OT: Bonds, Clemens, Sosa to be on HOF ballot
 

I saw this trending on Twitter. I'm a little surprised these guys are being considered. Curious to see how it unfolds. Personally, I'd rather not see these three in the hall, but that's my personal opinion.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/86...ar-hall-ballot

funnu u posted that - Down in the water cooler area there is a discussion going on about the HOF too

It's interesting, but I like it - gives the writers a chance to punctuate the "No".

My opinion on it is if you don't put in Clemens, then close the Hall for the entire steroid era. Because you're only guessing on everyone else too. I would put in the best from the era and leave out anyone who has failed since testing has come out, hard to punish a guy pre-testing era when owners were turning a blind-eye to it, yet at the same time rewarding them for it. Unless Derek Jeter or Barry Larkin or Randy Johnson is on this board, anyone who says they positively never used is just assuming. If you don't put in the best from the era(without a failed test ie Manny Ramirez) then don't put in anyone. Simple as that.

Another way to think about it is that the list of banned substances now is so big, there is no way you could assume anyone is not guilty of one of them at some point. More than half the stuff at GNC you could buy yourself, is off-limits to them. So while player X from that era could say he never did steroids or HGH, he very likely did something that is now banned so where do you draw the line?

I don't think people are guessing Clemens took steroids though for the same reason I don't think saying Bonds took them is a guess or speculation. If you don't think he took them, he was probably your favorite player once upon a time. He cheated. I know it sucks but accept it rather than trying to say everyone cheated bcause Roger Clemens did.

So what, let them in. They were THE best at their position, EVER! And that's what the HOF is about, the best of the best. None failed a test, and it's not like steroids made them HOF'ers. Bonds was already a monster at the plate 'pre' steroids and easily had a HOF career, and Clemens was nasty, you saw his rookie year.

Which is more detrimental for the game, a player for supposedly taking a drug compared to a player being a racist or beats there wife? I saw the latter. Bonds was good for baseball, and so were McGwire and Sosa, they revived the game with that magical summer of '98, people watched the game again because of them, they saved baseball.

It's funny how everyone gives a crap about ballplayer's getting caught and not allowing them in the Hall or whatever, but for NFL players, no one gives a damn for failed substance abuse and performance ehancing test failures. But I guarantee the large profile NFL players will get in the Hall who have gotten caught. I mean heck, Ray Lewis and Dante Stallworth killed a man, what was the punishment? Lewis a slap on the wrist, and Stallworth avoided jailtime or had a few weeks with other stipulations. And players get more punishment for taking a drug, that's funny.

That's all I will say on this as it is a never ending topic. But my stance is look past the character and what they did as a person, and focus on what they did on the field. Bonds, A-Rod etc were dumb to take drugs, they were easily going to be the best ever in the game or close to it without them.

Really? Bonds was the best at his position...ever? How many home runs could Ruth have hit on steroids? Have you seen McGwire since the 'roids wore off?

And Clemens? I would argue for Walter Johnson, and certainly over a non-juiced version of Clemens.

Yeah, 'funny' is right.

Have you seen the level of competition Ruth played with vs Bonds? Do you think Ruth and his fat a$$ could have come close to match the numbers put up then? Lets see, far inferior pitching and defense for Ruth. Let's see here, Ruth has more triples than SB's, how the hell is that possible...worse defense, that's how. Ruth had almost more triples in one season than Bonds did in his career, explain that.

Have you seen McGwire before he juiced, that rookie season, he was a twig.

Let's see, and in regards to Johnson vs Clemens, Clemens has a better K/9, about even H/9, fairly even BB/9, 1,000k+ more in SO's, over 1,000 less innings pitched, if Clemens were to have thrown that many innings, he would have easily had more wins.

Yeah, 'funny' is right.

Nothing against RUTH hes the king - but he didnt have to face Blacks, domonicans, japanese etc. There also wasnt a few crazy pitches that there are now.

Look - IMO ruth is the best all time but bonds was the best in my time.

If you just compair numbers they are close. Damn bonds has over 500 SB, all his numbers are sick.

+1 very different era's, but if Ruth were to play now, good luck holding Bonds' jock-strap. He would need a significant diet etc to be able to play with these athletes today.

Damn. I'll leave you to stew in your own juices.

Yeah, as did Bonds. Unfortunately, his 'diet' was illegal.

It wasn't in the game of baseball at that time, and remember, he never tested positive for MLB drug testing.

Bonds was the most feered hitter i have ever seen. With numbers to prrove it (forget the HR) with all the walks

You have a good point there. I'll have to eat a little crow, as I don't believe we can make assumptions about whether or not someone did drugs. But I won't blame the HOF voters if they choose to make that assumption. It's kind of like Judge Landis dealing with Joe Jackson outside the law, but by his own laws of baseball.

That's true. The bigger problem I have with Bonds getting in is that he broke both the single-season HR record, and the all-time HR record. Numbers are sacred in baseball, and he crapped all over them. To have his numbers in there alongside the legitimate ones of Hank Aaron and Roger Maris (numbers, not the man), just rubs me the wrong way.

I assumed Clemens was the guy least deserving to go in. At least the others had HOF-like careers before PEDs. Clemens was 50-49 and going nowhere.

Ignore this post. I have stats mixed up.

Thanks Scott, I totally respect yours and everyone else's opinions, and can understand 100% why anyone would view the opposite of me, remember, this is just my opinions and everyone's opinions. I am not neceassrily correct, but that's my beliefs.

I certainly agree with you on Landis, that banishment I find the most disturbing (in regards to being unfair).

The argument regarding Blacks, Dominicans, Japanese, etc. is bogus. Ruth played in a time where the only sports that could come close to rivaling baseball in popularity were boxing and horse racing. So baseball constituted the athletic elite of the times and thus incorporated the best athletes, albeit within the White population.

Bonds et al played in a time when a huge proportion of elite athletic talent was and is siphoned off by football and basketball. So think of all of the great athletes that they never had to face.

Huh???
He had won three cy youngs by 1997

nevermind. I must have someone else's statistics mixed up. Need to add a correction to my other post.

i think what you are thinking of is that in his last four years before he was traded to toronto and allegedly started using, he was 50-49 but he was hugely successful before that

A bit of comment about a few points.

Ruth would be fine today. The "overweight" Ruth is partly body type, partly from the late career photos.
His huge count of triples compared to steals is from a couple things.
1) Huge ballparks. A drive to center in the polo grounds probably wasn't going out. (Although Ruth hit at least one out there around 460ft, out of any modern park)
2)He could actually run. Especially earlier.
3) Who would try stealing with Gherig at bat?
4) Stealing is more of a mental exercise than physical. Sure, speed helps a lot, but it all works off the pitchers time to the plate and how they watch the runner. I don't know how they played Ruth. If he was watched closely there may have been little opportunity to steal as well as reduced need.

Ruths pitching ability was also excellent.

And the argument that he wasn't facing ALL the best players could be countered by the one saying he also didn't face players from 15+ teams, only 8. figuring a modern 5 man rotation that's 40 pitchers who would be minor leaguers without expansion. More if you figure 1920's teams didn't have 5 man rotatons or closers or middle relievers. Of course the counter then is that modern players are often facing fresh pitchers instead of a guy throwing pitch number 257....Endless.

The other big sport of the 20's was 6-day bike racing. the top riders earned more than Ruth. 500-1000 a day, on top of the contract, plus prizes. Chicago was a favorite town since Capone was a huge fan and spent many nights giving out prizes for sprints every few laps $100 here, $500 there....

Bonds never tested positive. True. Maybe. I believe he stopped once the testing program began. It's also likely that the "cream" and "clear" were new stuff there wasn't a test for. Lance also "never tested positive" except for that one time he blamed the butt ointment, and that time he was let slide, and that other time Nike "took care of it"
Testing in Baseball began in 06, and Bonds had a very typical year lost to injury in 05. A very common thing for players stopping steroids.
So I'm not buying that part.

Sadly, I think if he'd stayed clean and been a bit nicer as a person he'd still have the career HR record, He just would have gotten it a couple years later. And may have stuck around a couple more.

Steve B

Steve, are just trying to placate the pro-Barry guys? Have you seen pictures of what he looked like in his pre-steroid days?

Bonds are a great player before the 'roids, but he wasn't a future home run king. Before his 73 season he never hit 50. The fact that when most player's skills are fading if they're even still in ball at 37 years old Bonds somehow hits 73 is ridiculous. Bonds wasn't a team player, he didn't care about anyone except himself. I hope he never sniffs Cooperstown.

Hof
 

Why don't they put in some that deserve to be there like Don Mattingly, Jack Morris, Steve garvey...These are players that deserve to be in there and need votes to get in.
Loved Bonds, McGwire, Clemens...All were great players but i think they don't belong in the HOF due to cheating. My opinion only.

+1

So what, you don't need to hit 50. Just look at the man he supplanted, did he hit 50...

I am a weight lifter and have been or many years. Wherever there is weight lifting there are drugs. I never used steroids only because i could not afford them. I remember sitting in gyms talking about Incaviglia back when he came up pre-Canseco. I am not saying that Incaviglia was juicing. However, his arrival made it fairly obvious to those of us in that culture that serious weight lifting had arrived in baseball. We also knew that drugs were soon to follow just as night follows day. PEDs do not create ability they enhance it. Genetics cannot be improved upon. While on androgenics the journeyman becomes a steady player, the average player becomes a star, the superstar becomes a legend. I remember laughing when androstenedione was discovered in McGwire's locker. It is banned in other sports due to it being used as an masking agent. Athletes who used said indignantly, "I am not on steroids I'm on andro". In 2002 I went to a game with a close friend who was an area scout for a MLB team. I looked at A-Rod and said that he was using. My friend was shocked and a bit indignant at my statement. He defended Rodriguez saying he had an amazing work ethic. I said I am certain he does but he is using as men his age do not have that muscle density without pharmaceutical assistance. My friend refused to believe me. Seven years later the Selena Roberts article came out in SI and I was the first person my friend, then employed by the scouting bureau, called. Unfortunately that whole generation of players is suspect. It doesn't make them less it makes them different. They are a product of their time. Just as Ruth was the product of his. Despite playing pre integration, night baseball, and coast to coast travel, Ruth would have succeeded in any generation. The numbers would not be as gaudy but they still would have been there because of genetics. However, I suspect that if he played in the steroid era he would have joined the PED party. Those of us who care about the HOF know that this generation's stats are inflated by PEDs...so what. Bonds, Sosa, and McGwire's inclusion does not diminish the accomplishments of those already enshrined. What are we going to do deny an entire generation of players? If we do so then you might as well close the doors to the HOF because I will never go back. This issue really puts Hank Aaron's accomplishments in perspective. Those numbers are pre-steroid and post integration. I believe he is the greatest hitter of all time. Maddux's numbers are even more amazing considering his era. Thanks for indulging me while I pontificate.:o

Calmarse! I totally disagree. Ruth played with the best who were allowed to play during his time. Even considering that a “huge portion of elite athletic talent was and is siphoned off by football and basketball”, todays athletes would physically dominate Ruth and his power hitting peers. Below are the names and physical attributes of some of the greatest power hitter’s pre 1940. Next to them I listed a contemporary middle infielder of similar size who is Latin American and of color.

Lou Gehrig 6ft 200 lbs - Elvis Andrus 6’ 200
Babe ruth 6’2” 215 - Hanely Ramierez 6’2” 230
Jimmie Foxx 6’ 195 - Roberto Alomar 6’ 184
Mel Ott 5’9” 170 - Omar Vizquel 5’9” 180

I love these discussions as they separate baseball from other sports.

Is there a way for this thread and the one in watercooler to be merged? We're having them same discussion over there.

yes an admin OR MOD of the forum can merge them together, good idea. leon would be an admin, im not sure if anyone else was given admin or mod access. Maybe PM him and offer your suggestion.

I don't believe when people say bonds was a hall of famer before he started taking steriods.

There is no doubt that Bonds, before taking steroids, was a Hall of Famer. He would not have been classified as possibly the best ever, but almost certainly a first ballot selection.

Just like Rose & Jackson, before their poor decisions entered the picture, were no doubt Hall of Famers. Clemens likely as well but not quite as clear as Bonds.

Bonds absolutely was a HOFer before his alleged steroid use. Three MVPs, and the consensus best all around player in baseball for a decade.

I bet Bonds was on the juice for MOST of his career and not just the last couple years.

[QUOTE=71buc;1056943In 2002 I went to a game with a close friend who was an area scout for a MLB team. I looked at A-Rod and said that he was using. My friend was shocked and a bit indignant at my statement. He defended Rodriguez saying he had an amazing work ethic. I said I am certain he does but he is using as men his age do not have that muscle density without pharmaceutical assistance."

Men his age!? Are you kidding me! He was 26!!! Is that old!? Just because you were correct about him using in 2007, does not mean he used in 2002, and justifying it by being 26 because "men his age do not have muscle density." That's a bunch of bunk. I lift too, and trained for baseball and was on the path of a pro career and definitely thought of using steroids when I got injured, and I'm by no means small.

You know who Ronnie Coleman is, before he started juicing and was a cop, he was an absolute monster. Just because a man is a physical specimen doesn't mean they don't have the muscle density, just check out the natural body building competitions, those guys are freaks. A-Rod has one of the best work ethics in the game's history, period. He wanted to be THE best ever, and he busted his but off until he used in '07.

As you know, since you lift, you can pretty damn well add on some unreal muscle mass in a years time based off of protein intake and your diet and having a proper lifting regimen, because I know first hand in gaining 25 lbs of lean muscle mass in the off season as well as cutting fat.

As is Pedro's

While I agree, I disagree with your examples. Those guys couldn't even touch the HOF'ers, but I see where you're going with your point and I agree.

[QUOTE=HOF Auto Rookies;1056992][QUOTE=71buc;1056943In 2002 I went to a game with a close friend who was an area scout for a MLB team. I looked at A-Rod and said that he was using. My friend was shocked and a bit indignant at my statement. He defended Rodriguez saying he had an amazing work ethic. I said I am certain he does but he is using as men his age do not have that muscle density without pharmaceutical assistance."

Men his age!? Are you kidding me! He was 26!!! Is that old!? Just because you were correct about him using in 2007, does not mean he used in 2002, and justifying it by being 26 because "men his age do not have muscle density." That's a bunch of bunk. I lift too, and trained for baseball and was on the path of a pro career and definitely thought of using steroids when I got injured, and I'm by no means small.

You know who Ronnie Coleman is, before he started juicing and was a cop, he was an absolute monster. Just because a man is a physical specimen doesn't mean they don't have the muscle density, just check out the natural body building competitions, those guys are freaks. A-Rod has one of the best work ethics in the game's history, period. He wanted to be THE best ever, and he busted his but off until he used in '07.

As you know, since you lift, you can pretty damn well add on some unreal muscle mass in a years time based off of protein intake and your diet and having a proper lifting regimen, because I know first hand in gaining 25 lbs of lean muscle mass in the off season as well as cutting fat.[/QUOTE]

A-rod didn't use in 2007, he admitted to using in the years 2001-03 in 2007.

What is your justification? His pre-roid MVP's weren't good enough, or his gaudy stats? Come on.

[QUOTE=yanks12025;1056995]Sorry, you are correct, looked at the wrong time frames. That's when the article came out, disregard my prior message. But prior to those seasons, he had three consecutive 40 hr seasons, I don't know why he used. But basing it off his age I do not agree with, being just 25-26 at the time of the first usage.

Ruth
 

Played against a segregated non global opponent yes Bonds was the greatest left fielder of alltime, no doubt at all in my mind.

Bonds not a Hof'er p;re steroids?
 

Your opinion means absolutely nothing to me if you are so ignorant as to not think Bonds was a hall of famer pre steroids, in fact he was an alltime great presteroids not just a marginal HOF'er.

So because your opinion must be right, what year did Bonds first start using steroids then???? So say if Bonds started taking steroids in 1990 in which he won his first MVP. So he'd then be a hall of famer/all-time great based on his first three years in the majors... Simple answer NO.

You can't say he would have been a hall of famer/all-time great pre-steroids, because we don't know WHEN Bonds started taking steroids.

So what if Bonds started taking steroids in 2004, is his prior numbers not good enough?...Simple answer, YES.

It is well documented he started
 

In 1999, this is not nor should it be news to anyone that has closely followed this story or Bonds's career. He along with Griffey Jr are the premiere 5 tool players of their generation, The Mays and Mantle of their eras.

Exactly, because he was jealous of McGwire and Sosa and the great HR chase.

lets just take this 1st ballot as a question here. 1st ballot 1st year.

UMMMM - so if bonds dosnt get in, and clemens dosnt get in, does piazza get in???

if is wasnt for the drug issue all 3 are 1st ballot HOF, but with clemens and bonds assosicated, they may not. piazza wasnt involved (apparantly) but ..... he probably was.

I agree with Bosoxfan- you can't close the Hall to a whole generation of players. Especially when some of those players, such as Bonds and Clemens, are among the greatest in the history of the game. And what's the solution? Admitting mediocre to good players simply because they didn't juice. That just turns the HOF into a farce.

And I still think the two threads should be merged.

I am NOT a Bonds fan. That being said he was not ever found to be guilty of using PEDs. Photographs reveal dramatic changes to his physique begining around 1999. If considered as evidence the photos raise suspicion but that is all (see Ryan Franklin). I think his overall game declined after 1999. He was far more of a complete player prior to that IMO. That could be attributed to age as much as the rapid changes to his body. I think that his pre 1999 numbers were HOF worthy. Those years alone his ability would land him in any discussion regarding the greatest players of all time. When he reached his second prime thats an entirely different story. Nonetheless, he belongs in Cooperstown next to my favorite players Clemente and Aaron. His inclusion does not deminish either of them. His numbers will always be looked at with a jaundiced eye by everyone who watched that generation of players.

I am a firm believer that if every player from that generation was honest about PED usage we would find more pitchers than hitters used them. PEDs make much more sense for a pitcher not in terms in size gains or increased velocity but in their value to aid in recovery especially for relievers.

His game declined after 1999???? He had by any measure one of the greatest five year stretches in history if not the greatest including 4 straight mvp awards.

His overall game declined. No dispute over his offense post 1998 those numbers are unbelievable. His defense was limited and his speed absent. He no longer was the 4 tool player he had been. I cannot say he had five tools ever as his arm was questionable just ask Sid Bream:mad:

fair enough but with those numbers it seems a minor quibble

So what do you think about Thome? Thome was a stick when he came up, now look at him...Just cause a guy 'blew up' doesn't necessarily mean they juiced, and Thome has never been questioned because he's never been as high profile as Bonds, A-Rod etc.

I agree e was a more complete player in the aspects of his five tools, he did it all, but he did more damage at the plate later and got on base and produced and drove in more runs at an absurd rate.

Okay, I'll start the merge process by bringing the following part of the discussion over here.

We have been making a mockery of the process since shortly after it began, by letting in less than stellar players. Too many of them were friends with the voters and players like Albert Belle, who pissed everyone off, will never get voted in. Guys like Bonds are being denied because what they did is considered a very significant violation of the rules by the voters.

It's all about the voters - write a few letters to them, letting them know that you think steroid users are okay and should be allowed in. It would be interesting to hear their explanations as to why Niekro, Sutton and Rizzuto are in, but great steroid users like McGwire, Bonds and Sosa will not get their vote.

The HOF should impose a maximum allowable hat size of 9 3/8 for entry eligibility. Bonds would likely not meet that criterion.

[QUOTE=Runscott;1057051]Okay, I'll start the merge process by bringing the following part of the discussion over here.



We have been making a mockery of the process since shortly after it began, by letting in less than stellar players. Too many of them were friends with the voters and players like Albert Belle, who pissed everyone off, will never get voted in. Guys like Bonds are being denied because what they did is considered a very significant violation of the rules by the voters.

QUOTE]

+1, Maz got voted in the his HR in the WS, good example there, and he was beloved by his peers

Thank you Barry
 

Once again the most intelligent thought out post comes from Mr. Sloate.

PS 71 buc as a fellow Pirates fan I have always blamed Belinda, go back and watch he could have easily picked Bream off had he been paying attention that sloth was practically on third when Stan finally delivers the pitch.

Thanks Glyn. Once in a while I get lucky.:)

Scott- agreed that much of what goes on in the Hall is political. That's why I pay so little attention to it. It's why Maz gets in but Bonds will stay out. Now that's a joke.

These era debates are so strange to me. There is no way today's players are better than the players of Ruth's era. That is not to say that Ruth played against ALL of the best players, but I would say the average major leaguer (in whatever league they played in) was better then. I'd say the average minor league player was better too.

When Ruth played the game EVERYONE in America played baseball. You had to beat out everyone to get a spot on a team. Now hardly anyone plays baseball. There are so many other sports. Today you only get the best baseball players on a baseball team. When Ruth played you had the best athletes in the country period on every baseball team you went against.

The athletes today are absolutely amazing physical specimens to the human body. The fundamentals in today's game are FAR superior than the days of Ruth, the talent level and playing ability. Just because more people played a sport, doesn't necessarily make it the better generation. Ruth played against the best of his era, and the players today are playing against the best of there era. There are far more in professional baseball than there were in Ruth's day, so I completely disagree with the minor league part as well.

You still need to beat out everyone to get a spot on a team. How often do you just walk up to a team and are automatically on it because no one tries out? Never.

Hilarious

packs
 

you are failing to count the large growth in population, particularly latino who do play baseball. combine this with the globilization of ther sport and the increase in training and scouting techniques and there is absolutely no way they were better ball players back then. I find this notion laughable. Today it is a 365 day a year job for ball players. not so back then when many needed to work second jobs. Athletes are better in every recordable sport why not in baseball?

Todays best athletes don't play baseball. They play football and basketball. But in Ruth's era those athletes were playing baseball. Like I said, today is just the best baseball players on a team. In Ruth's era it was the best athletes in the country on a baseball team.

I don't agree with you guys at all. Baseball was just as much a 365 day a year sport back then. You had barnstorming tours, exhibition games, winter leagues, cuban leagues, baseball was at its highest point in its existence. All the same year round games you have now. Add that to the fact that baseball players today have to cheat to even come close to putting up the numbers guys like Ruth and Hornsby and Gehrig put up. And they did that against some of the greatest legends of the game. How can you say that when today's players cheat they still come up short but are better than past players? You would say its because competition has gotten better. I would say athleticism and skill level went down amongst baseball players. Not amongst athletes in general.

It is generally a fruitless exercise to compare players across too much separation of time. Suppose if you magically transported Barry Bonds back to the 20s and he was far better than Babe Ruth. So what, it doesn't undermine Ruth's achievements in any way, which can only be evaluated in the context of his time.

I think athletes do generally get better over time -- we have proof of this in the evolution of objective track and swimming records (among others) and I see no reason this wouldn't be true for other competitive sports. But that said, I don't think it matters.

Do you know what Babe Ruth's regimen was? He would eat four hot dogs, drink two beers, toss a medicine ball around for fifteen minutes, and then take a schvitz. That's how he kept in shape.

Well I work out every day of my life and I can't hit 60 home runs in 151 games or hit 342 lifetime. Guess what? Neither can anyone else even with their fancy trainers, machines, and specialized drugs.

If Ruth had been born in 1964 instead of 1895, and had benifited from a few generations of evolution, better nutrition and training, he would have been 6'7 and 270 pounds and absolutely dominated MLB.

Had Bonds been born in 1895, and utilized that era's approach to nutrition, training, drinking and tobacco-smoking - and had no access to steroids - he might have been one of the top players (maybe a fast Mel Ott) but he probably would have been 5'9 and 150 pounds and might not have hit 500 HRs. Heck, even in the era Bonds played in, he was only a .280 hitter before and after steroids - I know batting average isn't a terribly important statistic anymore, but for someone considered to possibly be the "greatest ever", I think that's a pretty amazing stat (his grand total of 2 HR titles and 1 RBI title are pretty astounding also).

I just don't see how you make any case for Bonds being greater than Ruth. Or Mays. Or Williams. Or Musial. Or Wagner, Cobb and maybe a few others. Stolen bases are, IMO, very overrated; playing great defense in left field is IMO far less important than most other positions; drawing walks is great, but most of those were during the steroids years (and I also believe - because I like conspiracies - that there was an "understanding" among managers during Bonds' last few years to walk him when convenient to try and prevent him from catching Aaron).

Ruth would be a monster today. He's a star in any era you put him in. Doesn't matter one bit. The guy out hit two entire leagues. Greatest ever.

Bonds led the league in walks five times before steroids, and had 8 100 RBI seasons.

According to the new win share metric used by Baseball Reference, Bonds is the best left fielder of all time, Ruth is the best right fielder, and Ruth finishes slightly ahead overall.

Even with all that cheating Barry couldn't catch The Babe who played 400 less games.

A couple things to consider...
 

Among other items already mentioned (and apologies if I am repeating anything here)...

1 ) If both hitters AND pitchers juiced, doesn't that again help level the playing field? What about Bonds striking out in the 6th inning from a juiced pitcher who would be a bit more tired/weaker without "the juice"?

2 ) Weren't "greenies" without a prescription illegal?

3 ) Should a player be REMOVED from the HOF for admitting to cheating or taking a banned substance? For example:
A ) Perry for admitting to using the spitter.
B ) Ruth (and others) for consuming alcohol during prohibition.

4 ) And something that has already been mentioned, but IMHO, the most important point. If management knew this was going on and widespread, and ignored it, how can you hold this against the athlete?

I'm not condoning any of the steroid era abuse, but it's easy to look through rose colored glasses when remembering the "good old days". If a player was among the best of his era, steroids alone didn't get him there.

If a good player juices he becomes an elite player. If a crappy player juices he can become a horrible major leaguer for a year or two. The playing field would only be leveled in the rare instances an elite juicing pitcher faces an elite juicing hitter.

Been juicing since the 19th century...
http://www.history.com/news/baseball...ntain-of-youth

HAHA! Thanks for the laugh. A one-dimensional player (outside of pitching because it was full-time, though he was very very good) cannot be "Greatest ever." You could make the argument for greatest hitter ever, but not player, not even close, that belongs to Bonds, or Mays.

I don't even know what to say considering Ruth leads or is in the top 5 of every offensive stat you can come up with despite playing significantly less games. If you think hitting 714 home runs while batting 342 lifetime is a one dimensional player I don't know what it takes to be considered great in your opinion.

Ruth leads all players all time in WAR, Offensive WAR and position player WAR. He played 700 less games than Aaron, and 400 less games than Bonds or Mays.

Not to mention he won 20 games in back to back years and has an ERA title. I don't know what one dimensional outside of pitching means.

He couldn't field, he couldn't run, he didn't have a good glove. That's what it means. Don't get so obsessed with WAR, it's an overrated stat that sabermaticians got hard for.

As far as I know leading all players all time in WAR means you are the best player on the field at all times. He was also in the top 5 in fielding percentage as a right fielder every year and is 24th all time in assists. I don't know what you're trying to say about his glove.