First a guy says cheating is cheating then he says when a person cheated matters. Okay. I'm not following the logic of the pine tar game either. You say that you think Bonds cheated after 1998. That means he cheated for 9 seasons and won 4 MVP awards during that time, but you're relating that to a single game and hiding a baseball bat?

If you're referring to me, I didn't say that, nor did I imply that.

When I say cheating is cheating, I mean if you'll cheat at the little things, you'll cheat at the big things to. If you'll steal a little item, you'll steal a big item too. If you tell a little lie, you'll tell a big lie too. You get the point.

I just don't understand how someone can say Bonds doesn't deserve to be in the HOF for cheating, when others have cheated too. What is your measuring stick? When does the cheating become a bannable offense? So, it's OK to cheat and throw a spitball, used a corked bat or whatever and get into the HOF, but it's not ok to cheat and use performance enhancing drugs and get into the Hall? What kind of stupid crap is that? Both are cheating, both have the same intent which is to get an advantage. So a spitball is OK, but steroids are a bannable offense? Gotcha. Where's the middle ground? Where's the gray area? In Packs world, where is the baseball cheating line drawn between a bannable offense and a slap on the wrist?

Baseball has already decided when too much cheating is enough. There is a sliding scale of penalties and it ends with banishment.

So what does it say about steroids and the HOF?

It wouldn't say anything about it because the two are separate entities.

My point exactly. So, I repeat the question. Why are some players kept out of thr HOF for cheating and others are not?

What point? The Hall of Fame is a matter of opinion. It's always been and it always will be. No one needs proof to keep Bonds and Clemens or anyone else out of the Hall of Fame. Public opinion has kept them out. Voting them in would mean that public opinion is that using steroids and HGH to enhance your career is acceptable. As evidenced by their wait, public opinion hasn't decided it is. As evidenced by the inclusion of Gaylord Perry and anyone else you accuse of cheating, public opinion says their offenses aren't as severe.

I am not sure the writers are a proxy for public opinion.

They are the ones who vote, so they'll have to do.

But your starting point was that it was public opinion making the decisions. Your reasoning seems odd.

In what way? Opinion decides who is elected, not proofs or some kind of formula. If you don't like the word public then replace it with writer or voter. The outcome is the same. An opinion is still the decision no matter how you want to phrase things. Opinion has been that these two players do not belong in the HOF. Like all things that could change. Are you saying that an opinion is not at play in HOF voting?

Of course it's opinion. Just a question of whose opinion. You said public opinion, and I questioned whether writer opinion was really a proxy for public opinion.

That seems like it doesn't matter much. My point was that you don't need some kind of guilty verdict or evidence or anything else to keep someone out. And I stand by the point that if Bonds and Clemens are voted in, then it leads the public to believe that the HOF is accepting of HGH and steroid use.

Also, if public opinion plays no role in HOF voting, what would motivate Joe Morgan to write his letter?

No, you're right, im sure all those allegations were unfounded. Clemens was totally clean, yup. Must've just been a slow news day when he was accused of steroid use. And again when he was brought before Congress. And again when he was indicted. If you think those guys should get in because they were good enough before they cheated that's your prerogative. But to say Clemens didn't use is downright silly. It doesn't matter if you steer the conversation to Nolan Ryan or any of the unheard of names on the Mitchell Report. We're talking about Clemens and Bonds. It's delusional to think they didn't use given the amount of suspicion surrounding them. Again, where there is copious amounts of smoke...

As for the Mitchell Report, no, just because someone isn't named doesn't make them innocent. That's a ridiculous extrapolation to make. But being named sure isn't a good sign! Just because Shane Monahan didn't become an All-Star doesn't mean steroids didn't help him. Maybe he never even gets to the big leagues without help, who knows. Because everyone didn't benefit equally from PEDs doesn't negate the fact that using them was cheating. If your point is that Clemens was already better than Monahan, then my response is of course he was. So what? That doesn't absolve Clemens, or make his PED use any better than Monahan's.

You still haven't answered my question. Where does it end? Does McGwire get in? Manny? At what point should players who cheated the game and the record books stop being rewarded for their dishonesty?

Allegations doesn't equal guilt. There are many that were wrongfully convicted of crimes they didn't commit (even though there were witnesses that "saw" them do it) only to be overturned years later due to DNA evidence.

This conversation is going nowhere. Look at the results of this poll. Congrats, your opinion is in the minority. Enough said.

I will answer your question though. I believe if you're going to let one cheater into the HOF, then you have to let them all in - Manny, McGwire, Sosa, etc. On the other hand, if they want to banish all the cheaters, then I'm also OK with them keeping the PED users out. Eirher way, it should just be fair. Let the cheaters in or keep them out. Doesn't matter to me, but be consistent. And IMO, as I've already said, cheating is cheating, it doesn't matter the extent of it.

I guess if the HOF ever drastically changes their stance on removing plaques we'll have another lively debate to look forward to. It might be unrealistic for your idea of consistency to stretch across the 70+ years of the Hall's existence. People change their viewpoints and opinions when presented with new information and the voters are no different. I may be in the minority here but we'll see on January 24th how the voters feel.

The HOF is not a legal process and the ideas of guilt, evidence, and proof do not apply. The only thing that applies is opinion.

A good point. I imagine a good percentage of voters that elected Gaylord Perry aren't even alive today. Hard to have consistent results among an ever changing voting body.

The poll got brought up too. As the poll currently sits neither Bonds nor Clemens would have enough percentage of votes to be elected.

It's a poll of opinion, not a vote for enshtinement and your opinion is in the minority.

Which clearly equates to "wrong" in your mind. It'd be nice if the world was that black and white.

Seems like you absolutely implied this:

So let me understand. I asked if you felt making mistakes in the past meant you were forced to continue making them going forward. You said no, that your reasoning for admitting Bonds was what is quoted above, that he was a "HOFer before he started using." But "cheating is cheating", right? Later you say this:

So which is it? Was Bonds a HOFer before he cheated, or are you in fact OK with repeating mistakes indefinitely because mistakes were made, by a completely different group of people, 25 years ago? For someone who references consistency so often you seem to have a hard time being consistent with your own reasoning.

I said I was finished with you. You reason like a two year old Yes, you're right and the majority is wrong. Happy now?

If this is the best you can do I'll be quite happy with my reasoning abilities. :rolleyes:

To think I started this thread asking for a simple YES or NO response...



Fat Chance!
-

Double NO

Ck the latest results, can`t get much closer and yes, enjoying the debate.

Jenrry Mejía is currently banned for life for using steroids and would be ineligible for the HOF if he had 10 years service. Steve Howe was banned in 1992 for life for violating MLB's drug policy. If it wasn't for the player's union blocking drug testing, Bonds and Clemens and others may have been banned too. The writers are just enforcing MLB's drug policy. These guys broke the rules and hid behind the player's union. Now they are getting what they deserve. Using a spit ball or corked bat gets you a few games. Your comparison is like saying shoplifting and murder deserve the same penalty. They don't.

Wow, with my votes, it's 50/50 split down the middle on Bonds and Clemens.

I voted yes on both. Don't get me wrong. I hate cheating in the game I love. And both men cheated. Steroids have no place in baseball.

But, not voting them in creates a maelstrom, of sorts. We know past generations of baseball players have used things that enhanced their play. Willie Mays spoke of "greenies". Are stimulants the same as steroids? No. But how do we draw the line? And, if we ban players from the Hall who used steroids, do we then have to go back and re-evaluate all the players before, and the evidence that they used things that gave them a competitive advantage? Because, that's what we're ultimately talking about, right? The sanctity of the game.

We don't know for sure when they started using, do we? I've heard people point to when Bonds joined the Giants. Well, he was already well on his way to the Hall of Fame before he went to San Francisco. He had 50 WAR in seven years, and at age 28. Two MVP Awards, an MVP runner up, three Silver Slugger Awards, three Gold Gloves. Bonds had a 147 OPS +, 176 home runs, 251 stolen bases. His 162 game average over those last three years in Pittsburgh are nothing short of spectacular: .301 AVG, 113 runs, 36 doubles, 34 home runs, 122 RBI, 49 stolen bases, 120 walks. His slash line was .424/.566/.990. A 177 OPS + over that span. 26.7 WAR in three seasons. He had a 1.080 OPS the year before he became a Giant. My way of looking at it: the steroids prolonged his career, absolutely. But the guy was already playing at a level of the immortals.

Clemens? By the start of his age 29 season, he'd won three Cy Young Awards, and an MVP. He'd led the league in FIP five of the last six seasons. Between 1986 and 1992 he had a 160 ERA +. Unless he started on the steroids early, which I don't think he did, Clemens was a sensational pitcher and Hall of Fame-worthy before he turned 30. Like Bonds, I think the drugs prolonged his career.

Steroids don't make Hall of Famers out of average baseball players. You can either hit a curve ball, or you can't. You can either hit the corners, or you can't. The whole "vote them in, don't vote them in" is more about the stigma that attaches itself to the sport, and has a hell of a lot less to do with these individuals. If they get voted in, it somehow sullies the sport. But the all-time hit king is already excluded. The all-time home run king is, essentially, excluded. A seven-time Cy Young Award winner is being kept out.

Five guys have hit sixty home runs in a season. Only Ruth is in Cooperstown.

Put them in. Mention on their plaques that they used steroids, and let the individual determine how that changes their perception. But Bonds and Clemens are both arguably among the ten best players ever for their positions.

No, that's how you're reading it and quit putting words in my mouth. Your example has the same consequences for two different crimes.

If you want to use a shoplifting comparison, then I would say it's like stealing a $.03 piece of bubble gum or a $1000 piece of jewelry. In my opinion, there's no difference. A thief is a thief. If you'll steal something little, you'll steal something big. The consequences may be different, but it's still stealing.

Bonds is now out. Now I'm in the majority.

There it is again. The consequences of using a corked bat are you sit a few games and pay a fine. The consequences of using PEDs is you don't get into the HOF. I can't think of a more simplistic way of saying it. Your own argument is basically explaining why there's a difference, and why most voters clearly think one offense deserves a stiffer penalty than the other.

It's a poor analogy. An appropriate analogy would be petty theft vs. armed robbery.

Wow, really?. :rolleyes:

I know the difference in the consequences, but I'm saying the consequences should not be different. You have guys, HOF pitchers like Perry and Ford, that pretty much admit to cheating their entire career. Do you really think it's fair that they get in the HOF and someone that used PEDs doesn't?

Well, again, Perry and Ford are in, so this would be rehashing the point of past mistakes allowing future mistakes. But with the understanding that the magnitude of their offenses is different, yes, I'm fine with their consequences being different. Would you think it was fair if someone received the same slap on the wrist for armed robbery that someone would receive for stealing a pack of gum? Of course not. So I guess it comes down to whether or not you believe PEDs is a more egregious offense than throwing a spitball. Personally, I do. Did Perry throw a spitter EVERY time he threw a pitch? PEDs affected every pitch Clemens threw during the duration of his usage. Did Brett or whomever have a doctored bat every time they stepped to the plate? Every at bat during Bonds' usage was impacted by PEDs. I absolutely feel that the benefits of steroids use are far greater than spitballs and corked bats. Apparently a large portion of voters feel that way too.

You're entitled to your opinion, I'm entitled to mine. The BBWAA will ultimately decide.

both should get. both were the best (among the best) of their era.