than likely they all used too.

I know that there were certainly rumors of Bagwell and Piazza using but I don't think I EVER heard anything about Biggio using.

RKMeibalane
11-28-2012, 09:58 PM
I don't think it's right Biggio, Bagwell and Piazza get a pass when more than likely they all used too.

Where's your evidence?

Zisk77
11-28-2012, 11:21 PM
Where's your evidence?

for wahtever its worth: Kraplan on chicago trib. live said he interviewed Piazza in the locker room. Piazza took of his shirt and he had the steroid back acne all over his back...yep I know pretty circumstantial.

thomas35forever
11-28-2012, 11:38 PM
I know that there were certainly rumors of Bagwell and Piazza using but I don't think I EVER heard anything about Biggio using.
Agreed. If Biggio was found using, that would be completely out of left field. I would also be very devastated.

Daver
11-29-2012, 02:49 AM
The Bonds vote will be interesting. I don't expect Sosa to have much support, but there is the school of thought thta Bonds would have been worthy without the home runs.

I wouldn't vote for Bonds or Sosa or McGwire if I had a vote. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I'm of the belief that blatantly cheating to gain an advantage is egregrious enough to nullify the achievements.



What is your definition of cheating?

The Niekro brothers wait patiently for an answer.

ComiskeyBrewer
11-29-2012, 04:51 AM
Where's your evidence?

Only one of the three named who sticks out to me is Bagwell.

Bagwell's HR totals from age 23-29(his "peak" years)

15
18
20
39
21
31
43(age 29)

Bagwell's HR totals from age 30 on:

34
42
47
39
31
39
27(age 36)

To me, that's really high for someone in his 30s, who didn't have much power in his 20s. Tradionally, most power hitters have their peak from ages 26-30/31. Bagwell was just the opposite, having his peak years occur basically from age 29-35. That's not natural. Now, the first defense is "well, he had a short porch at Minute Maid Park at the end of his career, that had to help him." Well, if it did, it helped him for away games too, because his splits were almost identical home v away(with the exception of the 2004 season). To me, that's enough proof.

Piazza might have used(i doubt it), but his numbers were highest in his 20s(and consistently high), and started a gradual decline around age 31-32.

I doubt Biggio used, but it is odd that his career high for HRs happened when he was 39, and the only back to back to back 20+ Hr seasons occurred in his age 38/39/40 years. That being said, the guy NEVER hit for more than 26 Hrs, and his OPS had a pretty normal arch as far as his career went. Main point: If Biggio used, he should have gotten his money back. :tongue:


What is your definition of cheating?

The Niekro brothers wait patiently for an answer.

Those guys cheated so much they made NASCAR drivers blush.

MeteorsSox4367
11-29-2012, 09:13 AM
All I know is Royce Clayton is on the ballot. Maybe we can generate some support for the man and his candidacy here on WSI.

amsteel
11-29-2012, 09:39 AM
Bonds is an ******* and undoubtedly used, but still, look at his 2001-2004 stats:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/b/bondsba01.shtml#2001-2004-sum:batting_standard

ABSURD

SI1020
11-29-2012, 10:05 AM
I know that there were certainly rumors of Bagwell and Piazza using but I don't think I EVER heard anything about Biggio using. Yes. I wanted to post this but you beat me to it.

SI1020
11-29-2012, 10:08 AM
Bonds is an ******* and undoubtedly used, but still, look at his 2001-2004 stats:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/b/bondsba01.shtml#2001-2004-sum:batting_standard

ABSURD Absurd and very tainted.

geofitz
11-29-2012, 10:14 AM
Maybe a "moratorium" should be imposed for those players that began their careers around 1986-87-88 ( era of the "Bash Brothers") until such time as a clear picture of those who "used" and those who didn't can come into focus.

Rather than place any of them in the HOF while doubts exist merely list them as having "far above average performances" during that era.

PS. Have you seen the rookie cards of Bonds and/or McGwire?

Bucky F. Dent
11-29-2012, 10:29 AM
Put 'em all in a special room in the Hall. You acknowledge the accomplishment, but acknowledge the fact that their performance is called into question by allegations of PED use.

Moses_Scurry
11-29-2012, 10:45 AM
Put 'em all in a special room in the Hall. You acknowledge the accomplishment, but acknowledge the fact that their performance is called into question by allegations of PED use.

http://planforhomedesign.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/bathroom_stall.jpg

Mr. Jinx
11-29-2012, 11:39 AM
What is your definition of cheating?

The Niekro brothers wait patiently for an answer.

As do all the players who used amphetamines for years and years.

Mr. Jinx
11-29-2012, 11:41 AM
I don't, but I also don't know that they weren't clean, and I don't advocate punishment just because they played in the same era as Sosa, McGwire, Bonds, etc.

So then are you an advocate of Clemens getting in then? After all, he has never been definitely proven to have used steroids before.

geofitz
11-29-2012, 01:32 PM
Special Room. Sounds great. But would it resemble a locker room, laboratory or court room? Seriously what happens to these former players will greatly impact the future of the HOF.

TDog
11-29-2012, 02:25 PM
What is your definition of cheating?

The Niekro brothers wait patiently for an answer.

There is a difference between throwing a spit ball/corking bats and performance en chancing drugs. Gaylord Perry is in the Hall of Fame, essentially for being able to get away with thing, by his account, an account which may or not be exaggeration. Some people would consider it cheating if you took first on a pitch you knew didn't hit you when the umpire said it did. There are different levels of clean cheating as well. A Russian fencer once rigged up a device to show he was scoring touches on the electronic scoring device, but unless baseball umpiring went electronic, that's not the sort of thing you would have to worry about in baseball. Performance-en chancing drugs are on a completely different level.

There is even a difference between stimulants and anabolic steroids, Cheating really isn't the right category for anabolic steroids, although I'm not defending either. If you are competing against people taking illegal stimulants, there are measures you can take including legal stimulants, to perform at the same level. Anabolic steroids establish a sort of arms race. Staying clean while competing in that atmosphere is more difficult for many than competing in an atmosphere of illegal stimulants.

The answer to your question turns out to be vague, not unlike Potter Stewart's definition of pornography. Labeling steroid users simply as cheaters, though, ends up doing a disservice to other cheaters. Use of the word was probably ill-advised.

russ99
11-29-2012, 02:31 PM
Only one of the three named who sticks out to me is Bagwell.

Bagwell's HR totals from age 23-29(his "peak" years)

15
18
20
39
21
31
43(age 29)

Bagwell's HR totals from age 30 on:

34
42
47
39
31
39
27(age 36)

To me, that's really high for someone in his 30s, who didn't have much power in his 20s. Tradionally, most power hitters have their peak from ages 26-30/31. Bagwell was just the opposite, having his peak years occur basically from age 29-35. That's not natural. Now, the first defense is "well, he had a short porch at Minute Maid Park at the end of his career, that had to help him." Well, if it did, it helped him for away games too, because his splits were almost identical home v away(with the exception of the 2004 season). To me, that's enough proof.

Piazza might have used(i doubt it), but his numbers were highest in his 20s(and consistently high), and started a gradual decline around age 31-32.

I doubt Biggio used, but it is odd that his career high for HRs happened when he was 39, and the only back to back to back 20+ Hr seasons occurred in his age 38/39/40 years. That being said, the guy NEVER hit for more than 26 Hrs, and his OPS had a pretty normal arch as far as his career went. Main point: If Biggio used, he should have gotten his money back. :tongue:


That's conjecture, and other than playing with Caminiti who's a known roider, there's no evidence that Bagwell juiced.

Don't forget Bagwell played half his career in Houston when they had the Astrodome, which is where homers went to die. His 43 homers in the '97 season (not excessively high like other juicers - McGwire had 58 that year) is the lone aberration from a string of similar full-season homer numbers, and that could have been just a career year.

Naturally, Bagwell's power numbers went up after the Astros moved out of the Astrodome and into Minute Maid Park (won't use that original name, yecch) starting in 2000, with the short porch in left field.

IMO, Biggio should be a first ballot HOF inductee, and it would be very cool if Bagwell got in the same year. May have to wait till next year, though - given the usual BBWA bias towards players who played on the East coast.

While there may be some juicing conjecture put on Bagwell (he was a power hitter and he bulked up during his career), there's zero such conjecture on Biggio, and as an Astros fan of 35+ years, I'm a bit offended at even the mention of it.

amsteel
11-29-2012, 02:58 PM
Was MLB's Juiced Era Actually a Juiced Ball Era? (http://deadspin.com/5937432/was-mlbs-juiced-era-actually-a-juiced+ball-era)

Daver
11-30-2012, 12:10 PM
Why is it that only hitters are brought up in this discussion, when the reality is more pitchers have been caught using them than hitters?

SI1020
11-30-2012, 12:40 PM
Why is it that only hitters are brought up in this discussion, when the reality is more pitchers have been caught using them than hitters? What high profile pitchers other than Clemens have been mentioned? I'm just being curious and asking, not trying to provoke an argument with you. Also, I can't see how a pitcher in the mold of say a Randy Johnson, long, thin and rangy with a power arm would benefit from steroids. I sure would like to know what the "training regime" of Roger Clemens was.

Mr. Jinx
11-30-2012, 12:44 PM
What high profile pitchers other than Clemens have been mentioned? I'm just being curious and asking, not trying to provoke an argument with you. Also, I can't see how a pitcher in the mold of say a Randy Johnson, long, thin and rangy with a power arm would benefit from steroids. I sure would like to know what the "training regime" of Roger Clemens was.

First one that comes to my mind although he isn't necessarily all that high profile was Derrick Turnbow. Oh, also Eric Gagne.

I don't think that is a very fair comparison with Johnson either. You could say that same that Prince Fielder with his massive girth wouldn't benefit from steroids. Also, not only power hitters and power pitchers used them. After all, Fernando Vina and Pablo Ozuna have been busted too.

SI1020
11-30-2012, 01:02 PM
First one that comes to my mind although he isn't necessarily all that high profile was Derrick Turnbow. Oh, also Eric Gagne.

I don't think that is a very fair comparison with Johnson either. You could say that same that Prince Fielder with his massive girth wouldn't benefit from steroids. Also, not only power hitters and power pitchers used them. After all, Fernando Vina and Pablo Ozuna have been busted too. Let me do my best to explain. Hitting a baseball 500 feet and consistently throwing a fastball in the mid 90's are two completely different things, using different muscle groups. At age 60 I could bench press almost double my weight, but doubt if I could have hit the high 50's on a radar gun. It would appear that Clemens found the right mixture for him, and in fairness he has a completely different physique than a Randy Johnson. Also, concerning a big man like Fielder, I think steroids would work wonders on that physique combined with diet and exercise. No, I'm not advocating that, I don't like PED's in sport.

Edit: Thanks for reminding me about Eric Gagne.

SI1020
11-30-2012, 01:18 PM
As do all the players who used amphetamines for years and years. Amphetamine use can definitely give one a short term performance and energy boost. Over time it has the exact opposite affect. The literature is out there if you are curious. Long term amphetamine use is devastating to the mind and body. Not nearly the same thing as the designer PED's out there today. It's like comparing an abacus to a modern day super computer.

ChiSoxFann
11-30-2012, 01:47 PM
What high profile pitchers other than Clemens have been mentioned? I'm just being curious and asking, not trying to provoke an argument with you. Also, I can't see how a pitcher in the mold of say a Randy Johnson, long, thin and rangy with a power arm would benefit from steroids. I sure would like to know what the "training regime" of Roger Clemens was.


He's not high profile, but the Sun-Times ran a nice story a few years ago on Jim Parque admitting he used steroids. He was quoted saying he had a family and his fastball couldn't break a pane of glass so he would do anything just to keep a big league job and salary.

I'm sure a lot of the fringe players in MLB in that era used just to keep their jobs, not to set or break any records.

Frater Perdurabo
11-30-2012, 01:50 PM
I don't see how steroids would help pitchers have more control, command, or even more break on their pitches.

FielderJones
11-30-2012, 01:56 PM
I don't see how steroids would help pitchers have more control, command, or even more break on their pitches.

Control, command, and break depend on muscle repetition and arm slot consistency. Getting muscles to recover more quickly with steroids would eliminate the pain that causes pitchers to lose their arm slot and control.

Oblong
11-30-2012, 03:12 PM
What high profile pitchers other than Clemens have been mentioned? I'm just being curious and asking, not trying to provoke an argument with you. Also, I can't see how a pitcher in the mold of say a Randy Johnson, long, thin and rangy with a power arm would benefit from steroids. I sure would like to know what the "training regime" of Roger Clemens was.

It' also a pure numbers game in that there's more hitters than pitchers so naturally you'll find more high profile hitters than pitchers. But there must be a benefit to pitchers as I do think it's true that more pitchers have actually been punished than pitchers. it's not just strength, it's recovery time and pain tolerance.

So in a case of juiced hitter vs. juiced pitcher.... who wins?


The point is there's a lot of conjecture going on and you can't just assume that a guy isn't using anymore. Rafael Palmeiro testifed under oath to Congress that he wasn't, and he wasn't a guy who anybody really would think woudl use as he wasn't a muscle head.... well he did. Same with Petitte. The whole era, right or wrong, is tainted, and for many it's guilty until proven innocent. Bagwell's being punished because he had big muscles.

Good thing for guys like Maddux and Glavine that they didn't work out vigorously.

Mr. Jinx
11-30-2012, 03:17 PM
Amphetamine use can definitely give one a short term performance and energy boost. Over time it has the exact opposite affect. The literature is out there if you are curious. Long term amphetamine use is devastating to the mind and body. Not nearly the same thing as the designer PED's out there today. It's like comparing an abacus to a modern day super computer.

I don't agree with that analogy at all. In a game where a hitter will be at the plate for about 5 minutes and swing a bat for about 5 seconds I think a short term boost is huge. Also, cheating is still cheating.

Interesting on the long term effects though, didn't know that. What sort of time frame are you talking here? I look at guys like Aaron and Mays and they seem fine today, although I'm sure like anything else each person reacts differently to using drugs.

happydude
11-30-2012, 03:41 PM
Bonds and Clemens, to me, are HOF'ers regardless of the cheating; they don't deserve first ballot status but they shouldn't have to wait until they're old and gray, either. And I'm not saying this as a fan of either; it annoys me to no end that Hank Aaron lost his "Home Run King" mantle to a guy who almost undoubtedly passed him due to PED use and I never liked Clemens. That being said, they were simply too good for too long to not get in. But this is coming from a guy who has ALWAYS thought Pete should be in, too, gambling or no gambling.

TDog
11-30-2012, 04:40 PM
Why is it that only hitters are brought up in this discussion, when the reality is more pitchers have been caught using them than hitters?

Part of the reason is that pitchers weren't producting numbers out of proportion to the history and legacy of the game. Sosa and McGwire passed Maris in the same season, and passed up the Ruth/Maris milestones later, which is even more incredible when you consider that Ruth and Maris only achieved 60 home runs once in their careers. Then Bonds passed McGwire's season home run record and Aaron's career record.

When there were whispers linking Mark Prior to steroids, Cubs fans dismissed the idea as ridiculous because he wasn't Sammy Sosa. Roger Clemens was a standout pitcher, but he never struck out 300 in a season, let alone threaten Nolan Ryan's record numbers. He never pitched more than eight shutouts in a season, not even approaching Bob Gibson numbers in shutouts or ERA. (Bob Gibson was asthmatic and his treatment probably included steroids, but other than relieving his asthma, I'm sure it didn't affect his performance.) Statistically, he wasn't even where Justin Verlander is now, and Justin Verlander isn't breaking high-profile records the way Sosa/McGwire and Bonds were. And one of the problems with steroids is that it also goes all the way down to marginal players who may not have gone that route if other players weren't competing clean. Most of the players involved with steroids wouldn't be considered Hall of Fame worthy in any case.

I wouldn't vote for Clemens either. It isn't a question of whether he would have been worthy of the Hall of Fame without the steroids. The fact is that steroids taints his career.

WhiteSox5187
11-30-2012, 04:48 PM
Why is it that only hitters are brought up in this discussion, when the reality is more pitchers have been caught using them than hitters?

Roger Clemens is very much involved in this conversation. Also, there weren't many pitching records that were shattered.

Nellie_Fox
12-01-2012, 12:16 AM
...Bob Gibson was asthmatic and his treatment probably included steroids, but other than relieving his asthma, I'm sure it didn't affect his performance.Not all steroids are PEDs. Hell, vitamin D is a steroid. Cholesterol is a steroid.

The steroids in an asthma inhaler are catabolic (or anti-inflamatory) steroids, not anabolic (or muscle-building) steroids. Big difference.

Daver
12-01-2012, 11:46 AM
Roger Clemens is very much involved in this conversation. Also, there weren't many pitching records that were shattered.

I doubt there will be any pitching records broken any time soon, the wimpification of the position dictates that.

SI1020
12-01-2012, 12:12 PM
I don't agree with that analogy at all. In a game where a hitter will be at the plate for about 5 minutes and swing a bat for about 5 seconds I think a short term boost is huge. Also, cheating is still cheating.

Interesting on the long term effects though, didn't know that. What sort of time frame are you talking here? I look at guys like Aaron and Mays and they seem fine today, although I'm sure like anything else each person reacts differently to using drugs.

http://www.amazon.com/Speed-Speed-Speed-Freak-Fast-History-Amphetamine/product-reviews/1459612469/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

Willie Mays was linked by second and third hand information to the "red juice" later in his career. Watching him play for the Mets was as close to heartbreaking as it gets. He was just a shadow of his former self. His major accuser was John Milner who was a teammate of his on the Mets. I have no knowledge of Aaron being linked to anything. Look at the physique of Mantle, Mays, Aaron, Clemente, Robinson, et al and then compare before and afters of Bonds, Sosa and McGwire. I stand by my previous post so we can agree to disagree.

TDog
12-01-2012, 12:32 PM
http://www.amazon.com/Speed-Speed-Speed-Freak-Fast-History-Amphetamine/product-reviews/1459612469/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

Willie Mays was linked by second and third hand information to the "red juice" later in his career. Watching him play for the Mets was as close to heartbreaking as it gets. He was just a shadow of his former self. His major accuser was John Milner who was a teammate of his on the Mets. I have no knowledge of Aaron being linked to anything. Look at the physique of Mantle, Mays, Aaron, Clemente, Robinson, et al and then compare before and afters of Bonds, Sosa and McGwire. I stand by my previous post so we can agree to disagree.

Mantle's case, though, raises an interesting point. Mickey "Hey, You Usin' That Liver?" Mantle would have used stimulants in an effort to counter the effect of a lifestyle that otherwise would have worn them down. Many ballplayers seem to have been using stimulants, not to gain an edge, but to play at a level at which they would have been able to comptee if they had focused on baseball and not partied hard. For some players the use of stimulants enchanced their performance less than a healthier lifestyle would have. And, ultimately, a healtier lifestyle allows players to get more out of their talents.

Mr. Jinx
12-01-2012, 02:28 PM
http://www.amazon.com/Speed-Speed-Speed-Freak-Fast-History-Amphetamine/product-reviews/1459612469/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

Willie Mays was linked by second and third hand information to the "red juice" later in his career. Watching him play for the Mets was as close to heartbreaking as it gets. He was just a shadow of his former self. His major accuser was John Milner who was a teammate of his on the Mets. I have no knowledge of Aaron being linked to anything. Look at the physique of Mantle, Mays, Aaron, Clemente, Robinson, et al and then compare before and afters of Bonds, Sosa and McGwire. I stand by my previous post so we can agree to disagree.

Simply having huge muscles doesn't necessarily equate to hitting a ball far or throwing it harder, having great concentration and faster reaction times means just as much. I've played against plenty of massive bodybuilder type guys in softball and it is hilarious to watch them try and swing a bat.

tstrike2000
12-01-2012, 02:59 PM
It's too bad the HOF is a joke. The 2013 class appears to be the most difficult because of the number of probable PED users. The only legit players I see will be Big Hurt and Greg Maddux as first ballot HOF'ers in '14, Randy Johnson in '15, and Griffey Jr. in '16. The rest of 'em can take a long walk off of a short pier.

We Treat'em
12-13-2012, 05:53 PM
Simply having huge muscles doesn't necessarily equate to hitting a ball far or throwing it harder, having great concentration and faster reaction times means just as much. I've played against plenty of massive bodybuilder type guys in softball and it is hilarious to watch them try and swing a bat.

I agree....example Ken Griffey Jr. Although can count him out of the PED talk just look at A-Rod. Sometimes I think they should just close the HOF and start a new group maybe "Hall of I Don't Care That Your a Cheater, Your Really Good at Baseball" or "You Saved Baseball After the Lockout So We're Going to Look the Other Way on Your PED Use Club" IMO it's all fluff untill they let the hit king in! Santo before Rose....what a joke.

Hendu
12-31-2012, 12:55 PM
It's something how the Hit King is banished for life and most people are fine with that and this new cheating bunch has a lot of people wanting to look the other way because they would have been in the hall before they took drugs. What if Pete got 3000 hits and bet on games after that. Where is the argument that 3000 hits gets you in (in that era) and he would have been eligible for his career when he wasn't betting on games?

None of them should be in the hall.

The hit king agreed to his lifetime banishment, so this is a completely different situation.

I think players should be judged on their numbers alone, unless they tested positive after MLB implemented a testing program. Otherwise, we're going to see players kept out on nothing more than suspicion or hearsay, while other players who were supposedly clean will get in and years later admit to using.

Here's a good SI article supporting Barry's candidacy: Link (http://mlb.si.com/2012/12/30/jaws-and-the-2013-hall-of-fame-ballot-barry-bonds/?sct=hp_wr_a1&eref=sihp)

If you had asked me 5 years ago, I would have said hell no to Barry getting in. But knowing that even the supposed clean guys at the time like A-Rod were using...it was way more wide-spread than we realize.

However, I can understand not letting Sosa and McGwire in because they played in an era where homeruns were devalued, and their games didn't offer much else.

TheVulture
12-31-2012, 02:54 PM
Simply having huge muscles doesn't necessarily equate to hitting a ball far or throwing it harder, having great concentration and faster reaction times means just as much.

True, but steroids can be used to improve reflexes, stamina, eye sight, etc. not just building strength

SephClone89
12-31-2012, 05:09 PM
If I had a ballot:

Biggio
Trammell
Martinez
Raines
Bagwell
Clemens
Bonds
Piazza

Mr. Jinx
12-31-2012, 05:16 PM
True, but steroids can be used to improve reflexes, stamina, eye sight, etc. not just building strength

I completely agree. My entire point is that if you're going to let in guys who have admittedly used amphetamines, you should let in guys who used steroids too. Both were not against the rules at the time so it seems dumb to just gloss over one and not the other. Conversely, if you're not going to let in guys like Bonds, Clemens, etc, you better kick out guys like Mays and Aaron for using performance enhancers too.

chicagowhitesox1
12-31-2012, 05:48 PM
If I had a ballot:

Biggio
Trammell
Martinez
Raines
Bagwell
Clemens
Bonds
Piazza

I really don't get this. Your obviously deducting Bonds and Clemens but why even vote for them at all.

I feel Piazza used and i'm guessing thats why he's last on your list but Biggio shouldn't get a pass either. Biggio went from hitting 3 or 4 homeruns a year to hitting 20-25 a year. The fact that he played with one of the biggest steroid teams in baseball really makes me wonder about him.

Alan Trammell deserves support and I hope he gets in someday but he's not the second most deserving on your list.

If your gonna vote for these guys then Bonds is a easy number one. If your deducting for steroids then take off everyone except Raines and Trammell.

I hate the era but I do feel at least 75 percent of players used and to put some guys in like Biggio or Piazza is ridiculous. Just because they didn't hit 60 homeruns doesn't mean they weren't using. Lenny Dykstra was a admitted user and steroids turned him into a guy who went from single digit homeruns to 15-20 homeruns. You don't have to hit 60 homeruns to be a steroid user.

WhiteSox5187
12-31-2012, 06:37 PM
I completely agree. My entire point is that if you're going to let in guys who have admittedly used amphetamines, you should let in guys who used steroids too. Both were not against the rules at the time so it seems dumb to just gloss over one and not the other. Conversely, if you're not going to let in guys like Bonds, Clemens, etc, you better kick out guys like Mays and Aaron for using performance enhancers too.

The extent to which amphetamines enhance performance compared to extent that steroids help is like comparing the destructive capabilities of a squirt gun compared to an AK-47. Amphetamines can help your focus and keep you alert but they don't make you stronger or improve your reflexes.

chicagowhitesox1
12-31-2012, 07:01 PM
The extent to which amphetamines enhance performance compared to extent that steroids help is like comparing the destructive capabilities of a squirt gun compared to an AK-47. Amphetamines can help your focus and keep you alert but they don't make you stronger or improve your reflexes.

I agree with what you say but Mr Jinx has a point. If players in the 60's were using greenies for an advantage then they surely would have used peds had they been available. I know peds were 100 times more damaging to baseball but players who used greenies aren't all that different than players who used peds. Both were trying to cheat the game.

SephClone89
12-31-2012, 07:20 PM
I really don't get this. Your obviously deducting Bonds and Clemens but why even vote for them at all.

I feel Piazza used and i'm guessing thats why he's last on your list but Biggio shouldn't get a pass either. Biggio went from hitting 3 or 4 homeruns a year to hitting 20-25 a year. The fact that he played with one of the biggest steroid teams in baseball really makes me wonder about him.

Alan Trammell deserves support and I hope he gets in someday but he's not the second most deserving on your list.

If your gonna vote for these guys then Bonds is a easy number one. If your deducting for steroids then take off everyone except Raines and Trammell.


What does the order have to do with anything? This was in no particular order. This isn't MVP voting...

SI1020
12-31-2012, 07:31 PM
I completely agree. My entire point is that if you're going to let in guys who have admittedly used amphetamines, you should let in guys who used steroids too. Both were not against the rules at the time so it seems dumb to just gloss over one and not the other. Conversely, if you're not going to let in guys like Bonds, Clemens, etc, you better kick out guys like Mays and Aaron for using performance enhancers too. Posts like this make me want to quit message boards completely.

chicagowhitesox1
12-31-2012, 08:04 PM
What does the order have to do with anything? This was in no particular order. This isn't MVP voting...

I didn't realize you didn't have the names in order. In that case I feel all the players are deserving some more so than others.

Bob Roarman
12-31-2012, 11:54 PM
The extent to which amphetamines enhance performance compared to extent that steroids help is like comparing the destructive capabilities of a squirt gun compared to an AK-47. Amphetamines can help your focus and keep you alert but they don't make you stronger or improve your reflexes.

What's the difference to the people who don't want cheaters in the Hall of Fame? Sooner or later people are going to have to come to terms with it. It became part of the competition. Which is probably the only realistic way to look at it now.

chicagowhitesox1
01-01-2013, 12:48 AM
What's the difference to the people who don't want cheaters in the Hall of Fame? Sooner or later people are going to have to come to terms with it. It became part of the competition. Which is probably the only realistic way to look at it now.

I think thats the best way to look at it. The players who were clean get a raw deal during that whole era but it's almost impossible to really know who was clean. I look at it this way, Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds could of arguably been the best pitcher and hitter of all time. With the steroids both of them get docked on alltime lists and to me thats punishment enough. You really can't blame these players 100 percent when MLB knew all this was going on and took a blind eye to make more money after the strike. Bud Selig will no doubt make the Hall of Fame but if a whole generation of players under his watch aren't allowed in then he has no business making it.

Players like Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens were making the hof even without the roids. Players like Sammy Sosa and Rafael Palmeiro are the ones voters need to look at differently. There is no way Curt Schilling should make the hof before Clemens or Craig Biggio over Bonds.

I have no idea how this years voting will end up but with the way McGwire and Bagwell have fared then Bonds and Clemens are going to be left out for awhile. I keep hearing how Biggio and Piazza are making it but theres no way in hell do I believe Piazza was clean and Biggio was best friends with Bagwell so I find it very hard to believe he never used either. Now I know there isn't proof on these guys but with anyone from that era I'd rather see proof that they didn't use.

With this era you can't go by who you may think didn't use because some will slip through the cracks and when that happens then it will be a shame that Bonds and Clemens are left out.

WhiteSox5187
01-01-2013, 02:22 AM
What's the difference to the people who don't want cheaters in the Hall of Fame? Sooner or later people are going to have to come to terms with it. It became part of the competition. Which is probably the only realistic way to look at it now.

The difference is in that there was no rule against any drugs without a prescription until 1991 which was made in regards to the cocaine scandals of the 1980s. Guys who used steroids broke that rule, guys who used amphetamines (like Aaron and Mays) did not. There is also the question of how much a drug enhanced one's performance. The fact of the matter is anabolic steroids is a far greater enhancer than amphetamines. Amphetamines is really akin to drinking a couple of pots of coffee, it makes you more alert and mentally sharper but does not improve your physical performance. Steroids does.

Bob Roarman
01-01-2013, 03:10 AM
I think thats the best way to look at it. The players who were clean get a raw deal during that whole era but it's almost impossible to really know who was clean. I look at it this way, Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds could of arguably been the best pitcher and hitter of all time. With the steroids both of them get docked on alltime lists and to me thats punishment enough. You really can't blame these players 100 percent when MLB knew all this was going on and took a blind eye to make more money after the strike. Bud Selig will no doubt make the Hall of Fame but if a whole generation of players under his watch aren't allowed in then he has no business making it.

Players like Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens were making the hof even without the roids. Players like Sammy Sosa and Rafael Palmeiro are the ones voters need to look at differently. There is no way Curt Schilling should make the hof before Clemens or Craig Biggio over Bonds.

I have no idea how this years voting will end up but with the way McGwire and Bagwell have fared then Bonds and Clemens are going to be left out for awhile. I keep hearing how Biggio and Piazza are making it but theres no way in hell do I believe Piazza was clean and Biggio was best friends with Bagwell so I find it very hard to believe he never used either. Now I know there isn't proof on these guys but with anyone from that era I'd rather see proof that they didn't use.

With this era you can't go by who you may think didn't use because some will slip through the cracks and when that happens then it will be a shame that Bonds and Clemens are left out.

I don't even really care about the Hall of Fame. It's just how PEDs are viewed is what amuses me. It's kinda ridiculous. They've become part of the competition now. Things have changed, nothing stays static. Fans may not like it, but that's really of no difference. They paid to see those home runs. They paid to see Ripken break Gehrig's record. They wanted to see those things happen, they got it. Thanks in part to PEDs. People are fooling themselves if they believe players of eras before PEDs really came into existence wouldn't be using them. Of course they would.

Is it an ugly truth? Maybe. But they're professional athletes, it's a choice that comes with the job, along with multitudes of other choices that may or may not increase their chances of staying competitive.

russ99
01-01-2013, 01:50 PM
I really don't get this. Your obviously deducting Bonds and Clemens but why even vote for them at all.

I feel Piazza used and i'm guessing thats why he's last on your list but Biggio shouldn't get a pass either. Biggio went from hitting 3 or 4 homeruns a year to hitting 20-25 a year. The fact that he played with one of the biggest steroid teams in baseball really makes me wonder about him.

Alan Trammell deserves support and I hope he gets in someday but he's not the second most deserving on your list.

If your gonna vote for these guys then Bonds is a easy number one. If your deducting for steroids then take off everyone except Raines and Trammell.

I hate the era but I do feel at least 75 percent of players used and to put some guys in like Biggio or Piazza is ridiculous. Just because they didn't hit 60 homeruns doesn't mean they weren't using. Lenny Dykstra was a admitted user and steroids turned him into a guy who went from single digit homeruns to 15-20 homeruns. You don't have to hit 60 homeruns to be a steroid user.

Again, Biggio played in the Astrodome half his career, never bulked up and guys usually increase power as they get more experienced. There's zero evidence both via his body size or numbers that he used PED's.

Also, the supposed biggest steroid teams in baseball are San Francisco and Oakland, due to BALCO. The only confirmed juicers Biggio played with are Caminiti and Finley (who started using in SF, not Houston) at the beginning of his career, and doofus Clemens and his shoot-up pal Pettitte at the end.

While some like to assume guilt by association, I firmly believe that Biggio never juiced. And while there is more supposed proof by body size, I think Bagwell didn't either.

The man got 3000 hits, he belongs in the Hall.

Hendu
01-01-2013, 01:53 PM
I don't even really care about the Hall of Fame. It's just how PEDs are viewed is what amuses me. It's kinda ridiculous. They've become part of the competition now. Things have changed, nothing stays static. Fans may not like it, but that's really of no difference. They paid to see those home runs. They paid to see Ripken break Gehrig's record. They wanted to see those things happen, they got it. Thanks in part to PEDs. People are fooling themselves if they believe players of eras before PEDs really came into existence wouldn't be using them. Of course they would.

Is it an ugly truth? Maybe. But they're professional athletes, it's a choice that comes with the job, along with multitudes of other choices that may or may not increase their chances of staying competitive.

Here's the line that Barry Bonds put up in 1998, allegedly his last clean year: .303/.438/.609, 37 homers, 28 steals, 130 walks, 122 RBI. Yet all the fans and writers cared about was McGwire and Sosa, two guys who were half the players that Bonds was. McGwire didn't even hide his Andro use - check out this article from August 1998 on the subject. (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/mlb/news/1998/08/22/mcgwire_supplement/) And if you scroll down to the bottom of the article, and see the related stories links, there's a link for a poll which shows that "fans want to see someone smash Maris' mark." We didn't care at all about steroids back then.

IMO, Barry Bonds' decision to start using made complete sense given the circumstances. I also think that if this issue had existed during any previous era, you'd have many of the players jumping on board.

mzh
01-01-2013, 02:00 PM
I'm probably going to get flamed for the simplicity of my opinion, but to me it comes down to the fact that these guys cheated. They used illegal substances to boost their game, and that's cheating, forgiving circumstances or not. It's totally irrelevant what Aaron or Mays or Ruth MIGHT have done given the opportunity to do it. The guys that cheated should not be allowed in, plain and simple.

Hendu
01-01-2013, 02:37 PM
I'm probably going to get flamed for the simplicity of my opinion, but to me it comes down to the fact that these guys cheated. They used illegal substances to boost their game, and that's cheating, forgiving circumstances or not. It's totally irrelevant what Aaron or Mays or Ruth MIGHT have done given the opportunity to do it. The guys that cheated should not be allowed in, plain and simple.

We fans and the media and MLB turned a blind eye in the late 90s/early 2000s, so shouldn't we have to suffer the consequences of a "tainted" HOF? We created this problem; the players who (allegedly) used were just giving us what we asked for.

I am betting that the HOF voters will differentiate the wild west era from the testing era. Manny Ramirez, for example, won't get in while Bonds, Clemens and maybe even Palmeiro will eventually get in after a number of years of being punished.

TDog
01-01-2013, 03:18 PM
We fans and the media and MLB turned a blind eye in the late 90s/early 2000s, so shouldn't we have to suffer the consequences of a "tainted" HOF? We created this problem; the players who (allegedly) used were just giving us what we asked for.

I am betting that the HOF voters will differentiate the wild west era from the testing era. Manny Ramirez, for example, won't get in while Bonds, Clemens and maybe even Palmeiro will eventually get in after a number of years of being punished.

Why should a player who cheated, a player who broke the law to gain an advantage not have that count against him when it comes to Hall of Fame consideration?

Being inducted into the Hall of Fame isn't like earning a promotion through your productivity on the job. The Hall of Fame is a place where the players that define what is great about baseball are celebrated, not where you go if you hit 500 home runs.

If you tell a grand jury you took money from gamblers who paid players to throw baseball games, you don't belong in the Hall of Fame when one is created to celebrate baseball. If you bet on major league baseball while managing major league baseball, you don't belong in the Hall of Fame. If there is evidence that you enhanced your performance with illegal and banned substances, putting other players you are competing with in a position where they may have to consider using illegal and banned substances, you don't belong in the Hall of Fame.

Whether nobody cared about McGwire or Sosa when they were chasing Maris is irrelevant. By the ends of their careers most fans cared, and by the time Bonds was chasing Aaron, even Congress cared about performance enhancing drugs. There is no need for a special wing in the Hall of Fame. There is no reason for Sosa, McGwire, Bonds, Clemens et.al. -- you can even throw in Rose -- to be in the Hall of Fame because actions that they are remembered for are the antithesis of Hall of Fame worthy.

chicagowhitesox1
01-01-2013, 03:57 PM
Again, Biggio played in the Astrodome half his career, never bulked up and guys usually increase power as they get more experienced. There's zero evidence both via his body size or numbers that he used PED's.

Also, the supposed biggest steroid teams in baseball are San Francisco and Oakland, due to BALCO. The only confirmed juicers Biggio played with are Caminiti and Finley (who started using in SF, not Houston) at the beginning of his career, and doofus Clemens and his shoot-up pal Pettitte at the end.

While some like to assume guilt by association, I firmly believe that Biggio never juiced. And while there is more supposed proof by body size, I think Bagwell didn't either.

The man got 3000 hits, he belongs in the Hall.

I think what bothers me is how I keep reading other message boards and everyone is praising Biggio and saying how Biggio and Bagwell need to go in together to show the steroid users that the hall is for clean players only. I just find it hard to believe that Biggio and Bagwell were both clean their entire careers.

In 1992 Pete Incavilgia played for the Astros and from what i've heard he popularized roids in the Astros clubhouse, just like he did for the 1993 Phillies.

Texas in the late 80's and early 90's was the steroid capital. Balco didn't come along until later on and I doubt Biggio was using masking agents. I think alot of people are confusing Biggio with using during Bonds Balco years. I think Biggio was using during Bonds clean years and he looks like the poster child for being clean in the roided up Bonds years.

Bob Roarman
01-01-2013, 04:28 PM
Why should a player who cheated, a player who broke the law to gain an advantage not have that count against him when it comes to Hall of Fame consideration?

Being inducted into the Hall of Fame isn't like earning a promotion through your productivity on the job. The Hall of Fame is a place where the players that define what is great about baseball are celebrated, not where you go if you hit 500 home runs.

.

That's a delusion. The title of this thread is a joke. There are already liars, cheaters, scumbags, racists, etc, in the Hall of Fame. Just one more reason why I don't take any of this argument against the latest "crop" seriously. It's completely hypocritical. Your precious Hall of Fame has been tainted for generations.

Boondock Saint
01-01-2013, 04:39 PM
That's a delusion. The title of this thread is a joke. There are already liars, cheaters, scumbags, racists, etc, in the Hall of Fame. Just one more reason why I don't take any of this argument against the latest "crop" seriously. It's completely hypocritical. Your precious Hall of Fame has been tainted for generations.

That doesn't mean you should just keep on doing the wrong thing.

Hendu
01-01-2013, 05:16 PM
Why should a player who cheated, a player who broke the law to gain an advantage not have that count against him when it comes to Hall of Fame consideration?

Being inducted into the Hall of Fame isn't like earning a promotion through your productivity on the job. The Hall of Fame is a place where the players that define what is great about baseball are celebrated, not where you go if you hit 500 home runs.

If you tell a grand jury you took money from gamblers who paid players to throw baseball games, you don't belong in the Hall of Fame when one is created to celebrate baseball. If you bet on major league baseball while managing major league baseball, you don't belong in the Hall of Fame. If there is evidence that you enhanced your performance with illegal and banned substances, putting other players you are competing with in a position where they may have to consider using illegal and banned substances, you don't belong in the Hall of Fame.

Whether nobody cared about McGwire or Sosa when they were chasing Maris is irrelevant. By the ends of their careers most fans cared, and by the time Bonds was chasing Aaron, even Congress cared about performance enhancing drugs. There is no need for a special wing in the Hall of Fame. There is no reason for Sosa, McGwire, Bonds, Clemens et.al. -- you can even throw in Rose -- to be in the Hall of Fame because actions that they are remembered for are the antithesis of Hall of Fame worthy.

Firstly how does anyone even decide who was clean and who wasn't in the pre-testing era? Even Barry's case hasn't been proven without a reason of a doubt or he'd have been convicted of straight-up perjury, and not obstruction of justice for giving vague, rambling answers. Then what happens when the "clean" guys get in and then 5 years later write tell-all books about their doping regimen?

It's hypocritical to encourage this behavior for a decade and then when the hangover comes, to punish the players who were doing exactly what the fans, the media, the owners and the commissioner wanted. Again, Mark McGwire in 1998 had a bottle of Andro, an anabolic steroid, in his locker and admitted to using it for over a year. Nobody cared because it was all about the homerun chase saving baseball. That reaction is what caused a lot of players to start using, and now many of the same baseball writers and fans who ate it up back then are the first to grab pitchforks now.

Bob Roarman
01-01-2013, 05:21 PM
That doesn't mean you should just keep on doing the wrong thing.

Just depends on your definition of right and wrong. The reality is that PEDs became a part of the competition in baseball decades ago, and are still now. And it's a choice every player makes. Of course baseball will want to desperately preserve an image of "purity" and Americana and all that horse****, condemn all of it as "wrong". But where has that gotten them? It's gotten them a tainted Hall of Fame, numerous scandals, lies, cover ups, Congressional hearings (!?!), all over trying to get an edge over the opponent.

This is not what's going to happen, because of the aforementioned self-preserving behavior, but the "right" thing to do is that baseball players be seen as professional athletes first and foremost, not as heroes or role models. That any foray into serious organized sports be met with the education of everything that comes along with that, all the choices, the risks. Is it disillusioning, yeah sure. Does the "magic" go away, I guess. But you want to talk about continuing to do the wrong things, continuing to look at things the wrong way, all you have to do is look at how these discussions go every single year.

TDog
01-01-2013, 05:39 PM
That's a delusion. The title of this thread is a joke. There are already liars, cheaters, scumbags, racists, etc, in the Hall of Fame. Just one more reason why I don't take any of this argument against the latest "crop" seriously. It's completely hypocritical. Your precious Hall of Fame has been tainted for generations.

The character flaws among current Hall of Famers is a bit exaggerated and taken out of context.

For example, a writer working on a new biography of Ty Cobb claims Al Stump distorted Ty Cobb's dark side for personal profit. Cobb died before Stump finished the book. While Cobb had a reputation, the worst stuff didn't come out until the Stump-written autobiography, and later in a magizine article and book written by stump (later adapted for the screen) written by Stump. Meanwhile, Stump is alleged to sold Ty Cobb memorabilia that he found at yard sales. At the time of the first Hall of Fame vote, Cobb was considered a role model as a baseball player although he was flawed as a person. If it was believed by most Americans at the time that he killed a man in Detroit, he wouldn't have been elected to the Hall fo Fame.

When you are looking at scumbags in the Hall of Fame, you are looking at them with standards that have changed since their election. Cap Anson was a racist who worked to keep baseball white, but at the time of his election to the Hall of Fame, major league baseball was white. (By the way, Cobb not only was not only not a member of the KKK, as many believe, but he said late in his life that he had no problem with baseball being integrated.)

You can look back at current members of the Hall of Fame and say it is likely Babe Ruth was using cocaine as a stimulant, but when he died, he remained a national treasure. It isn't like no one knew or cared about Barry Bonds and Rafael Palmeiro enhancing their performance drugs by the end of their careers.

Performance-enchancing drugs is considered by baseball and the public to be a major concern. Many in the public believe baseball isn't concerned enough. There is a huge difference between electing someone to the Hall of Fame whose legend might night age well and electing someone that America believes cheated.

chicagowhitesox1
01-01-2013, 05:48 PM
The character flaws among current Hall of Famers is a bit exaggerated and taken out of context.

For example, a writer working on a new biography of Ty Cobb claims Al Stump distorted Ty Cobb's dark side for personal profit. Cobb died before Stump finished the book. While Cobb had a reputation, the worst stuff didn't come out until the Stump-written autobiography, and later in a magizine article and book written by stump (later adapted for the screen) written by Stump. Meanwhile, Stump is alleged to sold Ty Cobb memorabilia that he found at yard sales. At the time of the first Hall of Fame vote, Cobb was considered a role model as a baseball player although he was flawed as a person. If it was believed by most Americans at the time that he killed a man in Detroit, he wouldn't have been elected to the Hall fo Fame.

When you are looking at scumbags in the Hall of Fame, you are looking at them with standards that have changed since their election. Cap Anson was a racist who worked to keep baseball white, but at the time of his election to the Hall of Fame, major league baseball was white. (By the way, Cobb not only was not only not a member of the KKK, as many believe, but he said late in his life that he had no problem with baseball being integrated.)

You can look back at current members of the Hall of Fame and say it is likely Babe Ruth was using cocaine as a stimulant, but when he died, he remained a national treasure. It isn't like no one knew or cared about Barry Bonds and Rafael Palmeiro enhancing their performance drugs by the end of their careers.

Performance-enchancing drugs is considered by baseball and the public to be a major concern. Many in the public believe baseball isn't concerned enough. There is a huge difference between electing someone to the Hall of Fame whose legend might night age well and electing someone that America believes cheated.

Is the new writer Bill Burgess?

TDog
01-01-2013, 07:17 PM
Is the new writer Bill Burgess?

Charlie Leerhsen.

Bob Roarman
01-01-2013, 07:30 PM
Performance-enchancing drugs is considered by baseball and the public to be a major concern. Many in the public believe baseball isn't concerned enough. There is a huge difference between electing someone to the Hall of Fame whose legend might night age well and electing someone that America believes cheated.

A concern for their image. Their image, a big difference there. That's the same public that cheered on McGwuire and Sosa and all the other big bombers, and now they are concerned? Where were they back then? Did people not know that steroids could have averse effects to a player's health? Do they not know that sports in general has adverse effects to players' health? They did. And they were being entertained in light of it. Just like we do in football, or in hockey or in almost any sport. Look, they got what they wanted, they got what they paid for. And that's okay. If they could just collectively come to an understanding about this, it would be okay, you could start moving forward instead of all this hand wringing about cheaters and liars and whatnot. There's no need to stand on a soapbox and pretend you always cared about the purity of the game or the players' well being or any of that which gets to the absolutely insane point of Congressional hearings. That's all bull****.

TDog
01-01-2013, 08:23 PM
A concern for their image. Their image, a big difference there. That's the same public that cheered on McGwuire and Sosa and all the other big bombers, and now they are concerned? Where were they back then? Did people not know that steroids could have averse effects to a player's health? Do they not know that sports in general has adverse effects to players' health? They did. And they were being entertained in light of it. Just like we do in football, or in hockey or in almost any sport. Look, they got what they wanted, they got what they paid for. And that's okay. If they could just collectively come to an understanding about this, it would be okay, you could start moving forward instead of all this hand wringing about cheaters and liars and whatnot. There's no need to stand on a soapbox and pretend you always cared about the purity of the game or the players' well being or any of that which gets to the absolutely insane point of Congressional hearings. That's all bull****.

The Hall of Fame is about image. If when a player retires fans do not respect his achievements because of the way he achieved them, his achievements don't merit him a place in the Hall of Fame. This isn't a black-and-white matter of contract law where x achievements guarantee a player enshrinement and rules broken in the process can be overlooked if it can be shown breaking the rules was encouraged by baseball. The Hall of Fame is about the image of baseball.

The Hall of Fame isn't about statisics. The mission of the instititon is to present the best of the game. Voting for players who at the time of retirement had lost the respect of the public do not belong in the Hall of Fame.

Bob Roarman
01-01-2013, 10:47 PM
The Hall of Fame is about image. If when a player retires fans do not respect his achievements because of the way he achieved them, his achievements don't merit him a place in the Hall of Fame. This isn't a black-and-white matter of contract law where x achievements guarantee a player enshrinement and rules broken in the process can be overlooked if it can be shown breaking the rules was encouraged by baseball. The Hall of Fame is about the image of baseball.

The Hall of Fame isn't about statisics. The mission of the instititon is to present the best of the game. Voting for players who at the time of retirement had lost the respect of the public do not belong in the Hall of Fame.

Yeah that's kinda my point. It's a phony image. So go for it, if you feel the need to defend it. I'd rather see it as what it is. That's why I don't give a frog's fat ass over what people think about when a player "deserves" to get in the Hall of if he does at all. Because they are, at least partially, basing that judgement off something that is false. Like I said, is it disillusioning, yes it is. Maybe that's what baseball "deserves" at this point.

TDog
01-02-2013, 02:37 PM
Yeah that's kinda my point. It's a phony image. So go for it, if you feel the need to defend it. I'd rather see it as what it is. That's why I don't give a frog's fat ass over what people think about when a player "deserves" to get in the Hall of if he does at all. Because they are, at least partially, basing that judgement off something that is false. Like I said, is it disillusioning, yes it is. Maybe that's what baseball "deserves" at this point.

Any Hall of Fame presents the image the sport wants to present. By that definition, any Hall of Fame exists to present a phony image if you want to use a pejorative term. Enshrining players because of accomplishments despite the fact that fans don't respect them because of the circumstances of those accomplishments is more phony recognizing that players notorious in the context of their times for their use of performance-enhancing drugs don't belong in the Hall of Fame.

Baseball is not now looking the other way when it comes to performance-enhancing drugs, even if baseball did at one time. Some would like to see stricter enforcement, and with good reason. You shouldn't have to destroy your health to make a living as a skilled athlete. You should not put your competition in a position to risk their health to compete with you. Henry Aaron is exponentially more respected than Barry Bonds.

Putting Rafael Palmeiro into the Hall of Fame because he met a statistical threshold while suspending players for attempting to gain the same edge he had, in violation of federal law, would be more phony than leaving him out.

Hendu
01-02-2013, 02:48 PM
The Hall of Fame is about image. If when a player retires fans do not respect his achievements because of the way he achieved them, his achievements don't merit him a place in the Hall of Fame. This isn't a black-and-white matter of contract law where x achievements guarantee a player enshrinement and rules broken in the process can be overlooked if it can be shown breaking the rules was encouraged by baseball. The Hall of Fame is about the image of baseball.

The Hall of Fame isn't about statisics. The mission of the instititon is to present the best of the game. Voting for players who at the time of retirement had lost the respect of the public do not belong in the Hall of Fame.

I agree that the HOF is a bit of a popularity contest; which is why players from the more popular teams have a better shot at getting in compared to players with similar careers on the unpopular teams, and writers can slowly build cases for borderline HOF-ers until one day they're suddenly "good enough" to be enshrined.

However, sometimes a player's numbers are so overwhelmingly stunning that the rest doesn't matter. Clemens and Bonds are certainly the two best players in their era, and definitely in the conversation when it comes to the best players ever. PEDs will complicate things, but ultimately they shouldn't in the end. Right or wrong, it was a huge part of the era and nobody cared until things got out of control (which was bound to happen after records were being shattered).

As an aside, an argument could be made that all of the body armor players were allowed to wear had as big of an effect on hitters as PEDs.

Anyway, unless Bud starts banning players (unlikely as it would turn attention on MLB's role in all of this), it's in the hands of the writers. If McGwire still gets 20% of the vote (why he gets more than Rafael Palmeiro, a far more deserving candidate, makes no sense), Bonds and Clemens should get substantially more. Then it's all about building cases and taking a fresh look, yadda yadda, over the next 10+ years until momentum starts building to finally let them in.

Bob Roarman
01-02-2013, 03:52 PM
Any Hall of Fame presents the image the sport wants to present. By that definition, any Hall of Fame exists to present a phony image if you want to use a pejorative term.



See, now you're starting to get the hang of things.





Baseball is not now looking the other way when it comes to performance-enhancing drugs, even if baseball did at one time. Some would like to see stricter enforcement, and with good reason. You shouldn't have to destroy your health to make a living as a skilled athlete. You should not put your competition in a position to risk their health to compete with you. Henry Aaron is exponentially more respected than Barry Bonds.



How far you wish to pursue it is completely up to the player, no one forces him to take PEDs. Just like no one forces him to go on a special diet or lift weights or train at high altitude. These are all choices. But no matter what, you are at the very least putting at risk the quality of your later life (and at present in tons of cases) if you have a career of being a professional athlete. That is unavoidable. Baseball, football, hockey, basketball, some more than others, but it's all a risk that comes with the job. And it's completely up to the players to make that choice if it's worth it to them or not. Even without PEDs, that's just the way it is, there's no enforcing that out of pro sports. It's a year round deal for most of these guys now.

A. Cavatica
01-02-2013, 08:44 PM
I want the Big Hurt in to the HoF on the first ballot. He'll be hurt by being a DH for a large part of his career, but he (along with Griffey) was the best hitter of his era -- assuming you compare him to other untarnished hitters.

Throw Bonds, Sosa, McGwire, Palmeiro in there and the case for Hurt isn't as crystal clear as it should be.

chicagowhitesox1
01-02-2013, 09:15 PM
I want the Big Hurt in to the HoF on the first ballot. He'll be hurt by being a DH for a large part of his career, but he (along with Griffey) was the best hitter of his era -- assuming you compare him to other untarnished hitters.

Throw Bonds, Sosa, McGwire, Palmeiro in there and the case for Hurt isn't as crystal clear as it should be.

When Thomas is eligable i'm sure he'll be a first ballot.

SephClone89
01-03-2013, 08:07 AM
When Thomas is eligable i'm sure he'll be a first ballot.

Not positive. Look how long it's taking Bagwell, for instance.

TommyJohn
01-03-2013, 08:33 AM
When Thomas is eligable i'm sure he'll be a first ballot.


Not bloody likely. For years, Rick “I’ll only vote for guys who played the game cleanly” Telander has campaigned against him, insisting that a DH like Thomas has no place in the hallowed Mecca in Cooperstown. This is, of course, the same Rick Telander that then turns around and casts a vote for scumbag, rotten, awful blaspheming DH Edgar Martinez because he played the game cleanly. This is the kind of mentality that Thomas will be up against.

russ99
01-03-2013, 08:44 AM
Not bloody likely. For years, Rick “I’ll only vote for guys who played the game cleanly” Telander has campaigned against him, insisting that a DH like Thomas has no place in the hallowed Mecca in Cooperstown. This is, of course, the same Rick Telander that then turns around and casts a vote for scumbag, rotten, awful blaspheming DH Edgar Martinez because he played the game cleanly. This is the kind of mentality that Thomas will be up against.

That would be a travesty, but I can kinda see it happen. Anything less than 2nd ballot is insulting for a guy with such ridiculous numbers, though.

SephClone89
01-03-2013, 09:53 AM
Not bloody likely. For years, Rick “I’ll only vote for guys who played the game cleanly” Telander has campaigned against him, insisting that a DH like Thomas has no place in the hallowed Mecca in Cooperstown. This is, of course, the same Rick Telander that then turns around and casts a vote for scumbag, rotten, awful blaspheming DH Edgar Martinez because he played the game cleanly. This is the kind of mentality that Thomas will be up against.

Are you attempting to characterize Telander here? Because it's not clear.

Tragg
01-03-2013, 10:58 AM
2013 HOF Ballot Released (http://baseballhall.org/news/museum-news/big-names-biggest-honor)

It would be nice for baseball to reward players (Bagwell, Biggio, Piazza) who played the game the right way by enshrining them, as their numbers are good enough.

The reason Bagwell isn't in is because of suspicions of exactly that. Biggio should get it 1st or 2nd ballot.

TommyJohn
01-03-2013, 11:54 AM
Are you attempting to characterize Telander here? Because it's not clear.

Um, no.

SephClone89
01-03-2013, 12:13 PM
Um, no.

Okay, then do you care to elaborate on your dislike of Edgar Martinez?

TDog
01-03-2013, 01:22 PM
See, now you're starting to get the hang of things. ...
How far you wish to pursue it is completely up to the player, no one forces him to take PEDs. Just like no one forces him to go on a special diet or lift weights or train at high altitude. These are all choices. But no matter what, you are at the very least putting at risk the quality of your later life (and at present in tons of cases) if you have a career of being a professional athlete. That is unavoidable. Baseball, football, hockey, basketball, some more than others, but it's all a risk that comes with the job. And it's completely up to the players to make that choice if it's worth it to them or not. Even without PEDs, that's just the way it is, there's no enforcing that out of pro sports. It's a year round deal for most of these guys now.

You are missling the point. Of course the Hall of Fame is about image, what baseball wants to celebrate about the game. That is why players who violate federal law to gain competitive edge, putting other players in a position where they may have to consider doing so themselves. Working hard and living healthy isn't simply a parallel choice. There are fringe players who use performance-enhancing drugs in an effort to play major league baseball. Performance-enhancing drug use started in the Olympics years ago, and in an effort to keep the games clean, the Olympics have addressed the situation.

There is a difference between letting records stand and celebrating dirty players. Barry Bonds is the all-time home run king, for a season and for a career. The fact that people don't respect his achievements or even Bonds as a human being because of the way he achieved the records is why I would never vote for him to be in the Hall of Fame if I had a ballot. Last season, a suspended player even took himself out of the running for the NL batting title, setting a precedent for records achieved by dirty players not counting, although that was an isolated case that came from a player trying to rehabilitate his image to keep working in baseball rather than a mandate from the commissioner.

Fans care about performance-enhancing drugs affecting baseball. Choosing to violate federal law and deprive yourself of years of quality life is not an option that should be celebrated in the Hall of Fame.

russ99
01-03-2013, 02:26 PM
I still think there should be a lesser wing in the HOF, and put Rose and all the steroid guys in there, so they can be recognized for their accomplishments, just not at the same level as the rest of the hall.

russ99
01-03-2013, 02:30 PM
The reason Bagwell isn't in is because of suspicions of exactly that. Biggio should get it 1st or 2nd ballot.

Bagwell got 321 votes last year on his second ballot, and that's 56%. Exit polls (http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/newsstand/discussion/the_2012_hall_of_fame_ballot_collecting_gizmo) for this year's voting give him 68%, still shy of 75% for now. IMO, the usual BBWA east coast bias is keeping him out more than the juicing speculation at this point, which could also cost Biggio on his first ballot.

The voters obviously aren't boycotting him like some of proven juicers, like McGuire who's gotten no more than 23%. Clemens and Bonds are exit polling under 50% by comparison.

chicagowhitesox1
01-03-2013, 03:06 PM
Not positive. Look how long it's taking Bagwell, for instance.

The reason I feel Thomas will be a first ballot is because he was campaigning against steroids since the 90's. There are no links at all that Frank Thomas was using steroids.

Bagwell more than likely used even though he denies. But everyone though the same about Palmeiro for awhile too.

Tragg
01-03-2013, 10:31 PM
Bagwell got 321 votes last year on his second ballot, and that's 56%. Exit polls (http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/newsstand/discussion/the_2012_hall_of_fame_ballot_collecting_gizmo) for this year's voting give him 68%, still shy of 75% for now. IMO, the usual BBWA east coast bias is keeping him out more than the juicing speculation at this point, which could also cost Biggio on his first ballot.

The voters obviously aren't boycotting him like some of proven juicers, like McGuire who's gotten no more than 23%. Clemens and Bonds are exit polling under 50% by comparison.
He isn't a renown juicer; it's more latent, but the belief is there. He should obviously be in otherwise. One disadvantage BAgwell had, if he's clean, is that he never got the public scrutiny to show he was clean. He just kept quiet. No one publicly accused him, but he sort of needed to go on the offensive. He's not penalized like Palmerio because it's never been proven (and Bagwell never lied about it; he really hasn't said anything about it).
Frank, on the other hand, went out front and said he never juiced, and no one could prove or even suggest otherwise, so I think people believe him. Also, his body never changed, unlike some of the others.

I bet you see Biggio do a heck of a lot better.

chicagowhitesox1
01-03-2013, 11:24 PM
Last I saw Biggio was at 72 percent so he has a good shot. This is from a site that is tallying up all the votes.

Mr. Jinx
01-04-2013, 08:34 AM
Posts like this make me want to quit message boards completely.

Yeah, I hate it when people have a different opinion than me. We should just stick to insulting them.

Mr. Jinx
01-04-2013, 08:54 AM
The difference is in that there was no rule against any drugs without a prescription until 1991 which was made in regards to the cocaine scandals of the 1980s. Guys who used steroids broke that rule, guys who used amphetamines (like Aaron and Mays) did not. There is also the question of how much a drug enhanced one's performance. The fact of the matter is anabolic steroids is a far greater enhancer than amphetamines. Amphetamines is really akin to drinking a couple of pots of coffee, it makes you more alert and mentally sharper but does not improve your physical performance. Steroids does.

I'm sure that steroids will provide a greater performance boost, but if amphetamines aren't that big of a deal, then why did mlb ban them? And why then have requests for ADHD drugs increased exponentially after amphetamines were banned? MLB players conveniently seem to have this disorder at a much higher rate than the general population.

http://www.philly.com/philly/health/Adderall-MLBs-latest-performance-enhancing-drug.html

TDog
01-06-2013, 11:17 PM
I'm sure that steroids will provide a greater performance boost, but if amphetamines aren't that big of a deal, then why did mlb ban them? And why then have requests for ADHD drugs increased exponentially after amphetamines were banned? MLB players conveniently seem to have this disorder at a much higher rate than the general population.

http://www.philly.com/philly/health/Adderall-MLBs-latest-performance-enhancing-drug.html

Nonetheless, there is huge difference between stimulants and chemicals that unnaturally increase muscle mass.

chicagowhitesox1
01-06-2013, 11:57 PM
Last I saw Biggio dropped to 68 percent so it's looking like nobody will be elected.

TheVulture
01-07-2013, 12:50 AM
I'm sure that steroids will provide a greater performance boost, but if amphetamines aren't that big of a deal, then why did mlb ban them?

Why did the NFL ban marijuana? Clearly not a performance enhancer, unless you're Fats Waller.

FielderJones
01-07-2013, 12:25 PM
Why did the NFL ban marijuana? Clearly not a performance enhancer, unless you're Fats Waller.

http://www.snopes.com/sports/graphics/ellis.jpg
"Hey, recreational drugs can be PEDs."

Oblong
01-08-2013, 02:53 PM
IMO, the usual BBWA east coast bias is keeping him out more than the juicing speculation at this point, which could also cost Biggio on his first ballot.

.

The BBWAA east coast bias thing is a myth. The reason there appears to be one is because the Veterans committee had lobbying for guys like Rizzuto and because in the early days of baseball the east coast had a lot of teams. But in the last 50 years I can't think of any BBWAA inductee that got in because of east coast bias. There's pletny of marginal HOFers that were not east coast based.

russ99
01-08-2013, 03:26 PM
The BBWAA east coast bias thing is a myth. The reason there appears to be one is because the Veterans committee had lobbying for guys like Rizzuto and because in the early days of baseball the east coast had a lot of teams. But in the last 50 years I can't think of any BBWAA inductee that got in because of east coast bias. There's pletny of marginal HOFers that were not east coast based.

How about Jim Rice? The year he had in '78 was ridiculous, but he didn't hit major milestones like 3,000 hits or 400 HRs. Seems to me a "Hall of Very Good" member, boosted because he played in Boston his entire career.

I recall a thread comparing Rice and Baines, and there were a lot of similaries.

WhiteSox5187
01-08-2013, 03:53 PM
How about Jim Rice? The year he had in '78 was ridiculous, but he didn't hit major milestones like 3,000 hits or 400 HRs. Seems to me a "Hall of Very Good" member, boosted because he played in Boston his entire career.

I recall a thread comparing Rice and Baines, and there were a lot of similaries.

Jim Rice benefited a lot from ESPN churning out articles about him year in and year out. I also think Curt Schilling is getting a boost for playing with the Red Sox in 2004. I guess we will see what his final numbers are.

chicagowhitesox1
01-08-2013, 06:51 PM
Jim Rice is probably more like Dale Murphy who I thought was better than Rice. Murphy and Rice really show why nice guys finish last because Murphy had to have been the nicest guy in the world towards the media and Rice one of the biggest jerks yet Murphy gets shunned.

Harold Baines deff played in the wrong time frame, he would have gotten 3000 hits had it not been for 3 years of strikes causing him to miss over 100 games.

sox1970
01-08-2013, 06:59 PM
Jim Rice is probably more like Dale Murphy who I thought was better than Rice. Murphy and Rice really show why nice guys finish last because Murphy had to have been the nicest guy in the world towards the media and Rice one of the biggest jerks yet Murphy gets shunned.

Harold Baines deff played in the wrong time frame, he would have gotten 3000 hits had it not been for 3 years of strikes causing him to miss over 100 games.

Baines missed 124 team games because of strikes. Say he played 115 of those games. He didn't average over one hit per game in 1981, 1994, and 1995, so it's unlikely he would have 134 hits in those 124 team games to get to 3000.

Oblong
01-08-2013, 08:12 PM
How about Jim Rice? The year he had in '78 was ridiculous, but he didn't hit major milestones like 3,000 hits or 400 HRs. Seems to me a "Hall of Very Good" member, boosted because he played in Boston his entire career.

I recall a thread comparing Rice and Baines, and there were a lot of similaries.

If there was an East Coast bias he wouldn't have waited the full 15 years to get on. He started out with under 30% of the vote. Bert Blyleven had the same type of trajectory, (MIN), and Jack Morris could end up the same.

Gary Carter had to wait for his 6th ballot. Should have gone in on the first.

WhiteSox5187
01-08-2013, 08:46 PM
I don't know if anyone is currently watching it but MLB Network is having a fascinating roundtable about the HOF vote and PEDs. Tom Verducci had an interesting point about the difference between greenies and steroids where he said it is a difference between "performance enablers" compared "performance enhancers."

TDog
01-08-2013, 08:50 PM
Baines missed 124 team games because of strikes. Say he played 115 of those games. He didn't average over one hit per game in 1981, 1994, and 1995, so it's unlikely he would have 134 hits in those 124 team games to get to 3000.

If he hadn't been traded by the White Sox, Harold Baines likely would have had finished his career with more than 3,000 hits. That's what Jerry Reinsdorf believes anyway, and I agree with him on this point. Harold actually hit lefties pretty well, and lefty starters better than lefty relief specialists, which is true for most lefthanded hitters. But after he left the Sox, he played appreciably fewer games because he was platooned.

Noir
01-09-2013, 12:28 AM
I don't know if anyone is currently watching it but MLB Network is having a fascinating roundtable about the HOF vote and PEDs. Tom Verducci had an interesting point about the difference between greenies and steroids where he said it is a difference between "performance enablers" compared "performance enhancers."

I believe when it is all said and done, the only aspect of a players performance these drugs actually made is recovery time

chicagowhitesox1
01-09-2013, 01:46 AM
Baines missed 124 team games because of strikes. Say he played 115 of those games. He didn't average over one hit per game in 1981, 1994, and 1995, so it's unlikely he would have 134 hits in those 124 team games to get to 3000.

He would have gotten his atbats if he was 20 or 30 hits short at the end of his career. Again the strikes hurt him more than any player besides Tim Raines.

WhiteSox5187
01-09-2013, 02:23 AM
I believe when it is all said and done, the only aspect of a players performance these drugs actually made is recovery time

No, steroids make you bigger, faster, and stronger. There is a reason Sammy Sosa went from looking like this:

http://www.bracephoto.com/images/players/Untitled-23.jpg

To this:

http://weblogs.cltv.com/news/local/chicago/sammy%20sosa%20pix-thumb.jpg

sox1970
01-09-2013, 09:04 AM
He would have gotten his atbats if he was 20 or 30 hits short at the end of his career. Again the strikes hurt him more than any player besides Tim Raines.

It's a fair point, but how long were teams going to let him hang around for 3000? That would be so White Sox.

I also think Fred McGriff was hurt by the strike of 94-95. He would be over 500 homers, which to a lot of voters is a Hall of Fame benchmark. Also, if he played his career clean with almost everyone else around him juicing to get to 500-600-762 homers, then it makes his career look less significant. Personally, I think McGriff was probably every bit as good as Willie McCovey or Eddie Murray.

chicagowhitesox1
01-09-2013, 11:30 AM
It's a fair point, but how long were teams going to let him hang around for 3000? That would be so White Sox.

I also think Fred McGriff was hurt by the strike of 94-95. He would be over 500 homers, which to a lot of voters is a Hall of Fame benchmark. Also, if he played his career clean with almost everyone else around him juicing to get to 500-600-762 homers, then it makes his career look less significant. Personally, I think McGriff was probably every bit as good as Willie McCovey or Eddie Murray.

Willie Stargell too, Yeah Fred McGriff should already be in. I guess the knock on him is defense or the fact he played for 3 or 4 teams and was never really the elite player on any team he played for. I think he had like 6 or 7 top 10 MVP seasons but every year one of his teammates finsihed higher.

DumpJerry
01-09-2013, 11:52 AM
So the Cub fan/resident Sosa apologist in my office said Sosa should get in since nobody has every said they witnessed him taking the stuff, was told by him he has taken the stuff or supplied him with it.

I told him by that reasoning, we should stop saying Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK because he was never convicted of the crime.

doublem23
01-09-2013, 11:57 AM
So the Cub fan/resident Sosa apologist in my office said Sosa should get in since nobody has every said they witnessed him taking the stuff, was told by him he has taken the stuff or supplied him with it.

I told him by that reasoning, we should stop saying Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK because he was never convicted of the crime.

You may want to pass along this nugget to him: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/sports/baseball/17doping.html?_r=0

DumpJerry
01-09-2013, 12:02 PM
You may want to pass along this nugget to him: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/sports/baseball/17doping.html?_r=0
I would except that he's hurting right now. The Bears let him down this season (he predicted 13-3) and he feels the Cubs are nothing to look forward to until 2015. He's not a basketball or hockey fan, so he is wandering around with a dazed, lost look in his eye. A life with no purpose.

WhiteSox5187
01-09-2013, 01:01 PM
Nobody got in. Biggio had 68% of the vote, 39 votes short. They haven't announced what Bonds or Clemens got.

WhiteSox5187
01-09-2013, 01:05 PM
Jack Morris got the same votes as last year, 66.7%, Bagwell and Piazza got 59.6 and 57.8%, Tim Raines got 52%, Clemens and Bonds got 37.6% and 36.2% of the vote, Sosa got 12.5%, Kenny Lofton and Sandy Alomar are off the ballot.

roylestillman
01-09-2013, 01:05 PM
Royce's Clayton got zero votes.

WhiteSox5187
01-09-2013, 01:08 PM
Royce's Clayton got zero votes.

I guess most of the BBWAA made another choice.

Is Biggio the first guy with 3,000 hits not to make it on the first ballot?

russ99
01-09-2013, 01:14 PM
I guess most of the BBWAA made another choice.

Is Biggio the first guy with 3,000 hits not to make it on the first ballot?

Yes he is. Sad to say its due to a combination of steroid protesters and east coast bias.

What a joke. Who are 39 of the idiots who didn't vote for him?

Anyone with a blank ballot shouldn't be allowed to vote again.

doublem23
01-09-2013, 01:23 PM
Full list available at the BBWAA's website:

http://bbwaa.com/

Biggio, Morris, Bagwell, Piazza, Raines, Smith, Schilling, Clemens, Bonds, Martinez, Trammell, Larry Walker, McGriff, McGwire, Mattingly, Sosa, and Palmeiro will all appear on the 2014 Ballot.

Dale Murphy has reached his 15-year-limit.

Bernie Williams, Ken Lofton, Sandy Alomar, Jr., Julio Franco, David Wells, Steve Finley, Shawn Green, Aaron Sele, Jeff Cirillo, Royce Clayton, Jeff Conine, Roberto Hernandez, Ryan Klesko, Jose Mesa, Reggie Sanders, Mike Stanton, Todd Walker, Rondell White, and Woody Williams all failed to recieve 5% of the vote and are gone, too.

WhiteSox5187
01-09-2013, 01:27 PM
Full list available at the BBWAA's website:

http://bbwaa.com/

Biggio, Morris, Bagwell, Piazza, Raines, Smith, Schilling, Clemens, Bonds, Martinez, Trammell, Larry Walker, McGriff, McGwire, Mattingly, Sosa, and Palmeiro will all appear on the 2014 Ballot.

Dale Murphy has reached his 15-year-limit.

Bernie Williams, Ken Lofton, Sandy Alomar, Jr., Julio Franco, David Wells, Steve Finley, Shawn Green, Aaron Sele, Jeff Cirillo, Royce Clayton, Jeff Conine, Roberto Hernandez, Ryan Klesko, Jose Mesa, Reggie Sanders, Mike Stanton, Todd Walker, Rondell White, and Woody Williams all failed to recieve 5% of the vote and are gone, too.

Next year's ballot has locks like Glavine, Maddux, and (hopefully!) Frank Thomas on it. It will be really interesting to see what impact that has on guys like Raines, Smith and Morris and if guys are punishing Bonds and Clemens for one year or forever.

SephClone89
01-09-2013, 01:39 PM
Next year's ballot has locks like Glavine, Maddux, and (hopefully!) Frank Thomas on it. It will be really interesting to see what impact that has on guys like Raines, Smith and Morris and if guys are punishing Bonds and Clemens for one year or forever.

I'm as big a Thomas fan as anybody, but after this year I don't see him going in first ballot.

WhiteSox5187
01-09-2013, 01:43 PM
I'm as big a Thomas fan as anybody, but after this year I don't see him going in first ballot.

It will be interesting, the one thing that should help Frank immensely is that as early as 1995 he (and Tony Gwynn) were telling reporters that guys were "doing things that weren't natural." Frank's outspokenness about steroids SHOULD help him. But you never know.

spongyfungy
01-09-2013, 01:43 PM
I'm as big a Thomas fan as anybody, but after this year I don't see him going in first ballot.

Now that I think about it, if he does get in first ballot and the steroid guys are just getting a one year slap on the wrist, it'll be quite an uncomfortable moment for them when Frank gives his speech.

SephClone89
01-09-2013, 01:44 PM
Help me out here but isn't that the definition of first ballot?

After seeing how the BBWAA voted this year, I don't see Thomas going in on his first ballot (next year.)

Make sense now?

sox1970
01-09-2013, 01:45 PM
I'm as big a Thomas fan as anybody, but after this year I don't see him going in first ballot.

I wouldn't be surprised if Thomas, Glavine, Maddux, and Biggio all get in next year. The guy it may hurt is Tim Raines. If Schilling, Piazza, Bagwell, Bonds, and Clemens gets boosts next year, then Raines may fall back further.

The whole thing is kind of a joke at this point.

thomas35forever
01-09-2013, 01:54 PM
Surprising and not surprising at the same time. Good to know a little integrity was involved here.

Madvora
01-09-2013, 01:59 PM
"Sosa, who finished with 609 home runs, was among those who tested positive in MLB's 2003 anonymous survey"

This is the first I'm hearing of a Sosa positive test. What is this all about?

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/50410208/ns/sports-baseball/

russ99
01-09-2013, 02:06 PM
So Biggio is getting in twice?

I mean Bagwell. :redface:

doublem23
01-09-2013, 02:24 PM
"Sosa, who finished with 609 home runs, was among those who tested positive in MLB's 2003 anonymous survey"

This is the first I'm hearing of a Sosa positive test. What is this all about?

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/50410208/ns/sports-baseball/

In 2003, the MLBA agreed to allow players to be anonymously tested to determine the amount of steroid abuse in baseball. About 105 players tested positive, but the results were supposed to be sealed and remain anonymous forever, but it was leaked during some other BALCO-related investigations (I think). Only a handful of the players who tested positive for that survey have been revealed, but it includes guys like Sosa, A-Rod, Manny Ramirez, and David Ortiz.

WhiteSox5187
01-09-2013, 02:32 PM
In 2003, the MLBA agreed to allow players to be anonymously tested to determine the amount of steroid abuse in baseball. About 105 players tested positive, but the results were supposed to be sealed and remain anonymous forever, but it was leaked during some other BALCO-related investigations (I think). Only a handful of the players who tested positive for that survey have been revealed, but it includes guys like Sosa, A-Rod, Manny Ramirez, and David Ortiz.

I think that was the test where if a certain percentage of players tested positive MLB would institute steroid testing and if a player declined to be tested it would lead to a positive result, that year the White Sox declined to be tested because they WANTED testing. I think that that ring was led by Frank Thomas and Paul Konerko, of course the Player's Union later talked them out of it.

kittle42
01-09-2013, 02:55 PM
Best comment I have seen thus far on the juicers not getting in:

"Who cares? The integrity of the Hall was forever compromised when they enshrined Ron Santo."

RKMeibalane
01-09-2013, 03:00 PM
No doubt Frank was a classic DH, but he gets very little credit for playing 971 games at first base.

And was a better first baseman than most people realize. Yes, he did botch routine plays on occasion, but I remember him also making plays around the bag that I've never seen duplicated by anyone. Ironically, his playing first base was never a big deal until after 1998, when he started DH'ing full-time. The situation was compounded in 2003 following idiotic comments by Jerry Manuel, after Thomas expressed interest in playing 1B more often.

:jerry

"I can't imagine any reason short of an emergency for playing Frank at first base."

kittle42
01-09-2013, 03:03 PM
but I remember him also making plays around the bag that I've never seen duplicated by anyone.

That's because every other 1B in history could actually get off the bag. :D:

CoopaLoop
01-09-2013, 03:03 PM
Hopefully Maddux and Glavine bury Morris forever next season. I am tired about hearing how that guy is a hall of famer.

RKMeibalane
01-09-2013, 03:07 PM
That's because every other 1B in history could actually get off the bag. :D:

Touche.

A. Cavatica
01-09-2013, 06:07 PM
I'm thinking it's going to be Maddux and Biggio next year, and then Glavine, Thomas and Biggio the year after.

What about the year after that? Do you think Biggio has a chance to make it three in a row?

PKalltheway
01-09-2013, 06:48 PM
Hopefully Maddux and Glavine bury Morris forever next season. I am tired about hearing how that guy is a hall of famer.

Yeah, it seems like the longer he hangs around on the ballot, the more people feel sorry for him and give him a pity vote. Shoot, you've had 14 years to think about it, plus the five years after his retirement when he became eligible. If you're at 19 years and still haven't made up your mind about him, then maybe, just maybe, he doesn't belong. Mercy...

RKMeibalane
01-09-2013, 06:55 PM
Yeah, it seems like the longer he hangs around on the ballot, the more people feel sorry for him and give him a pity vote. Shoot, you've had 14 years to think about it, plus the five years after his retirement when he became eligible. If you're at 19 years and still haven't made up your mind about him, then maybe, just maybe, he doesn't belong. Mercy...

You've outlined my "litmus test" for determining whether a player belongs in the HOF. If you have to think about it, he doesn't belong there.

chicagowhitesox1
01-09-2013, 07:04 PM
You've outlined my "litmus test" for determining whether a player belongs in the HOF. If you have to think about it, he doesn't belong there.

I believe in this too and i'm a small hof kinda guy but Bert Blyleven is a rare exception to this. He was better than Nolan Ryan, Don Sutton, Catfish Hunter, Fergie Jenkins and Phil Niekro. Those are just guys from his era who are in the hall. Jenkins and Niekro are pretty close to him though.

Zakath
01-09-2013, 07:26 PM
What about the year after that? Do you think Biggio has a chance to make it three in a row?

Maybe he gets in the first time as a catcher, the second time at 2B, and third in the outfield.

Shame the guy didn't get in. 20 years with the same team, 3,060 hits, lifetime .281 hitter, 4 Gold Gloves, 5 Silver Sluggers, 7 All-Star teams.

An interesting stat for him: First player in MLB history to play an entire 162-game schedule and never hit into a double play (did it in 1997).

TheVulture
01-09-2013, 08:27 PM
And was a better first baseman than most people realize. Yes, he did botch routine plays on occasion, but I remember him also making plays around the bag that I've never seen duplicated by anyone. Ironically, his playing first base was never a big deal until after 1998, when he started DH'ing full-time. The situation was compounded in 2003 following idiotic comments by Jerry Manuel, after Thomas expressed interest in playing 1B more often.


If I remember correctly, the main problem with Frank in the field was he seemed to catch a case of Knoblauchitis, couldn't go to second without throwing the ball into left field.

Lip Man 1
01-09-2013, 09:41 PM
Frank was eventually moved from first base because his throwing was a liability. He suffered an arm / shoulder injury his freshman year at Auburn playing football (he was a tight end) and it affected his motion and ability to get the ball across the diamond to 3rd base.

I have also been told (don't know if this is true or not) but Frank was embarrassed by this. He may have actually requested the move although publicly he was opposed to it.

Lip

Tragg
01-09-2013, 10:08 PM
I doubt Frank gets in first ballot, and that will be a bigger travesty than Biggio falling short this year.

Biggio not getting in as a first-ballot guy is not a travesty. He belongs, but, imo, first-ballot should be reserved for the superstars.
Frank will get in.

CoopaLoop
01-09-2013, 11:41 PM
Someday, I hope someone explains to me how not voting someone in on the first ballot but doing it the next time around makes any sense.

Nellie_Fox
01-10-2013, 12:32 AM
Biggio not getting in as a first-ballot guy is not a travesty. He belongs, but, imo, first-ballot should be reserved for the superstars.
Frank will get in.I know that this is the prevailing wisdom, and the writers consider a first-ballot election to be an extra-special award, but I think it's just dumb. If the guy is a Hall of Famer in the second year, what changed from his first year? Nothing.

Hendu
01-10-2013, 01:27 AM
Someday, I hope someone explains to me how not voting someone in on the first ballot but doing it the next time around makes any sense.

Agreed. Also, if anyone already in the HOF is suspected of cheating, whether real or an "eye test" they should be kicked out then (cough...Cal Ripken and his "I'm not in a position to judge (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/05/AR2006120501307_pf.html)" comment...cough). That's the can of worms that the voters are opening.

This whole thing about punishing an era is ridiculous. It happened. We saw these guys put up monster numbers. And for Bud Selig, the owners, and the HOF not to give voters some kind of guidance on how to treat this era is equally ridiculous.

But ya I'm gonna make the trip to Cooperstown to see that Jim Rice plaque. What a joke the baseball HOF is.

chicagowhitesox1
01-10-2013, 03:14 AM
Agreed. Also, if anyone already in the HOF is suspected of cheating, whether real or an "eye test" they should be kicked out then (cough...Cal Ripken and his "I'm not in a position to judge (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/05/AR2006120501307_pf.html)" comment...cough). That's the can of worms that the voters are opening.

This whole thing about punishing an era is ridiculous. It happened. We saw these guys put up monster numbers. And for Bud Selig, the owners, and the HOF not to give voters some kind of guidance on how to treat this era is equally ridiculous.

But ya I'm gonna make the trip to Cooperstown to see that Jim Rice plaque. What a joke the baseball HOF is.

I've heard steroid rumors on Cal Ripken, Nolan Ryan, Dennis Eckersley, Rickey Henderson and Roberto Alomar. I can't say if any of them used but I would put money on the fact that at least one of them did use at so the hof is already more than likely tainted with steroids.

I don't agree with revoking a guys hof status because really the only reason anyone cares about steroids now instead of 20 years ago is because Hank Aarons and RogerMaris's records were broken. Every babyboomer in the country loved Nolan Ryan in the early 90's but can you imagine a 45 year old pitcher today striking out 300 batters and what the fans and media would be thinking.

TDog
01-10-2013, 03:49 AM
I know that this is the prevailing wisdom, and the writers consider a first-ballot election to be an extra-special award, but I think it's just dumb. If the guy is a Hall of Famer in the second year, what changed from his first year? Nothing.

I don't know that there are that many voters who don't vote for players because they don't believe they are worthy of first-ballot election, although there apparently are a few vocal ones who take that approach. Really, if everyone was taking that approach, there would be some players worthy of serious consideration who wouldn't be on a second ballot. Does anyone care or even remember that Carlton Fisk didn't get elected in his first year of eligibility?

Especially with some of the controversial players on the ballot this time around, I think there are some players that voters simply aren't sure about. I didn't see any way that players as unpopular with the public right now as Barry Bonds were going to get elected. I certainly wouldn't have voted for him. And I don't expect I would ever vote for him.

Then there are some voters who have their guys they want to see get in, and they don't vote for anyone else, even though they can put up to 10 names on their ballot.

I'm really not surprised no one was elected this year.

CoopaLoop
01-10-2013, 06:34 AM
Agreed. Also, if anyone already in the HOF is suspected of cheating, whether real or an "eye test" they should be kicked out then (cough...Cal Ripken and his "I'm not in a position to judge (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/05/AR2006120501307_pf.html)" comment...cough). That's the can of worms that the voters are opening.

This whole thing about punishing an era is ridiculous. It happened. We saw these guys put up monster numbers. And for Bud Selig, the owners, and the HOF not to give voters some kind of guidance on how to treat this era is equally ridiculous.

But ya I'm gonna make the trip to Cooperstown to see that Jim Rice plaque. What a joke the baseball HOF is.

That's the thing, a whole era of players are going to be judged by a group of writers who benefited off of them juicing during the 90's? If you weren't campaigning against juice then, you can't punish them now.

Bonds and Clemens should be in and if you feel the need to make mention of steroids I am all for it, but to pretend the steroid era never happened is just silly.

spawn
01-10-2013, 06:58 AM
I know that this is the prevailing wisdom, and the writers consider a first-ballot election to be an extra-special award, but I think it's just dumb. If the guy is a Hall of Famer in the second year, what changed from his first year? Nothing.

Exactly. That whole "first ballot" HOF'er argument is just nonsense IMO. Just shows how elitist the Baseball Hall Of Fame voting is. Case in point...Joe DiMaggio got in on his 3rd year being on the ballot. Really? Just ridiculous. Either you're a Hall of Famer or you're not.

Hitmen77
01-10-2013, 09:10 AM
jack morris got the same votes as last year, 66.7%, bagwell and piazza got 59.6 and 57.8%, tim raines got 52%, clemens and bonds got 37.6% and 36.2% of the vote, sosa got 12.5%, kenny lofton and sandy alomar are off the ballot.

762*

PalehosePlanet
01-10-2013, 09:31 AM
Agreed. Also, if anyone already in the HOF is suspected of cheating, whether real or an "eye test" they should be kicked out then (cough...Cal Ripken and his "I'm not in a position to judge (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/05/AR2006120501307_pf.html)" comment...cough). That's the can of worms that the voters are opening.

This whole thing about punishing an era is ridiculous. It happened. We saw these guys put up monster numbers. And for Bud Selig, the owners, and the HOF not to give voters some kind of guidance on how to treat this era is equally ridiculous.

But ya I'm gonna make the trip to Cooperstown to see that Jim Rice plaque. What a joke the baseball HOF is.

Don't forget to stop by Phil Rizutto's bust. Those 1588 career hits are great for a laugh. Who knew the HOF had such a great sense of humor?

Here are the similar players to Rizutto according to basball-refernce:


Art Fletcher (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/f/fletcar01.shtml)
Billy Rogell (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/r/rogelbi01.shtml)
Billy Jurges (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/j/jurgebi01.shtml)
Claude Ritchey (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/r/ritchcl01.shtml)
Lonny Frey (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/f/freylo01.shtml)
Marty Marion (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/marioma01.shtml)
Doggie Miller (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/milledo01.shtml)
Lyn Lary (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/l/laryly01.shtml)
Jose Offerman (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/o/offerjo01.shtml)
Hughie Critz (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/c/critzhu01.shtml)



Household names galore! I bet Jose Offerman doesn't even know that he is HOF caliber.

kittle42
01-10-2013, 09:48 AM
Don't forget to stop by Phil Rizutto's bust.

Is it sponsored by The Money Store?

Tragg
01-10-2013, 10:45 AM
I know that this is the prevailing wisdom, and the writers consider a first-ballot election to be an extra-special award, but I think it's just dumb. If the guy is a Hall of Famer in the second year, what changed from his first year? Nothing.

Well, the Hall of Fame is now very broad and clearly not reserved for "Great" players. So that's just one small way of distinguishing between a great player. Dumb, I guess, but no harm either.
Next year, I'd put it in Maddux and Frank; the others would have to wait.

asindc
01-10-2013, 11:08 AM
Don't forget to stop by Phil Rizutto's bust. Those 1588 career hits are great for a laugh. Who knew the HOF had such a great sense of humor?

Here are the similar players to Rizutto according to basball-refernce:


Art Fletcher (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/f/fletcar01.shtml)
Billy Rogell (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/r/rogelbi01.shtml)
Billy Jurges (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/j/jurgebi01.shtml)
Claude Ritchey (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/r/ritchcl01.shtml)
Lonny Frey (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/f/freylo01.shtml)
Marty Marion (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/marioma01.shtml)
Doggie Miller (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/milledo01.shtml)
Lyn Lary (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/l/laryly01.shtml)
Jose Offerman (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/o/offerjo01.shtml)
Hughie Critz (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/c/critzhu01.shtml)


Household names galore! I bet Jose Offerman doesn't even know that he is HOF caliber.

Phil Rizzuto is the Ron Santo of the Yanks.

asindc
01-10-2013, 11:09 AM
Jack Morris got the same votes as last year, 66.7%, Bagwell and Piazza got 59.6 and 57.8%, Tim Raines got 52%, Clemens and Bonds got 37.6% and 36.2% of the vote, Sosa got 12.5%, Kenny Lofton and Sandy Alomar are off the ballot.

It continues to be a sick joke that Tim Raines has not been voted in.

sox1970
01-10-2013, 11:16 AM
It continues to be a sick joke that Tim Raines has not been voted in.

He's a victim off too much mediocre baseball after age 35. If people would just look at his 162 game average from the beginning of his career through age 35, he's a no-brainer. Throw in his peak of 1981-1987, where he lost time because of the strike and collusion in 1987, too. He should have won an MVP in 1987. It's crystal clear he's a Hall of Fame player.

JB98
01-10-2013, 12:36 PM
I think Frank is going to get screwed by "purists" who don't want to vote for a "one-dimensional DH."

As I've always said, the Hall is full of one-dimensional players. They are called pitchers. If you're historically great at your "one dimension," you belong in the Hall. It's pretty simple to me.

Hendu
01-10-2013, 12:43 PM
I've heard steroid rumors on Cal Ripken, Nolan Ryan, Dennis Eckersley, Rickey Henderson and Roberto Alomar. I can't say if any of them used but I would put money on the fact that at least one of them did use at so the hof is already more than likely tainted with steroids.

I don't agree with revoking a guys hof status because really the only reason anyone cares about steroids now instead of 20 years ago is because Hank Aarons and RogerMaris's records were broken. Every babyboomer in the country loved Nolan Ryan in the early 90's but can you imagine a 45 year old pitcher today striking out 300 batters and what the fans and media would be thinking.

Good points. Players were using PEDs as early as the 70s (Tom House, the pitcher who caught Aaron's record-breaking HR in the bullpen, admitted to using anabolic steroids back then), so there are already juicers in the HOF. Probably a lot more than we think. And as you said, for Nolan Ryan to put up those numbers into his mid-40s? C'mon...

Mr. Jinx
01-10-2013, 01:54 PM
I think Frank is going to get screwed by "purists" who don't want to vote for a "one-dimensional DH."

As I've always said, the Hall is full of one-dimensional players. They are called pitchers. If you're historically great at your "one dimension," you belong in the Hall. It's pretty simple to me.

I've never thought of it that way before, really good point.

Mr. Jinx
01-10-2013, 01:56 PM
Good points. Players were using PEDs as early as the 70s (Tom House, the pitcher who caught Aaron's record-breaking HR in the bullpen, admitted to using anabolic steroids back then), so there are already juicers in the HOF. Probably a lot more than we think. And as you said, for Nolan Ryan to put up those numbers into his mid-40s? C'mon...

Exactly. There's juicers in the hall now, there will be more juicers that get elected in the future that we may or may not ever know about. Just let them all in and cut out the crap. I can't wait until they elect someone in the next few years who comes out and admits using or gets outed later on down the road. Just imagine the hand wringing!

Nellie_Fox
01-10-2013, 02:08 PM
Exactly. There's juicers in the hall now, there will be more juicers that get elected in the future that we may or may not ever know about. Just let them all in and cut out the crap.I couldn't disagree more. They should continue to do the best they can to keep cheaters out. And before you ask, no I don't think Gaylord Perry should have gotten in. But just because there are some in the HOF who should not be is no reason to just throw up your hands and say "there's nothing we can do about it."

Should there be a mechanism for retroactively removing someone from The Hall? You bet. Just like Armstrong got his Tour titles stripped.

doublem23
01-10-2013, 02:19 PM
Personally, what offends me the most about this year's voting is that someone gave Aaron Sele a vote. WHAT THE ****

If the dip****s that comprise the BBWAA want to have a haughty circle jerk of self righteousness, what the hell do I care? I've been well aware the BBWAA is chock full of morons for a while. But who the **** looked a guy with a career 148-121 record, 4.61 ERA, and 1.491 WHIP and was like, GIVE THIS MAN A PLAQUE?

RKMeibalane
01-10-2013, 03:06 PM
Personally, what offends me the most about this year's voting is that someone gave Aaron Sele a vote. WHAT THE ****

If the dip****s that comprise the BBWAA want to have a haughty circle jerk of self righteousness, what the hell do I care? I've been well aware the BBWAA is chock full of morons for a while. But who the **** looked a guy with a career 148-121 record, 4.61 ERA, and 1.491 WHIP and was like, GIVE THIS MAN A PLAQUE?

I've never understood this, either. I suppose there's always going to be people who vote for players they liked, regardless of whether they're deserving, but I agree that they shouldn't be wasting their votes on someone who has little or no chance of getting in.

sox1970
01-10-2013, 03:09 PM
Personally, what offends me the most about this year's voting is that someone gave Aaron Sele a vote. WHAT THE ****

If the dip****s that comprise the BBWAA want to have a haughty circle jerk of self righteousness, what the hell do I care? I've been well aware the BBWAA is chock full of morons for a while. But who the **** looked a guy with a career 148-121 record, 4.61 ERA, and 1.491 WHIP and was like, GIVE THIS MAN A PLAQUE?

I call these "buddy" votes. They know the guy isn't getting in, but they throw a guy they like a vote just for the hell of it. It doesn't bother me, but the Hall should just get the actual ballot down to guys where it makes sense to avoid this.

Mr. Jinx
01-10-2013, 04:32 PM
I couldn't disagree more. They should continue to do the best they can to keep cheaters out. And before you ask, no I don't think Gaylord Perry should have gotten in. But just because there are some in the HOF who should not be is no reason to just throw up your hands and say "there's nothing we can do about it."

Should there be a mechanism for retroactively removing someone from The Hall? You bet. Just like Armstrong got his Tour titles stripped.

Well, I can't say I couldn't disagree more, just disagree mostly. At least you are consistent about your cheaters, unlike so many others.

chicagowhitesox1
01-10-2013, 06:09 PM
I couldn't disagree more. They should continue to do the best they can to keep cheaters out. And before you ask, no I don't think Gaylord Perry should have gotten in. But just because there are some in the HOF who should not be is no reason to just throw up your hands and say "there's nothing we can do about it."

Should there be a mechanism for retroactively removing someone from The Hall? You bet. Just like Armstrong got his Tour titles stripped.

I respect your opinion but cheating is part of baseball, always has been. Cheating has been with baseball since before Ty Cobb and it's gonna be around even when we are dead.

Gaylod Perry wrote a book admitting how he cheated yet I don't think any umpire ever caught him, it's hard to not respect that a little bit. I would have to think every pitcher scuffed or used a spitball sometime in their careers especially as they got older. Whitey Ford admitted to scuffing balls too so taking cheaters out of baseball is like taking sugar out of candy. It's part of the game.

The way players have cheated today with steroids isn't a sexy way to cheat especially to older generations who feel Aarons and Maris's records are sacred but I would have to think every generation would have done the same thing if steroids were available. I think the only way to determine who belongs is if we look at the player themselves.

--Barry Bonds..No doubt hofer, steroids did inflate his numbers but he would have ended up with 600 homeruns regardless.
--Roger Clemens....Same as Bonds, he would have ended up with hof numbers without roids.
--Sammy Sosa and Rafael Palmeiro both weren't going to be hofers without roids so they need to be kept out.
--Piazza, Biggio, Bagwell should and will get in but I just feel they all used at some point but should the voters punish them for making a bad decision. I personally don't think they should penalize them.
--Mark McGwire is one who I really don't know how to judge. I think he would have gotten close to 500 homeruns but injuries may have kept him out longer without the roids too.

Nobody is ever going to know who really used or didn't use roids so these voters need to use common sense on who should go in.

spawn
01-10-2013, 06:40 PM
I respect your opinion but cheating is part of baseball, always has been. Cheating has been with baseball since before Ty Cobb and it's gonna be around even when we are dead.

Gaylod Perry wrote a book admitting how he cheated yet I don't think any umpire ever caught him, it's hard to not respect that a little bit. I would have to think every pitcher scuffed or used a spitball sometime in their careers especially as they got older. Whitey Ford admitted to scuffing balls too so taking cheaters out of baseball is like taking sugar out of candy. It's part of the game.

The way players have cheated today with steroids isn't a sexy way to cheat especially to older generations who feel Aarons and Maris's records are sacred but I would have to think every generation would have done the same thing if steroids were available. I think the only way to determine who belongs is if we look at the player themselves.

--Barry Bonds..No doubt hofer, steroids did inflate his numbers but he would have ended up with 600 homeruns regardless.
--Roger Clemens....Same as Bonds, he would have ended up with hof numbers without roids.
--Sammy Sosa and Rafael Palmeiro both weren't going to be hofers without roids so they need to be kept out.
--Piazza, Biggio, Bagwell should and will get in but I just feel they all used at some point but should the voters punish them for making a bad decision. I personally don't think they should penalize them.
--Mark McGwire is one who I really don't know how to judge. I think he would have gotten close to 500 homeruns but injuries may have kept him out longer without the roids too.

Nobody is ever going to know who really used or didn't use roids so these voters need to use common sense on who should go in.
This is ridiculous. So in other words, the players that didn't cheat, that actually played the game the right way were just idiots for not cheating? Just because cheating has been a part of baseball since its inception doesn't mean you should be rewarded for it anymore than a high school student should be rewarded for cheating on an entrance exam. And never mind the cheating aspect of it. Steroids are illegal. You're suggesting players should get rewarded for breaking the law.

Now what is hypocritical is the same writers that were cheering the long ball and players like mcGwire and Sosa are now the same ones saying they don't belong in the HOF.

And I have no respect for someone that takes glee in never getting caught cheating. I just can't. Not getting on a moral high horse, but that's basically saying you have no integrity, and couldn't make it unless you had an unfair advantage.

TDog
01-10-2013, 06:45 PM
...

Nobody is ever going to know who really used or didn't use roids so these voters need to use common sense on who should go in.

This argument runs counter to the purpose of the Hall of Fame. Not knowing who unlawfully enhanced their muscle mass does not excuse opening the door to players who tarnished the game by obviously and apparently doing so.

Barry Bonds might have had the sort of relationship with the Hall of Fame that Jack Morris has if he hadn't juiced. You really don't know. What you do know is that by juicing he lost the respect of most baseball fans and helped change the game in a negative way. There are many who believe he doesn't belong in the record books, and the bar for the Hall of Fame is higher.

chicagowhitesox1
01-10-2013, 07:23 PM
This is ridiculous. So in other words, the players that didn't cheat, that actually played the game the right way were just idiots for not cheating? Just because cheating has been a part of baseball since its inception doesn't mean you should be rewarded for it anymore than a high school student should be rewarded for cheating on an entrance exam. And never mind the cheating aspect of it. Steroids are illegal. You're suggesting players should get rewarded for breaking the law.

Now what is hypocritical is the same writers that were cheering the long ball and players like mcGwire and Sosa are now the same ones saying they don't belong in the HOF.

And I have no respect for someone that takes glee in never getting caught cheating. I just can't. Not getting on a moral high horse, but that's basically saying you have no integrity, and couldn't make it unless you had an unfair advantage.

The way I look at it is cheating is cheating and every good player is going to look for any advantage he can to win and in most cases cheating will be involved. Obviously steroids are alot worse than some guy putting a little to much pine tar on his bat but where do you draw the line on cheating. I don't like how records were broken during the steroid era but it is what it is. You can't keep a whole generation out of the hof. I doubt theres a player in the hof who never cheated to gain an edge.

Gaylord Perry told the whole world he cheated and I have to give him credit for getting away with it. Again every pitcher scuffs balls especially in his era when they didn't throw every other ball away.

DSpivack
01-10-2013, 07:26 PM
I couldn't disagree more. They should continue to do the best they can to keep cheaters out. And before you ask, no I don't think Gaylord Perry should have gotten in. But just because there are some in the HOF who should not be is no reason to just throw up your hands and say "there's nothing we can do about it."

Should there be a mechanism for retroactively removing someone from The Hall? You bet. Just like Armstrong got his Tour titles stripped.
I agree with this, but how do you decide who did and who did not cheat?

Off the top of my head, this year I would have voted in Raines, Piazza, Biggio and Bagwell.

chicagowhitesox1
01-10-2013, 07:30 PM
This argument runs counter to the purpose of the Hall of Fame. Not knowing who unlawfully enhanced their muscle mass does not excuse opening the door to players who tarnished the game by obviously and apparently doing so.

Barry Bonds might have had the sort of relationship with the Hall of Fame that Jack Morris has if he hadn't juiced. You really don't know. What you do know is that by juicing he lost the respect of most baseball fans and helped change the game in a negative way. There are many who believe he doesn't belong in the record books, and the bar for the Hall of Fame is higher.

This is why voters need to use common sense, Bonds more tha likely started using in 1999 after the whole Sosa/McGwire deal and he was already a hofer so comparing him to a Jack Morris career isn't using common sense. Now comparing Sosa to a Morris career is probably about right. I agree he did lose the respect of most baseball fans including me but 90 percent of that era was on roids and yeah he deff inflated his career stats but you gotta hand it to Bonds too for putting every other steroid user to shame with the numbers he put up.

Hendu
01-10-2013, 07:31 PM
This argument runs counter to the purpose of the Hall of Fame. Not knowing who unlawfully enhanced their muscle mass does not excuse opening the door to players who tarnished the game by obviously and apparently doing so.

Barry Bonds might have had the sort of relationship with the Hall of Fame that Jack Morris has if he hadn't juiced. You really don't know. What you do know is that by juicing he lost the respect of most baseball fans and helped change the game in a negative way. There are many who believe he doesn't belong in the record books, and the bar for the Hall of Fame is higher.

Here's who else changed the game in a negative way: the clean players who didn't speak out, the already enshrined players who were juicers before this whole thing got out of control, Bud Selig who buried his head in the sand, owners who ignored the rumors and counted their money, the BBWA who felated McGwire, Sosa and Bonds before turning on them, etc.

What does the "purpose of the Hall of Fame" even mean? How is it a relevant institution when neither the hit king nor the homerun king are included? Sure, people see it as a shrine but it's also a museum of the game and its greatest players.

Plus, the bar isn't that high if Jack Morris is in the discussion of deserving candidates.

mzh
01-10-2013, 07:42 PM
This is why voters need to use common sense, Bonds more tha likely started using in 1999 after the whole Sosa/McGwire deal and he was already a hofer so comparing him to a Jack Morris career isn't using common sense. Now comparing Sosa to a Morris career is probably about right. I agree he did lose the respect of most baseball fans including me but 90 percent of that era was on roids and yeah he deff inflated his career stats but you gotta hand it to Bonds too for putting every other steroid user to shame with the numbers he put up.
Why does any of this matter? You said it yourself- cheating is cheating is cheating. End of story. Period. Was Pete Rose a HOFer before he bet on games? Absolutely. Was Joe Jackson a HOFer before he threw a World Series? No doubt. There's no reason why some players should be forgiven for cheating just because they were great players beforehand.

chicagowhitesox1
01-10-2013, 07:56 PM
Why does any of this matter? You said it yourself- cheating is cheating is cheating. End of story. Period. Was Pete Rose a HOFer before he bet on games? Absolutely. Was Joe Jackson a HOFer before he threw a World Series? No doubt. There's no reason why some players should be forgiven for cheating just because they were great players beforehand.

Those are totally different arguments. Personally I feel Joe Jackson should have been put in 60 years ago when he died. Thats when his lifetime ban ended.

These steroid players aren't banned from baseball. And steroids were being used because baseball didn't have drug testing in fact most of the stuff they used could be bought at a GNC store. I keep hearing how Tim Raines should be in the hof and I feel he should be in too but this guy was using cocaine and he gets more votes than guys who were taking over the counter drugs.

spawn
01-10-2013, 08:01 PM
Those are totally different arguments. Personally I feel Joe Jackson should have been put in 60 years ago when he died. Thats when his lifetime ban ended.

These steroid players aren't banned from baseball. And steroids were being used because baseball didn't have drug testing in fact most of the stuff they used could be bought at a GNC store. I keep hearing how Tim Raines should be in the hof and I feel he should be in too but this guy was using cocaine and he gets more votes than guys who were taking over the counter drugs.
:scratch::scratch: What?!?! Who was taking over the counter drugs? I've shopped at GNC numerous times, and I don't ever remember seeing steroids or HGH on the shelves. Canseco, Bonds, Sosa, McGwire, Palmeiro...these guys weren't using creatine and protein powders!

And cocaine isn't a performance enhancer. And this isn't meant to excuse his drug use, but according to Raines himself, his performance suffered because of his drug use.

chicagowhitesox1
01-10-2013, 08:16 PM
:scratch::scratch: What?!?! Who was taking over the counter drugs? I've shopped at GNC numerous times, and I don't ever remember seeing steroids or HGH on the shelves. Canseco, Bonds, Sosa, McGwire, Palmeiro...these guys weren't using creatine and protein powders!

And cocaine isn't a performance enhancer. And this isn't meant to excuse his drug use, but according to Raines himself, his performance suffered because of his drug use.

Whatever they were taking baseball didn't have a policy enforced and McGwire got caught with andro in his locker which was sold at GNC stores. I'll admit these guys deff were taking some high powered stuff but again baseball should have done something about steroids when football clamped down in the late 80's.

With Raines it's a moral issue and I think he should be in but taking cocaine deff is a moral issue and being a moral person is one of the hof standards so he shouldn't be getting more votes than steroid users.

RKMeibalane
01-10-2013, 08:24 PM
The way I look at it is cheating is cheating and every good player is going to look for any advantage he can to win and in most cases cheating will be involved.


Slippery slope. Where is your proof that most MLB players have cheated?

Obviously steroids are alot worse than some guy putting a little to much pine tar on his bat but where do you draw the line on cheating. I don't like how records were broken during the steroid era but it is what it is. You can't keep a whole generation out of the hof. I doubt theres a player in the hof who never cheated to gain an edge.


I'll grant that "absence of proof is not proof of absence," but it's wrong to make unsubstantiated claims like this. I don't remember anyone accusing players like Barry Larkin (elected last year), Dave Winfield, or Gary Carter of cheating. Did Carlton Fisk ever cheat?

spawn
01-10-2013, 08:25 PM
Whatever they were taking baseball didn't have a policy enforced and McGwire got caught with andro in his locker which was sold at GNC stores. I'll admit these guys deff were taking some high powered stuff but again baseball should have done something about steroids when football clamped down in the late 80's.
McGwire has admitted to taking steroids. And again, you keep glossing over the fact that it is illegal. Baseball may not have had a policy in place, but the federal government did.
With Raines it's a moral issue and I think he should be in but taking cocaine deff is a moral issue and being a moral person is one of the hof standards so he shouldn't be getting more votes than steroid users.
Ty Cobb was a racist. Cap Anson is credited with the unwritten rule of keeping blacks out of baseball. Babe Ruth was a womanizer. Lou Gehrig was an alcoholic. The HOF is littered with individuals that made decisions that could be considered morally reprehensible. They didn't use an illegal substance to give them an unfair advantage over other players. THAT'S my issue.

spawn
01-10-2013, 08:27 PM
Slippery slope. Where is your proof that most MLB players have cheated?



I'll grant that "absence of proof is not proof of absence," but it's wrong to make unsubstantiated claims like this. I don't remember anyone accusing players like Barry Larkin (elected last year), Dave Winfield, or Gary Carter of cheating. Did Carlton Fisk ever cheat?
Or Andre Dawson? Ryne Sandberg? Roberto Alomar? Ernie Banks? Willie Mays? Hank Aaron? Jackie Robinson?

chicagowhitesox1
01-10-2013, 08:52 PM
I feel every player you mentioned cheated in some way or another. Stealing signs, using unfair home ball park methods, doctering baseballs etc. It's not the same as steroids but it's still cheating. All i'm trying to say is every generation looks for an edge. Unfortuantly the 90's-00's players used steroids for an advantage but to keep certain players out and put certain players in doesn't make any sense to me at all because nobody really knows who used.

I do admit I do find it hard to believe that Larkin or Banks ever cheated in any way though.

This is far fetched but there actually is rumors that Babe Ruth used a drug similer to cocaine. I have no idea how true that is though.

TDog
01-10-2013, 09:14 PM
This is why voters need to use common sense, Bonds more tha likely started using in 1999 after the whole Sosa/McGwire deal and he was already a hofer so comparing him to a Jack Morris career isn't using common sense. Now comparing Sosa to a Morris career is probably about right. I agree he did lose the respect of most baseball fans including me but 90 percent of that era was on roids and yeah he deff inflated his career stats but you gotta hand it to Bonds too for putting every other steroid user to shame with the numbers he put up.

Barry Bonds didn't have a Hall of Fame career before he started using steroids. If he had retired instead of signing with the Giants, he wouldn't have been elected to the Hall of Fame.

The Hall of Fame is not about the numbers, and comparing steroids to corking bats misses the point. There no doubt are players who got away with steroid use, but the ones who are remembered for unnaturally alterring muscle mass dishonestly, contrary to the spirit of the game and federal law, do not belong in the Hall of Fame.

Mr. Jinx
01-10-2013, 10:04 PM
Barry Bonds didn't have a Hall of Fame career before he started using steroids. If he had retired instead of signing with the Giants, he wouldn't have been elected to the Hall of Fame.

The Hall of Fame is not about the numbers, and comparing steroids to corking bats misses the point. There no doubt are players who got away with steroid use, but the ones who are remembered for unnaturally alterring muscle mass dishonestly, contrary to the spirit of the game and federal law, do not belong in the Hall of Fame.

I must have missed the part of the game where corking bats was part of the spirit of the game.

WhiteSox5187
01-10-2013, 10:06 PM
Barry Bonds didn't have a Hall of Fame career before he started using steroids. If he had retired instead of signing with the Giants, he wouldn't have been elected to the Hall of Fame.

The Hall of Fame is not about the numbers, and comparing steroids to corking bats misses the point. There no doubt are players who got away with steroid use, but the ones who are remembered for unnaturally alterring muscle mass dishonestly, contrary to the spirit of the game and federal law, do not belong in the Hall of Fame.

There is actually a lot of evidence to suggest that Bonds didn't start using steroids until the start of the 1999 season where he only played 100 games due him tearing his tricep (I think) because his steroid use. Prior to the 1999 season he was the first guy to ever hit 400 HRs and steal 400 bases. Had he retired after 1998 he would have gotten in the hall still.

RKMeibalane
01-10-2013, 10:43 PM
This is far fetched but there actually is rumors that Babe Ruth used a drug similer to cocaine. I have no idea how true that is though.

Source? Information? This looks a lot like the post that was moved to the Roadhouse earlier this evening.

chicagowhitesox1
01-10-2013, 10:55 PM
Yeah I always heard he started using roids after 1998 due to he was jealous of Sosa and McGwire getting all the media attention.

I pretty much look at the steroid era as just another part of baseball history.

1900-1920 Deadball era, very pitcher friendly.
1921-1937 huge offensive jumps due to smaller parks and the baseball was wound tighter.
1938-1960-I would say the league quality was pretty even.
1961 expansion a one year wonder for offense
1962+1976 another pitchers era but not like the 1900's
1977-1992 I would again say the league quality was pretty even
1993-2007 The steroid era. It goes without saying that it was bad for baseball but thats a whole generation erased from the hof. Bonds shouldn't take all the heat because he was the best juicer.
2008-curent...I would say the league quality is pretty even again.

I might not be perfect on years but it's I think this is pretty close.

chicagowhitesox1
01-10-2013, 11:00 PM
Source? Information? This looks a lot like the post that was moved to the Roadhouse earlier this evening.

I'll try to get info on this. It's been awhile since I found out about this. But again I'm not saying this happened but that it's only a rumor.

Hendu
01-10-2013, 11:19 PM
Why does any of this matter? You said it yourself- cheating is cheating is cheating. End of story. Period. Was Pete Rose a HOFer before he bet on games? Absolutely. Was Joe Jackson a HOFer before he threw a World Series? No doubt. There's no reason why some players should be forgiven for cheating just because they were great players beforehand.

It's interesting to compare Shoeless Joe and Pete Rose to the current situation, but there's a huuuuge difference. The commissioner in both cases had the balls to actually ban them. Now we have idiot BBWA voters with no guidance getting to decide who was and wasn't clean.

And cocaine isn't a performance enhancer. And this isn't meant to excuse his drug use, but according to Raines himself, his performance suffered because of his drug use.

According to many steroid users, steroids hampered their performance (I'll bring up Tom House again). Probably there is some truth on both sides though - take the wrong kind of steroids and it's going to hamper a player's performance; take too much coke and it'll do the same. But absolutely taken in the right quantities, cocaine is a performance enhancer - how else were players partying all night, and still playing 160+ games?


McGwire has admitted to taking steroids. And again, you keep glossing over the fact that it is illegal. Baseball may not have had a policy in place, but the federal government did.
. And cocaine isn't?? BTW, when Manny tested positive he had a prescription.



The Hall of Fame is not about the numbers This is what has watered down the HOF about as much as steroids will. Jim Rice didn't have HOF-worthy career numbers but he got in because he was a "feared hitter" for a few years. Jack Morris will probably get in despite his borderline numbers because everybody remembers a couple amazing posteseasons. Rizzuto got in because he was a Yankee. Mazeroski got in because he hit a WS-winning walkoff homer. Etc.

TDog
01-11-2013, 12:25 AM
...
This is what has watered down the HOF about as much as steroids will. Jim Rice didn't have HOF-worthy career numbers but he got in because he was a "feared hitter" for a few years. Jack Morris will probably get in despite his borderline numbers because everybody remembers a couple amazing posteseasons. Rizzuto got in because he was a Yankee. Mazeroski got in because he hit a WS-winning walkoff homer. Etc.

The Hall of Fame has never been about the numbers. The charge of the voters states that they are supposed to consider character, integrity and sportstmanship. It does not say they are supposed to consider numbers.

Barry Bonds numbers are meaningless. Even if it were about the numbers, they wouldn't qualify him for the Hall of Fame. In any case, the infamous don't belong in the Hall of Fame.

Nellie_Fox
01-11-2013, 12:33 AM
Gaylod Perry wrote a book admitting how he cheated yet I don't think any umpire ever caught him

Miw4NDoreS0


--Barry Bonds..No doubt hofer, steroids did inflate his numbers but he would have ended up with 600 homeruns regardless.
--Roger Clemens....Same as Bonds, he would have ended up with hof numbers without roids.There is still the "character and sportsmanship" consideration for the HOF. When they decided to use roids, they violated that part.

Those are totally different arguments. Personally I feel Joe Jackson should have been put in 60 years ago when he died. Thats when his lifetime ban ended.That's a misconception. Joe wasn't given a lifetime ban, he is on the "permanently ineligible" list. There's a difference.

chicagowhitesox1
01-11-2013, 01:03 AM
Miw4NDoreS0


There is still the "character and sportsmanship" consideration for the HOF. When they decided to use roids, they violated that part.

That's a misconception. Joe wasn't given a lifetime ban, he is on the "permanently ineligible" list. There's a difference.


These players who used roids were wrong for using them but cmon half the players in the hall of fame are racists, drunks and cheats. At least the roid users bought fans back to baseball. I guarantee if we listed every player in the hof at least 45-50 percent would have a character flaw thats well known. To me it just shows that writers have no clue on the history of baseball. They feel they are making baseball moral again when baseball has been corrupt since the start.

I forgot about Perry getting caught but cmon it still took em basically until he retired before he got caught. I'm still impressed.

On the Joe Jackson thing, I didn't realize he was on a ineligable list. but still I think it's time to forgive the poor guy and let him in.

Nellie_Fox
01-11-2013, 01:06 AM
I forgot about Perry getting caught but cmon it still took em basically until he retired before he got caught. I'm still impressed.Cheating doesn't impress me.

chicagowhitesox1
01-11-2013, 01:09 AM
Cheating doesn't impress me.

In baseball cheating impresses me because it's part of the game and always has been and always will be. In regular life cheating doesn't impress me.

spawn
01-11-2013, 07:26 AM
And cocaine isn't?? BTW, when Manny tested positive he had a prescription.


Where did I say it was? Just pointing out that even though MLB didn't have a policy against steroid use, it was still against the law. I thought that was pretty obvious. :shrug:

Did Bonds have a prescription? McGwire? Palmeiro? If not.....still illegal.

Golden Sox
01-11-2013, 07:42 AM
People seem to forget that Joe Jackson and the other so called Black Sox were put on trial in criminal court and were all found not guilty. Jackson was told by his lawyer that if he was found not guilty he would be playing baseball again. I'm surprised to this day that the Black Sox didn't sue MLB for being banned from the game after being found not guilty in criminal court.

Hendu
01-11-2013, 07:54 AM
Where did I say it was? Just pointing out that even though MLB didn't have a policy against steroid use, it was still against the law. I thought that was pretty obvious. :shrug:

Did Bonds have a prescription? McGwire? Palmeiro? If not.....still illegal.


Palmeiro and Bonds never injected themselves with steroids, so they had plausible deniability. The whole "I thought it was a B-12 shot" or "I never knowingly took steroids" excuses. Their trainers were the ones who the Feds went after. When McGwire was taking Andro, it was available over the counter at GNC.

But amphetamines are as big of a deal as PEDs for sure. The only difference is we don't have images of guys in front of Congress flat-out lying or being evasive, so the steroids issue just seems dirtier and seedier.

The Hall of Fame has never been about the numbers. The charge of the voters states that they are supposed to consider character, integrity and sportstmanship. It does not say they are supposed to consider numbers.

Barry Bonds numbers are meaningless. Even if it were about the numbers, they wouldn't qualify him for the Hall of Fame. In any case, the infamous don't belong in the Hall of Fame.

The outdated and often ignored character clause. The HOF isn't only about the numbers, but it's about 90% about the numbers. Bonds and Clemens aren't outright banned from the HOF like Rose and Shoeless Joe, so they will get in eventually. Even many of this year's no voters have conceded that point.

spawn
01-11-2013, 08:07 AM
Palmeiro and Bonds never injected themselves with steroids, so they had plausible deniability. The whole "I thought it was a B-12 shot" or "I never knowingly took steroids" excuses. Their trainers were the ones who the Feds went after. When McGwire was taking Andro, it was available over the counter at GNC.
McGwire didn't just use andro. He admitted to steroid use during his career in 2010. Palmeiro tested positive, B12 be damned. Bonds may not have tested positive, but considering the transformation of his body tells me all I need to know.

spawn
01-11-2013, 08:14 AM
People seem to forget that Joe Jackson and the other so called Black Sox were put on trial in criminal court and were all found not guilty. Jackson was told by his lawyer that if he was found not guilty he would be playing baseball again. I'm surprised to this day that the Black Sox didn't sue MLB for being banned from the game after being found not guilty in criminal court.

No one forgets that. They would never have won. If his attorney really did tell him that, it wasn't his place to do so.

WhiteSox5187
01-11-2013, 09:21 AM
No one forgets that. They would never have won. If his attorney really did tell him that, it wasn't his place to do so.

I am by no means a legal scholar but during MLB Network's recent roundtable discussion about the HOF Tom Verducci pointed out that rule 21-B (which forbids gambling on games) was made AFTER the Black Sox scandal. So the Black Sox might have had some leg to stand on by saying the suspension was made ex post facto, but I am not sure that would work. It would have required MLB to have a much stronger union certainly.

Hendu
01-11-2013, 10:57 AM
McGwire didn't just use andro. He admitted to steroid use during his career in 2010. Palmeiro tested positive, B12 be damned. Bonds may not have tested positive, but considering the transformation of his body tells me all I need to know.

But from a legal perspective, they were in a grey area unless they were buying the products, selling them and/or injecting themselves. Instead they let the doctors/trainers/labs take the legal risks, while they could plead ignorance. It's part of the reason why Clemens was acquitted and Bonds was only hit with a slap on the wrist for "evasive answers" when they were tried for perjury. The government didn't even bother with Palmeiro.

I also think that PEDs are only one factor in the crazy numbers of the era. Firstly, pitching talent was at one of its lowest points. Secondly, spacious parks were being replaced with new bandboxes and that took some adjusting. And thirdly, hitters were able to wear body armor and stand on top of the plate with no fear of the inside pitch. How many times did we see an inside fast ball bounce off Barry's robo-arm thing without him even flinching?

spawn
01-11-2013, 11:04 AM
But from a legal perspective, they were in a grey area unless they were buying the products, selling them and/or injecting themselves. Instead they let the doctors/trainers/labs take the legal risks, while they could plead ignorance. It's part of the reason why Clemens was acquitted and Bonds was only hit with a slap on the wrist for "evasive answers" when they were tried for perjury. The government didn't even bother with Palmeiro.

I also think that PEDs are only one factor in the crazy numbers of the era. Firstly, pitching talent was at one of its lowest points. Secondly, spacious parks were being replaced with new bandboxes and that took some adjusting. And thirdly, hitters were able to wear body armor and stand on top of the plate with no fear of the inside pitch. How many times did we see an inside fast ball bounce off Barry's robo-arm thing without him even flinching?
So what you're saying is you think they should get in because there is no conclusive evidence that they cheated? Well, you can have them. At least the BBWAA doesn't agree with your assessment. Smaller parks and body armour don't account for a complete body transformation. I don't need any lawyers to tell me what my eyes can readily see. :shrug:

I still say the HOF voting is a joke, but if they keep these clowns out, I'm ok with that.

Lip Man 1
01-11-2013, 11:25 AM
Appropriate...no? LOL.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-talk-sammy-sosa-injex21-0111-20130110,0,5399024.story

Lip

Hendu
01-11-2013, 11:43 AM
So what you're saying is you think they should get in because there is no conclusive evidence that they cheated? Well, you can have them. At least the BBWAA doesn't agree with your assessment. Smaller parks and body armour don't account for a complete body transformation. I don't need any lawyers to tell me what my eyes can readily see. :shrug:

I still say the HOF voting is a joke, but if they keep these clowns out, I'm ok with that.

Well you were saying that what the players were doing was illegal and I was just pointing out that it wasn't as simple as that.

And do you really want the BBWAA making HOF decisions based on eye tests? These are the same writers who would see a player arrive to spring training with 30lbs more muscle, and write a glowing article about their off-season workout routine. They were complicit in the explosion of the steroid era.

Going back to cocaine - should Tim Raines get the same treatment as the steroids group? How many bases did that extra boost help him steal? The cocaine didn't hamper his performance; as Oil Can Boyd said, it was the lifestyle and the lack of sleep from partying all night that hampered performance. Cocaine was the only thing that kept those players going.

spawn
01-11-2013, 01:46 PM
Going back to cocaine - should Tim Raines get the same treatment as the steroids group? How many bases did that extra boost help him steal? The cocaine didn't hamper his performance; as Oil Can Boyd said, it was the lifestyle and the lack of sleep from partying all night that hampered performance. Cocaine was the only thing that kept those players going.

How can you state positively that it didn't hamper his lifestyle? What frame of reference are you going by? Raines said (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2205&dat=19821116&id=3tAmAAAAIBAJ&sjid=xAIGAAAAIBAJ&pg=1692,3373967) his cocaine habit didn't help his stats. Also, he was 23, admitted his drug use, and got treatment for it. His stats dropped in '82, and at the end of the season he sought treatment for his addiction. So, no, I don't think he should get the same treatment as the steroid group. It's apples to oranges.

Hendu
01-11-2013, 03:28 PM
How can you state positively that it didn't hamper his lifestyle? What frame of reference are you going by? Raines said (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2205&dat=19821116&id=3tAmAAAAIBAJ&sjid=xAIGAAAAIBAJ&pg=1692,3373967) his cocaine habit didn't help his stats. Also, he was 23, admitted his drug use, and got treatment for it. His stats dropped in '82, and at the end of the season he sought treatment for his addiction. So, no, I don't think he should get the same treatment as the steroid group. It's apples to oranges.

You can't really say (some of) his stats dropped in '82 without giving a frame of reference. In '81 he played 88 games; '82 was his first full season with 156 games played. He also had 647 AB in '82 - by far the most in his career. That's a pretty big jump in workload. Of course Raines would say that drugs didn't help his stats...it's an easy excuse. Of note in that article was the mention that he stopped drinking too. Like Oil Can, he probably went out drinking all night and then needed cocaine to prop him up to play next day's game.

Sure, amphetamines are a recreational drug (with major benefits to performance in the right doses) while steroids are performance enhancers only. But it's more like a green apple to a red apple comparison rather than apples to oranges. It's still illegal, and it's still cheating. The character clause keeps getting brought up as the reason these players aren't getting in - how can that clause be ignored for a player who was high during games?

Don't get me wrong - I love, love Tim Raines. My favorite Sox player in the 90s after Frank. On the other hand, I think Barry Bonds was the one who ruined a baseball era. He just took the PED use too far; if he hadn't been so obvious about it and putting up Nintendo numbers, Congress probably wouldn't have gotten involved thus embarrassing the sport. So sometimes I feel torn about this issue, but sick of doing mental gymnastics about what type of cheating is acceptable and what kind isn't, whose body types or numbers look suspicious, etc.

I keep saying this - somebody, whether it's the Commissioner or the Hall of Fame itself, needs to give some type of guidance on this issue. For example, any player named in the Mitchell Report, or any player who tested positive after testing was implemented is not eligible for the Hall. Or they are eligible, but PEDs will be mentioned on their plaque. Or they'll get a smaller plaque. Anything.

chicagowhitesox1
01-11-2013, 04:59 PM
You can't really say (some of) his stats dropped in '82 without giving a frame of reference. In '81 he played 88 games; '82 was his first full season with 156 games played. He also had 647 AB in '82 - by far the most in his career. That's a pretty big jump in workload. Of course Raines would say that drugs didn't help his stats...it's an easy excuse. Of note in that article was the mention that he stopped drinking too. Like Oil Can, he probably went out drinking all night and then needed cocaine to prop him up to play next day's game.

Sure, amphetamines are a recreational drug (with major benefits to performance in the right doses) while steroids are performance enhancers only. But it's more like a green apple to a red apple comparison rather than apples to oranges. It's still illegal, and it's still cheating. The character clause keeps getting brought up as the reason these players aren't getting in - how can that clause be ignored for a player who was high during games?

Don't get me wrong - I love, love Tim Raines. My favorite Sox player in the 90s after Frank. On the other hand, I think Barry Bonds was the one who ruined a baseball era. He just took the PED use too far; if he hadn't been so obvious about it and putting up Nintendo numbers, Congress probably wouldn't have gotten involved thus embarrassing the sport. So sometimes I feel torn about this issue, but sick of doing mental gymnastics about what type of cheating is acceptable and what kind isn't, whose body types or numbers look suspicious, etc.

I keep saying this - somebody, whether it's the Commissioner or the Hall of Fame itself, needs to give some type of guidance on this issue. For example, any player named in the Mitchell Report, or any player who tested positive after testing was implemented is not eligible for the Hall. Or they are eligible, but PEDs will be mentioned on their plaque. Or they'll get a smaller plaque. Anything.

This is how I feel too, I wish Selig would deal with the steroid/hall of fame issue instead of treating it like the called allstar game in 02 or 03. It is nice that they are finally testing HGH though. I'll be interested in Bautistas and Encarncion's numbers this year.

I'm not saying he should force voters to vote but at least take some responsibility on the issues.

Paulwny
01-11-2013, 05:29 PM
This is how I feel too, I wish Selig would deal with the steroid/hall of fame issue instead of treating it like the called allstar game in 02 or 03. It is nice that they are finally testing HGH though. I'll be interested in Bautistas and Encarncion's numbers this year.

I'm not saying he should force voters to vote but at least take some responsibility on the issues.

The HOF isn't owned or operated by MLB. Selig has no say in how the HOF operates or who is selected into the HOF.

chicagowhitesox1
01-11-2013, 05:38 PM
The HOF isn't owned or operated by MLB. Selig has no say in how the HOF operates or who is selected into the HOF.

Your right but I just wish he wouldn't be so wishy washy with the issue.

TDog
01-11-2013, 07:14 PM
...
The outdated and often ignored character clause. The HOF isn't only about the numbers, but it's about 90% about the numbers. Bonds and Clemens aren't outright banned from the HOF like Rose and Shoeless Joe, so they will get in eventually. Even many of this year's no voters have conceded that point.

The character clause isn't ignored and it isn't outdated. It is the foundation of the Hall of Fame. There are no thresholds that players need to reach to get into the Hall of Fame. Some have extrapolated numbers based on numbers that Hall of Fame inductees have reached. But if you are looking at numbers in isolation and out of context, you are ignoring baseball.

Jim Rice is more worthy of the Hall of Fame than Barry Bonds. Really, if Jim Rice had Bonds' pharmacist, for lack of a better word, he may Aaron's record before Bonds had the opportunity. (Aaron said in the late 1970s that he believed Rice had a great chance to break his record, but as sometimes happens with careers, and may have happened in Bonds' career if he had stayed clean, Rice's numbers didn't meet early expectations.

For Bonds, Sosa, Clemens et. al. to get into the Hall of Fame, the public perception of their character will have to drastically improve. It isn't enough to say that there are people who are scum in the Hall of Fame so let's put more scum in. The public didn't believe Ty Cobb was scum when he was voted into the Hall of Fame, and likely wasn't nearly as bad a character has Al Stump portrayed him to be (for Al Stump's fame and profit). It would be like saying, and this isn't in any way political because the moral foundation for slavery is not currently a controversial political issue, because Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner we shouldn't care if future presidents harbor racial prejudices.

You could say that Ty Cobb was a bad person because he invested in Coca-Cola, which included cocaine as an ingredient, although Coca-Cola was coke-free by the time Cobb invested. But cocaine was legal at the time, so it really doesn't matter.

As long as fans don't respect the accomplishments of these notorious players, their numbers are irrelevant. And they aren't getting into the Hall of Fame.

chicagowhitesox1
01-12-2013, 03:53 AM
The character clause isn't ignored and it isn't outdated. It is the foundation of the Hall of Fame. There are no thresholds that players need to reach to get into the Hall of Fame. Some have extrapolated numbers based on numbers that Hall of Fame inductees have reached. But if you are looking at numbers in isolation and out of context, you are ignoring baseball.

Jim Rice is more worthy of the Hall of Fame than Barry Bonds. Really, if Jim Rice had Bonds' pharmacist, for lack of a better word, he may Aaron's record before Bonds had the opportunity. (Aaron said in the late 1970s that he believed Rice had a great chance to break his record, but as sometimes happens with careers, and may have happened in Bonds' career if he had stayed clean, Rice's numbers didn't meet early expectations.

For Bonds, Sosa, Clemens et. al. to get into the Hall of Fame, the public perception of their character will have to drastically improve. It isn't enough to say that there are people who are scum in the Hall of Fame so let's put more scum in. The public didn't believe Ty Cobb was scum when he was voted into the Hall of Fame, and likely wasn't nearly as bad a character has Al Stump portrayed him to be (for Al Stump's fame and profit). It would be like saying, and this isn't in any way political because the moral foundation for slavery is not currently a controversial political issue, because Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner we shouldn't care if future presidents harbor racial prejudices.

You could say that Ty Cobb was a bad person because he invested in Coca-Cola, which included cocaine as an ingredient, although Coca-Cola was coke-free by the time Cobb invested. But cocaine was legal at the time, so it really doesn't matter.

As long as fans don't respect the accomplishments of these notorious players, their numbers are irrelevant. And they aren't getting into the Hall of Fame.

I've had a few drinks tonight but cmon you must have had at least 20 beers.

Hendu
01-12-2013, 09:33 AM
The HOF isn't owned or operated by MLB. Selig has no say in how the HOF operates or who is selected into the HOF.

True, it's not a direct affiliate of MLB but if Selig banned players from baseball they wouldn't appear on the ballot. Otherwise, Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe would have gotten more consideration.

The character clause isn't ignored and it isn't outdated.

Yes on both counts. Firstly, reporters no longer have gentleman's agreements to hide the dark sides of players. And with social media, we have more access to players than at any point in the history of MLB. Josh Hamilton, for example, can't go to a bar without somebody reporting it, whereas Mickey Mantle was able to play games while drunk or Babe Ruth popped into bars in between double headers and nobody made a big fuss.

Secondly, other than this steroids issue, who has been kept out of the HOF due to the character clause? Rose and Jackson don't count as they both have lifetime bans. Tim Raines probably gets in eventually despite playing an entire season with vials of cocaine in his back pocket...

Bob Roarman
01-12-2013, 10:55 AM
The notion of character is a joke. Never mind Tim Raines and his cocaine, there's a whole generation's worth of players, and Hall of Fame players, whose careers were fueled by amphetamines. People can dodge that all they want by trying to put in on some kind of different imaginary tier of "cheating", but it existed and there they are in the Hall. That so called foundation has been sullied for decades.

sox1970
01-12-2013, 11:07 AM
The notion of character is a joke. Never mind Tim Raines and his cocaine, there's a whole generation's worth of players, and Hall of Fame players, whose careers were fueled by methamphetamine. People can dodge that all they want by trying to put in on some kind of different imaginary tier of "cheating", but it existed and there they are in the Hall. That so called foundation has been sullied for decades.

The blue stuff?

SI1020
01-12-2013, 11:36 AM
In the late 60's and the decade of the 70's it seemed that drugs were everywhere. Not just pot, the most widely used, but a wide assortment. Into the 1980's cocaine was seen as hip and chic among even many professionals. Baseball players certainly weren't immune from all of this. I actually attended one session of the baseball cocaine trial in Pittsburgh in 1985. Now I personally was never into that scene but I witnessed the sometimes devastating effects the drug culture had on many of my contemporaries. No, I'm not a doctor or health care professional but I think it is pretty safe to say that long term use of amphetamines of any kind is NOT a performance enhancer. A short term boost that will help you show up and complete your task? Yes, I'll go with that, but there comes a point where use is absolutely devastating to the mind and body. Nobody here ever knew what we used to call a speed freak? Now I do not wish to excuse use of "greenies" the "red juice" or whatever brand of upper some players used. I just have a really big problem with comparing them to the designer steroids that some of the biggest stars in the game were using in the 90's and 00's. It's like comparing a fly to an elephant. The whole thing is sordid and unfortunate. Now some are casting aspersions on an old timer like Hank Aaron and the recently retired Frank Thomas, two who I will go out on a limb and say were clean. Perhaps in the years and decades to come some intrepid investigative journalists will reveal to us the true extent all drugs and PED's in baseball dating back to the 1960's.

spawn
01-12-2013, 11:40 AM
In the late 60's and the decade of the 70's it seemed that drugs were everywhere. Not just pot, the most widely used, but a wide assortment. Into the 1980's cocaine was seen as hip and chic among even many professionals. Baseball players certainly weren't immune from all of this. I actually attended one session of the baseball cocaine trial in Pittsburgh in 1985. Now I personally was never into that scene but I witnessed the sometimes devastating effects the drug culture had on many of my contemporaries. No, I'm not a doctor or health care professional but I think it is pretty safe to say that long term use of amphetamines of any kind is NOT a performance enhancer. A short term boost that will help you show up and complete your task? Yes, I'll go with that, but there comes a point where use is absolutely devastating to the mind and body. Nobody here ever knew what we used to call a speed freak? Now I do not wish to excuse use of "greenies" the "red juice" or whatever brand of upper some players used. I just have a really big problem with comparing them to the designer steroids that some of the biggest stars in the game were using in the 90's and 00's. It's like comparing a fly to an elephant. The whole thing is sordid and unfortunate. Now some are casting aspersions on an old timer like Hank Aaron and the recently retired Frank Thomas, two who I will go out on a limb and say were clean. Perhaps in the years and decades to come some intrepid investigative journalists will reveal to us the true extent all drugs and PED's in baseball dating back to the 1960's.
Excellent post. Bravo, sir. Bravo.
:clap: :clap: :clap:

Hendu
01-12-2013, 12:04 PM
In the late 60's and the decade of the 70's it seemed that drugs were everywhere. Not just pot, the most widely used, but a wide assortment. Into the 1980's cocaine was seen as hip and chic among even many professionals. Baseball players certainly weren't immune from all of this. I actually attended one session of the baseball cocaine trial in Pittsburgh in 1985. Now I personally was never into that scene but I witnessed the sometimes devastating effects the drug culture had on many of my contemporaries. No, I'm not a doctor or health care professional but I think it is pretty safe to say that long term use of amphetamines of any kind is NOT a performance enhancer. A short term boost that will help you show up and complete your task? Yes, I'll go with that, but there comes a point where use is absolutely devastating to the mind and body. Nobody here ever knew what we used to call a speed freak? Now I do not wish to excuse use of "greenies" the "red juice" or whatever brand of upper some players used. I just have a really big problem with comparing them to the designer steroids that some of the biggest stars in the game were using in the 90's and 00's. It's like comparing a fly to an elephant. The whole thing is sordid and unfortunate. Now some are casting aspersions on an old timer like Hank Aaron and the recently retired Frank Thomas, two who I will go out on a limb and say were clean. Perhaps in the years and decades to come some intrepid investigative journalists will reveal to us the true extent all drugs and PED's in baseball dating back to the 1960's.

Every drug comes with consequences, even steroids. Speed freak, roid rage, etc. The fact is that players were popping greenies to gain a competitive advantage. Sure, the effect is not the same as steroids but the intent was the same. This is the mental gymnastics I was talking about before where we can excuse one type of cheating but not another.

This interview (http://www.sfgate.com/sports/kroichick/article/House-a-failed-experiment-with-steroids-2637503.php) with Tom House about the drug culture, which included steroids, in the 60s and 70s is eye-opening. "We didn't get beat, we got out-milligrammed. And when you found out what they were taking, you started taking them."

WhiteSox5187
01-12-2013, 12:23 PM
Every drug comes with consequences, even steroids. Speed freak, roid rage, etc. The fact is that players were popping greenies to gain a competitive advantage. Sure, the effect is not the same as steroids but the intent was the same. This is the mental gymnastics I was talking about before where we can excuse one type of cheating but not another.

This interview (http://www.sfgate.com/sports/kroichick/article/House-a-failed-experiment-with-steroids-2637503.php) with Tom House about the drug culture, which included steroids, in the 60s and 70s is eye-opening. "We didn't get beat, we got out-milligrammed. And when you found out what they were taking, you started taking them."

No it's not, the intent for taking steroids was that it would make you bigger and stronger. The intent for taking greenies was that it would make you more alert and able to perform for double headers or in the dog days of August. Tom Verducci said it best when he said the comparison between greenies and steroids is the difference between "performance enablers" and "performance enhancers." Greenies didn't enhance an athlete's performance the way that steroids did.

Mr. Jinx
01-12-2013, 12:37 PM
No it's not, the intent for taking steroids was that it would make you bigger and stronger. The intent for taking greenies was that it would make you more alert and able to perform for double headers or in the dog days of August. Tom Verducci said it best when he said the comparison between greenies and steroids is the difference between "performance enablers" and "performance enhancers." Greenies didn't enhance an athlete's performance the way that steroids did.

That isn't really accurate though. Greenies allowed players to play more games back to back, doubleheaders, and longer during the season than if they didn't take them. To me that sounds an awful lot like enhancing your talents. Watching the collapse of the Sox' offense over the final 2 weeks of the season makes you wonder how it would have been had greenies not been banned.

WhiteSox5187
01-12-2013, 12:51 PM
That isn't really accurate though. Greenies allowed players to play more games back to back, doubleheaders, and longer during the season than if they didn't take them. To me that sounds an awful lot like enhancing your talents. Watching the collapse of the Sox' offense over the final 2 weeks of the season makes you wonder how it would have been had greenies not been banned.

So does coffee and Red Bull. Greenies allowed you to be more alert and meant that you didn't need a day of rest possibly, but they would not transform a .230 slap hitter into a 25 HR guy the way that steroids did. If you couldn't catch up to a guy's fastball, greenies wouldn't suddenly enable you do that, nor would they enable you to go from throwing 90 to 96. Steroids did.

sox1970
01-12-2013, 12:57 PM
Greenies will help you get on the field, and feel good for the game, but they won't put muscle on a good player and make him great by hitting 40-50-73 homers.

I don't have a problem with Clemens and Bonds getting in someday, but I would have to use some common sense and intuition as well.

The thing that bothers me the most is when somebody says, "If they put up the numbers, put them all in". Meaning McGwire, Sosa, and Palmeiro. Uh, no. I would not vote for players that I thought got to those former HOF benchmarks if I thought they got there only because of steroids. They shouldn't put in 30-40 players from the 90's just because they put up the numbers, while the 70's and 80's players are underrepresented in the Hall. That would be like saying, "If only Dave Parker and Keith Hernandez did steroids instead of blow, they could be Hall of Famers right now".

I'm all for some forgiveness for the sake of the Hall itself, but when it comes to the former benchmarks that automatically get you in the Hall, I wouldn't pay attention to that. A guy's career WAR from the steroid era is meaningless to me.

Hendu
01-12-2013, 01:06 PM
No it's not, the intent for taking steroids was that it would make you bigger and stronger. The intent for taking greenies was that it would make you more alert and able to perform for double headers or in the dog days of August. Tom Verducci said it best when he said the comparison between greenies and steroids is the difference between "performance enablers" and "performance enhancers." Greenies didn't enhance an athlete's performance the way that steroids did.

If we are talking about the NFL, OK. But baseball is a game of timing and endurance, not pure strength.

Greenies allowed players to play more games and rack up stats. It's also no coincidence that stolen base numbers were so high during that era.

Regardless - the intent is the same and that's all that really matters. Players were taking illegal substances to gain a competitive advantage, whether it's greenies or steroids.

I'm all for some forgiveness for the sake of the Hall itself, but when it comes to the former benchmarks that automatically get you in the Hall, I wouldn't pay attention to that. A guy's career WAR from the steroid era is meaningless to me. Agreed. Home runs have been devalued; 500 is no longer a lock even for a clean player.

Mr. Jinx
01-12-2013, 02:06 PM
If we are talking about the NFL, OK. But baseball is a game of timing and endurance, not pure strength.

Greenies allowed players to play more games and rack up stats. It's also no coincidence that stolen base numbers were so high during that era.

Regardless - the intent is the same and that's all that really matters. Players were taking illegal substances to gain a competitive advantage, whether it's greenies or steroids.

Agreed. Home runs have been devalued; 500 is no longer a lock even for a clean player.

Agreed completely.

SI1020
01-12-2013, 04:23 PM
Every drug comes with consequences, even steroids. Speed freak, roid rage, etc. The fact is that players were popping greenies to gain a competitive advantage. Sure, the effect is not the same as steroids but the intent was the same. This is the mental gymnastics I was talking about before where we can excuse one type of cheating but not another.

This interview (http://www.sfgate.com/sports/kroichick/article/House-a-failed-experiment-with-steroids-2637503.php) with Tom House about the drug culture, which included steroids, in the 60s and 70s is eye-opening. "We didn't get beat, we got out-milligrammed. And when you found out what they were taking, you started taking them." Not excusing, I hate excuses in my own life and in the cosmic sense. Just comparing. If people want to believe the "red juice" made Willie Mays a great player, let them. If he did take it he failed miserably to halt his late in career decline. A sad sight to behold for us fans back then. As for Tom House, I'm not going to get into the whys and wherefores but IMO he is a BS artist when it comes to this issue. Not here, but if we ever meet I will tell you exactly why I feel that way. Whatever he took it failed miserably too. He was at best a journeyman pitcher. You think it is "mental gymnastics" and an attempt to excuse behavior that occurred in a supposedly more pristine and innocent era. I think it is dumb as hell to say a popgun is as powerful as a bazooka. That is all. No excuses. Just hard reality.

TDog
01-12-2013, 09:00 PM
True, it's not a direct affiliate of MLB but if Selig banned players from baseball they wouldn't appear on the ballot. Otherwise, Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe would have gotten more consideration.



Yes on both counts. Firstly, reporters no longer have gentleman's agreements to hide the dark sides of players. And with social media, we have more access to players than at any point in the history of MLB. Josh Hamilton, for example, can't go to a bar without somebody reporting it, whereas Mickey Mantle was able to play games while drunk or Babe Ruth popped into bars in between double headers and nobody made a big fuss.

Secondly, other than this steroids issue, who has been kept out of the HOF due to the character clause? Rose and Jackson don't count as they both have lifetime bans. Tim Raines probably gets in eventually despite playing an entire season with vials of cocaine in his back pocket...

Players are not voted into the Hall of Fame if fans don't respect them, regardless of their numbers. Joe Jackson was technically eligible for the Hall of Fame throughout his lifetime. He didn't become ineligible until he was long dead. I don't know that more than one writer ever voted for him. Pete Rose isn't in the Hall of Fame because his lack of integrity led to his lifetime banishment and a rule change that would make Joe Jackson tehnically ineligible.

Ferguson Jenkins was late in getting to the Hall of Fame because a drug possession charge that had nothing to do with baseball. Hal Chase, considered by many to be the greatest first baseman in the early years of the 20th century. His dead-ball batting numbers aren't impressive today, but Babe Ruth (who copied Joe Jackson's swing) considered Chase the best first baseman he ever saw. Character issues assured he would never get more than 5 percent of the vote.

It isn't so much that Hall of Famers have to be of the highest moral character, but that if players are considered to have been bad characters in the context of their baseball careers, that if fans do not respect them as representing the best of the game, they aren't going to get in. That is one of the reasons Dick Allen will never get into the Hall of Fame. Except for White Sox fans who remember an incredible 1972 and a little bit of 1973, he is not respected as representing what is great about the game, not the game of baseball anyway. And as a White Sox fan who was betrayed by Allen when he quit the team, I wouldn't have voted for him if I had a vote.

I don't know of anyone in the Hall of Fame who was not respected by fans when he was voted in, although there are people who only look at numbers who don't believe some are worthy. The Hall of Fame is supposed to what is great about the game. And that isn't Barry Bonds.

RKMeibalane
01-12-2013, 10:31 PM
Players are not voted into the Hall of Fame if fans don't respect them, regardless of their numbers. Joe Jackson was technically eligible for the Hall of Fame throughout his lifetime. He didn't become ineligible until he was long dead. I don't know that more than one writer ever voted for him. Pete Rose isn't in the Hall of Fame because his lack of integrity led to his lifetime banishment and a rule change that would make Joe Jackson tehnically ineligible.

Ferguson Jenkins was late in getting to the Hall of Fame because a drug possession charge that had nothing to do with baseball. Hal Chase, considered by many to be the greatest first baseman in the early years of the 20th century. His dead-ball batting numbers aren't impressive today, but Babe Ruth (who copied Joe Jackson's swing) considered Chase the best first baseman he ever saw. Character issues assured he would never get more than 5 percent of the vote.

It isn't so much that Hall of Famers have to be of the highest moral character, but that if players are considered to have been bad characters in the context of their baseball careers, that if fans do not respect them as representing the best of the game, they aren't going to get in. That is one of the reasons Dick Allen will never get into the Hall of Fame. Except for White Sox fans who remember an incredible 1972 and a little bit of 1973, he is not respected as representing what is great about the game, not the game of baseball anyway. And as a White Sox fan who was betrayed by Allen when he quit the team, I wouldn't have voted for him if I had a vote.

I don't know of anyone in the Hall of Fame who was not respected by fans when he was voted in, although there are people who only look at numbers who don't believe some are worthy. The Hall of Fame is supposed to what is great about the game. And that isn't Barry Bonds.

I know a number of people (myself included) who think little of Ron Santo due to all of his whining about the HOF.

Hendu
01-13-2013, 01:46 AM
Not excusing, I hate excuses in my own life and in the cosmic sense. Just comparing. If people want to believe the "red juice" made Willie Mays a great player, let them. If he did take it he failed miserably to halt his late in career decline. A sad sight to behold for us fans back then. As for Tom House, I'm not going to get into the whys and wherefores but IMO he is a BS artist when it comes to this issue. Not here, but if we ever meet I will tell you exactly why I feel that way. Whatever he took it failed miserably too. He was at best a journeyman pitcher. You think it is "mental gymnastics" and an attempt to excuse behavior that occurred in a supposedly more pristine and innocent era. I think it is dumb as hell to say a popgun is as powerful as a bazooka. That is all. No excuses. Just hard reality.

It's more accurate to say it's comparing a musket to a machine gun. Sure, one is more modern and more effective, but they both had the same purpose.

Bob Roarman
01-13-2013, 05:15 AM
Not excusing, I hate excuses in my own life and in the cosmic sense. Just comparing. If people want to believe the "red juice" made Willie Mays a great player, let them. If he did take it he failed miserably to halt his late in career decline. A sad sight to behold for us fans back then. As for Tom House, I'm not going to get into the whys and wherefores but IMO he is a BS artist when it comes to this issue. Not here, but if we ever meet I will tell you exactly why I feel that way. Whatever he took it failed miserably too. He was at best a journeyman pitcher. You think it is "mental gymnastics" and an attempt to excuse behavior that occurred in a supposedly more pristine and innocent era. I think it is dumb as hell to say a popgun is as powerful as a bazooka. That is all. No excuses. Just hard reality.

No excuses except for, as I mentioned, trying to label it as some other imaginary tier of cheating, some lesser form. "Performance enablers". Or pop guns compared to bazookas. Tom House described exactly what the reality of all PEDs have become, and it's something I've said over and over, they've become part of the competition. But nooo, he' a bull**** artist because they didn't "work" for him. What if working for him means it made him into a journeyman pitcher when otherwise he may not have been in the MLB at all? It's not just the stars or the players who became stars because of PED use, it's all types of players. It became part of the game.

And again, try to dodge it all you want, there's a whole generation of players who cheated and among them Hall of Famers. And if numbers aren't one of the main reasons behind getting into the Hall of Fame (which I don't agree with at all but just for the sake of argument) but character and knowing what we know about players and their "respect" for the game is, well we better get ready to hate and remove a whoooolle bunch of players from the Hall of Fame. Because we should by now about how widespread drugs were in that era, that was the culture. Why isn't anyone arguing for an asterisk on that era? Why isn't there an asterisk next to Cal Ripken's Iron Man record? At what point does all this boil down to, okay, everyone within the game knows about it,they knew about it back in the 60s, they know about it now, no one really did anything until **** started blowing up in people's faces, it wasn't until people OUTSIDE the game started finding out about it that things changed. So what's the point of singling out this guy or that guy when everyone was complicit in letting things go the way they did?

But no, that's raining on the self-righteous parade against these more recent cheating ball players! We don't want their sorry cheating asses next to other "lesser", sorry cheating asses already in the Hall of Fame! That would be spitting on the sanctity of the game, dragging it through the mud! Can't have that! This revisionist history people have of baseball, it's mind boggling to me. Steroids saved baseball.

TDog
01-13-2013, 11:59 AM
I know a number of people (myself included) who think little of Ron Santo due to all of his whining about the HOF.

Among baseball fans, they are in the minority, just as those of us who think little of Bert Blyleven, who whined about not being in the Hall of Fame, are in the minority. It took a long time for Santo to get into the Hall of Fame, and oddly enough he didn't get in until he stopped whining. He never got strong support in the BBWAA vote, not anywhere near the levels his supporters believed he should have received.

And with Santo it was just about being a jerk. It's true, he was seen shooting up in the clubhouse, but the intent of injecting insulin was not to unnaturally increase muscle mass in an unhealthy, immoral and, if prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, criminal way.

SI1020
01-13-2013, 02:32 PM
.
Steroids saved baseball. Absolutely. Look what PED's did for cycling. Bring them back. While we're at it cut the hypocrisy. Next year we can have frenzied fans yelling "Barry! Barry!" at his induction ceremony. The same for Roger and Sammy, although I suppose Sammy will bring an interpreter for his induction speech. Maybe one of them will be big enough to acknowledge Tom House for his trailblazing efforts. Let's not stop there. Pete Rose needs to get enshrined soon too. Let's have a special wing for Chick Gandil, Sport Sullivan, Abe Atell and Arnold Rothstein. Once upon a time gambling saved baseball. So much work to do. Then on to basketball. Jack Molinas, for starters needs to be recognized for his contributions.

JoeYoung
01-14-2013, 07:42 PM
Absolutely. Look what PED's did for cycling. Bring them back. While we're at it cut the hypocrisy. Next year we can have frenzied fans yelling "Barry! Barry!" at his induction ceremony. The same for Roger and Sammy, although I suppose Sammy will bring an interpreter for his induction speech. Maybe one of them will be big enough to acknowledge Tom House for his trailblazing efforts. Let's not stop there. Pete Rose needs to get enshrined soon too. Let's have a special wing for Chick Gandil, Sport Sullivan, Abe Atell and Arnold Rothstein. Once upon a time gambling saved baseball. So much work to do. Then on to basketball. Jack Molinas, for starters needs to be recognized for his contributions.

Teal not needed here

Bob Roarman
01-14-2013, 07:55 PM
You don't have to like it, but that's just the reality of what happened. Those home runs, Sammy vs. McGwire, you could probably throw in Ripken's record as well. All PED fueled saviors of the game.

chicagowhitesox1
01-14-2013, 09:01 PM
You don't have to like it, but that's just the reality of what happened. Those home runs, Sammy vs. McGwire, you could probably throw in Ripken's record as well. All PED fueled saviors of the game.

Yeah I hate how the records have been tarnished and it's hard to think Ripken ever used but it's probably true. Thats kinda why I have a hard time with Clemens and Bonds being left out. If those two aren't ever elected i'll respect that but I just hope the writers keep the right guys out.

Bob Roarman
01-14-2013, 09:33 PM
But you got "wrong" guys in the Hall of Fame already. There are ****ing racists in the HOF. I really don't care to hear what these purists think about recent players' "character" and "integrity" while upholding that. And to think that there isn't already a player in the Hall that used steroids or any type of PED is just being naive. It can't be both ways.

If those people want to accept those past HOF players on the warped basis of them being some kind of product of the attitudes of their time or whatever excuse people like TDog want to come up for it, then you make the same type distinctions for this era and every other era. Everything else has changed anyways. There's been a complete re-design of baseball parks, the dimensions, the mound has been lowered, the fences brought in, etc. You've got players' roles that have changed, 1 inning closers, 200 inning pitchers, middle relief, long relief,etc. Things have changed drastically.

The job itself of being a pro ball player has changed immensely. Completely different today, simply with the advancement of science, medical procedures, all the different work-out/dietary regimens, supplements, updated understandings of practically everything related to the game, the list goes on and on and that's before even getting to PEDs. As ridiculous as he usually sounds about just anything else, Jose Canseco probably hit the nail on the head when he talked about how in 40 to 50 years from now, people will look back at these arguments and laugh at how ridiculous they were. People can hate it all they want today, but PEDs are part of the game now and forever.

TDog
01-14-2013, 10:47 PM
But you got "wrong" guys in the Hall of Fame already. There are ****ing racists in the HOF. I really don't care to hear what these purists think about recent players' "character" and "integrity" while upholding that. And to think that there isn't already a player in the Hall that used steroids or any type of PED is just being naive. It can't be both ways.

If those people want to accept those past HOF players on the warped basis of them being some kind of product of the attitudes of their time or whatever excuse people like TDog want to come up for it, then you make the same type distinctions for this era and every other era. Everything else has changed anyways. There's been a complete re-design of baseball parks, the dimensions, the mound has been lowered, the fences brought in, etc. You've got players' roles that have changed, 1 inning closers, 200 inning pitchers, middle relief, long relief,etc. Things have changed drastically.

The job itself of being a pro ball player has changed immensely. Completely different today, simply with the advancement of science, medical procedures, all the different work-out/dietary regimens, supplements, updated understandings of practically everything related to the game, the list goes on and on and that's before even getting to PEDs. As ridiculous as he usually sounds about just anything else, Jose Canseco probably hit the nail on the head when he talked about how in 40 to 50 years from now, people will look back at these arguments and laugh at how ridiculous they were. People can hate it all they want today, but PEDs are part of the game now and forever.

If you don't like racists in the Hall of Fame, you wouldn't want Barry Bonds in the Hall of Fame. I heard that Bonds told Ron Kittle he wouldn't sign for white people, in support of a charity no less, long before Ron's book was written. And that was consistent with some high-profile interviews Bonds gave. But that isn't why Bonds isn't in the Hall of Fame. And if Joes Canseco has any credibility a half century from now, I doubt it will be as a prophet.

The fact is, neither the all-time hits leader or the all-time home run leader in major league baseball are in the Baseball Hall of Fame, not because they were/are lousy excuses for human beings but because they betrayed baseball. Pete Rose and Barry Bonds not being in the Hall of Fame, Ty Cobb and Jim Rice being in the Hall of Fame are facts consistent with what the Hall of Fame has always been.

I'm not making excuses. From what I've been reading, the evils of Ty Cobb's life has been exaggerated, but even in its exaggeration, he was never accused of betraying baseball, which is where the character and integrity clause applies, and how it was applied to Hal Chase by the voters who put Ty Cobb in. What I have been writing is consistent with reality, however unacceptable you consider the reality. I am looking at what the Hall of Fame is and has been my entire life. The fact that there may be players in the Hall of Fame who got away with cheating does not mean all cheating should be ignored. It is you who wants to make the Hall fo Fame something it's not.

If people stop caring about steroid use in baseball, Bonds will get into the Hall of Fame. But I doubt they will anytime soon.

Nellie_Fox
01-15-2013, 12:25 AM
But you got "wrong" guys in the Hall of Fame already. There are ****ing racists in the HOF. I really don't care to hear what these purists think about recent players' "character" and "integrity" while upholding that. And to think that there isn't already a player in the Hall that used steroids or any type of PED is just being naive. It can't be both ways.

If those people want to accept those past HOF players on the warped basis of them being some kind of product of the attitudes of their time or whatever excuse people like TDog want to come up for it, then you make the same type distinctions for this era and every other era. Everything else has changed anyways. There's been a complete re-design of baseball parks, the dimensions, the mound has been lowered, the fences brought in, etc. You've got players' roles that have changed, 1 inning closers, 200 inning pitchers, middle relief, long relief,etc. Things have changed drastically.

The job itself of being a pro ball player has changed immensely. Completely different today, simply with the advancement of science, medical procedures, all the different work-out/dietary regimens, supplements, updated understandings of practically everything related to the game, the list goes on and on and that's before even getting to PEDs. As ridiculous as he usually sounds about just anything else, Jose Canseco probably hit the nail on the head when he talked about how in 40 to 50 years from now, people will look back at these arguments and laugh at how ridiculous they were. People can hate it all they want today, but PEDs are part of the game now and forever.Haven't you beaten this to death yet? We get it, you're fine with steroids, you don't care if everybody in sports juices up to their eyeballs. We get it.

Bob Roarman
01-15-2013, 12:33 AM
Nellie if you've got nothing else to add, I suggest you just ignore me.

Nellie_Fox
01-15-2013, 01:01 AM
Nellie if you've got nothing else to add, I suggest you just ignore me.As much as I'd like to, moderators read the posts.

Bob Roarman
01-15-2013, 01:01 AM
If you don't like racists in the Hall of Fame, you wouldn't want Barry Bonds in the Hall of Fame. I heard that Bonds told Ron Kittle he wouldn't sign for white people, in support of a charity no less, long before Ron's book was written. And that was consistent with some high-profile interviews Bonds gave. But that isn't why Bonds isn't in the Hall of Fame. And if Joes Canseco has any credibility a half century from now, I doubt it will be as a prophet.

The fact is, neither the all-time hits leader or the all-time home run leader in major league baseball are in the Baseball Hall of Fame, not because they were/are lousy excuses for human beings but because they betrayed baseball. Pete Rose and Barry Bonds not being in the Hall of Fame, Ty Cobb and Jim Rice being in the Hall of Fame are facts consistent with what the Hall of Fame has always been.

I'm not making excuses. From what I've been reading, the evils of Ty Cobb's life has been exaggerated, but even in its exaggeration, he was never accused of betraying baseball, which is where the character and integrity clause applies, and how it was applied to Hal Chase by the voters who put Ty Cobb in. What I have been writing is consistent with reality, however unacceptable you consider the reality. I am looking at what the Hall of Fame is and has been my entire life. The fact that there may be players in the Hall of Fame who got away with cheating does not mean all cheating should be ignored. It is you who wants to make the Hall fo Fame something it's not.

If people stop caring about steroid use in baseball, Bonds will get into the Hall of Fame. But I doubt they will anytime soon.

Noo, no, you're not turning that around on me. Nice try though. It's the double standard you hold. Until people like you realize they've already had cheaters and scumbags and liars in your precious Hall of Fame for years, you'll never be able to reconcile the future of baseball. If you can't even make distinctions between every era, which is the only real way to go with it anyway, even withoout the introduction of PEDs, then you should just forget about the Hall of Fame and it's outdated, overly political processes, one year a player isn't worthy, 2 years later he is, forget it. It's ****ing rubbish. It's a prop of old Americana. That time is over. Done with. Things change, nothing stays the same, baseball sure as hell hasn't and it'll continue to evolve. So either live in the past or adapt to the future.

Bob Roarman
01-15-2013, 01:06 AM
As much as I'd like to, moderators read the posts.

I meant as in not responding if you aren't going to participate in the discussion except with comments like that.

Wedema
01-15-2013, 07:55 AM
If you don't like racists in the Hall of Fame, you wouldn't want Barry Bonds in the Hall of Fame. I heard that Bonds told Ron Kittle he wouldn't sign for white people, in support of a charity no less, long before Ron's book was written. And that was consistent with some high-profile interviews Bonds gave. But that isn't why Bonds isn't in the Hall of Fame. And if Joes Canseco has any credibility a half century from now, I doubt it will be as a prophet.

The fact is, neither the all-time hits leader or the all-time home run leader in major league baseball are in the Baseball Hall of Fame, not because they were/are lousy excuses for human beings but because they betrayed baseball. Pete Rose and Barry Bonds not being in the Hall of Fame, Ty Cobb and Jim Rice being in the Hall of Fame are facts consistent with what the Hall of Fame has always been.

I'm not making excuses. From what I've been reading, the evils of Ty Cobb's life has been exaggerated, but even in its exaggeration, he was never accused of betraying baseball, which is where the character and integrity clause applies, and how it was applied to Hal Chase by the voters who put Ty Cobb in. What I have been writing is consistent with reality, however unacceptable you consider the reality. I am looking at what the Hall of Fame is and has been my entire life. The fact that there may be players in the Hall of Fame who got away with cheating does not mean all cheating should be ignored. It is you who wants to make the Hall fo Fame something it's not.

If people stop caring about steroid use in baseball, Bonds will get into the Hall of Fame. But I doubt they will anytime soon.


Bonds signed for me outside of the Cell in 2003 and I am white. He put down his bags and signed for everyone (40-50 people) that was outside that afternoon. Kittle is the jerk who won't sign his rookie card even at Sox Fest.

doublem23
01-15-2013, 08:05 AM
I meant as in not responding if you aren't going to participate in the discussion except with comments like that.

Nellie has been actively participating in this thread from the beginning. I don't know where the hell you think you get off telling anyone on this board they're not allowed to comment in a thread, but you certainly need to learn to put the big boy pants on and deal with the fact that some very smart people out there don't always agree with your opinion on every subject.