HOF Future Eligibles

[dgo71]

Originally Posted by kailes2872

I hate this time of year because Bond and Clemens were HOFers before they were ever suspected of using.

I hear this statement a lot around this time of year. The fact is nobody knows for sure when these guys started using, so saying they were "already HOFers" is a huge assumption. For that matter, maybe without PEDs these guys suffer a career-ending injury. Maybe they put up 8 straight horrible seasons and their career line is just mediocre. A player isn't a HOFer 7 years into their career, it's the whole body of work. And these guys' bodies of work are tainted. I don't feel the least little bit sorry for them and regardless of when they started or how long they used, if they cheated, they in no way deserve the game's highest honor.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by kailes2872

If Pedro developed arthritis and retired after the '04 season, we would be talking about him like Koufax.

P.S. - I am not saying that Griffey was on any performance enhancers, I just find it a bit odd how a gangly guy hit for so much power early in his career and then broke down the last half. I don't know what the indicators are, however, in this world where we are quick to declare if someone was a user and someone else was not a user, our crowd sourced justice is quick to declare him innocent (which he very well may be) and so many others that might have had acne on their back, or hit home runs despite a small stature are quickly declared guilty. I hate this time of year because Bond and Clemens were HOFers before they were ever suspected of using.

I will come right out and say it I honestly think Griffey Jr in the first part of his career was a major steroid user. I also believe Pedro was a serious user. I also think Griffey should be in on the first ballot, Pedro not so much.

[Robextend]

Originally Posted by eastonfalcon19

1st Ballot upcoming years- Griffey, C.Jones, Big Unit, Pedro, Vlad, Smoltz, Hoffman (should get in because his change-up was so filthy), Thome.

I can see Piazza and Biggio getting in as well. Clemens deserves to get in even though he was accused of PEDs.

Where does Omar Vizquel fit in with the Hall? Do you think he has a shot at getting in?

No way Vizquel should get in...3 all star games in 24 yrs in the majors. Maybe if he played in the Ozzie Smith era, things would be different. In the offensive explosion he played in, I don't know how he can possibly get in. Amazingly by playing 21 years he got dangerously close to 3,000 hits. But then I ask, if he got 3,000 hits...would that make Omar Vizquel a HOFer? Or would the 3,000 hit mark finally not be automatic (assuming Biggio gets in and we disregard PED guys)?

[bbcard1]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

Of course that is what it means. Hoffman began his professional career as a closer in the minors because his pitch repertoire was not good enough to be a starter. There was a REALLY good reason why Hoffman was an 11th round draft choice. Admittedly he was great at what he was asked to do. But going max effort for 15-20 pitches at a time does not make someone a Hall Of Famer.

Tom C

In order to keep the tone civil, I will say your arguments make no sense and your statements reflect no understanding of baseball in the post-1970s era.

[dgo71]

Originally Posted by conor912

Phil Rizzuto got in strictly for being on the great Yankee teams in the 50's. His career numbers are a joke compared to the rest of the HOF. Compare his numbers to Posadas and they are freakishly similar, down to identical lifetime batting avgs.

The difference being that a completely biased Vets Committee, which does not exist in the same format anymore, elected Scooter to the HOF. If Posada was eligible in 1990 I'd say you're absolutely correct. But in today's voting format, Posada has no chance. Don Mattingly is more revered in Yankee lore than Posada, WS rings or not, and Mattingly will be lucky to scrape out 10% of the votes this year.

[eastonfalcon19]

Yeah I don't see Vizquel getting in either right away but I could see him getting in down the road. The same thing with Fred McGriff ending his career with 493 HRS. If he had indeed reached the 500 club would that of made him an automatic pick?

Could McGriff eventually get in with his numbers?

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by dgo71

Exactly. The cronyism of the old veterans committee is thankfully a thing of the past. Posada the player is the one going up for consideration, not the 1998 Yankees as a team. No way is he a HOFer.

Bernie is a victim of playing a position which usually has the greatest hitters, while Posada played a position whose ranks are thin in Cooperstown. Piazza and Ivan are HOFers and Ted Simmons should go in before Posada is considered, and should have gone in before Ray Schalk or Rick Ferrell.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I will come right out and say it I honestly think Griffey Jr in the first part of his career was a major steroid user. I also believe Pedro was a serious user. I also think Griffey should be in on the first ballot, Pedro not so much.

As much as I hate to say this, the writer may be juicing based on the above post.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

As much as I hate to say this, the writer may be juicing based on the above post.

I 100% juiced off and on for close to 20 years and regardless of that his career seriously points to him also juicing.

Griffey Jr no problem ,Vlad should get it hopefully. Got a chance to meet Vlad in 96 at Mercer County Waterfront Park Trenton NJ, during the Eastern League Southern Division Playoffs. It was nice when Trenton was with Boston.

[Exhibitman]

On the juicers, it seems to me that the game has to decide whether integrity plays a role in the HOF. Bonds and Clemens were likely HOFers without the steroids but we will never know that in the end because they cheated, as have A-Roid and Palmiero and several others, which we know for a fact. I don't care if they can jack a ball into the upper deck or throw 100 mph. If I ever have a grandson and if I ever get to take him to Cooperstown I'd really prefer not to have to explain how the PED jocks are role models. I'd rather show him the stats these guys have and explain that they cheated and because of that they have never been given the honor of election to the hall. And yes, I do realize that there are some pretty shitty people in the HOF--racists, drunks, and jerks--but their presence is not a reason to add some more bad apples to the barrel. That said, if there is nothing in the Mitchell Report on a guy and nothing else showing he used I don't see how you can justify keeping him out on the basis of PED use.

[HRBAKER]

I fail to see the reason to be sympathetic to someone's plight for the HOF when they chose to cheat for the money, the fame, the records, the contracts. Being snubbed by the voters is part of paying the piper to me. It is no less of a HOF to me without these guys in it and that goes for Mr. Rose as well.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by bbcard1

In order to keep the tone civil, I will say your arguments make no sense and your statements reflect no understanding of baseball in the post-1970s era.

I would say that my statements reflect an opinion shared by the new generation of number crunchers who understand that the position of a "closer" is nothing but a statistic generated position on a baseball team. Just because major league managers are dumb enough to manage to a stat does not make the position of "closer" any more important. The best arm in the bullpen needs to be used in the most high leverage situation. But there is no statistic for that so we can't have that. So we just keep it simple for everyone involved and save the best arm in the pen for the last inning. Even if the game ends up not getting that far because some lesser pitcher blew it before that point.

A save is a stat that is managed to. The only one in baseball really, although occasionally a manager will manage to the win stat too.

Good relief pitchers are like good pinch hitters. Use them in key situations. They can generally be found on the scrap Heep, and ones that are good for a long time are not easy to find. But that does not make them Hall Of Fame worthy.

If you do not think very good relievers and closers can be found from the leftovers of other teams, ask Neal Huntington the current GM of the Pirates. His closers the past six or seven years have been a failed minor league starter, another team's seventh inning guy, and a player who spent the majority of the year prior to coming to the Pirates in the minors.

I would therefore submit that my thoughts on the subject are more in line with current baseball theory than is the idea that Trevor Hoffman is is any way shape or form a Hall Of Famer.

Tom C

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by dgo71

I hear this statement a lot around this time of year. The fact is nobody knows for sure when these guys started using, so saying they were "already HOFers" is a huge assumption. For that matter, maybe without PEDs these guys suffer a career-ending injury. Maybe they put up 8 straight horrible seasons and their career line is just mediocre. A player isn't a HOFer 7 years into their career, it's the whole body of work. And these guys' bodies of work are tainted. I don't feel the least little bit sorry for them and regardless of when they started or how long they used, if they cheated, they in no way deserve the game's highest honor.

And Bonds still leads in homers, walks, intentional walks, etc. No one wanted to pitch to him. And MLB hasn't taken any of those stats away. Nor can it. Same with Clemens. Saying they cheated as a reason to keep him out is sort of silly IMO, because the laundry list of those who cheated but are in the HOF is long and vaunted. It includes Mays and Mantle (greenies) among others. MLB won't deal with the PED issue, because it can't, being that it was so complicit.

When all is said and done, I don't suppose it really matters much what the voters think. I mean, we complain about their votes every election. And when all that complaining is over, Bonds will still have hit more home runs than anyone else in MLB ever. You can pretend otherwise, but every time you look up the stats, Bonds will be the number one guy. Clemens will still have won more Cy Youngs than anyone else. The guys who were never proven to have used (oh, that would include Bonds, who never failed a drug test but lets exclude him for purposes of this discussion) such as Bagwell and Piazza will still be getting screwed based on some silly "suspicion" that they may have, and none of the stats that are currently oh so important to the HOF discussion will have changed.

PEDs happened. Baseball turned a blind eye because it brought the fans back after the strike and made the owners a lot of money. The same writers who are so sanctimonious about it now weren't so much then, because their columns got them readers and, thus, money. The whole current HOF voting dynamic is bullshit and all the hypocrisy is rather sickening IMO. By any metric that is now in use other than the emotional "he cheated," which can be applied to many of the people already elected, Bonds is a HOFer. So is Clemens. So is Pudge. So are many others.

It is amazing to me that some of the same people who are so against Bonds and Clemens are so in favor of Rose, who violated the most basic rule -- the one that is posted on the door of every clubhouse -- that explicitly says that if you bet on baseball, you are banned for life. Now, that is a rule that is hard to miss, unlike the loosey-goosey steroid baloney that everyone now retrospectively wants to say was so hard and fast in the day. When baseball chooses to address PED usage, one way or the other, which will never happen because it was so complicit, maybe I'll change my stance. Until then, my position is that although the HOF is rapidly becoming largely irrelevant, Bonds and Clemens are the two most deserving ELIGIBLE outsiders looking in. OK, my rant is done.

Originally Posted by packs

I have no love for most relievers but come on. Mariano Rivera was one of the greatest pitchers of all time. How can you say he's not a HOFer?

Mariano Rivera is not in the same Category as Nolan Ryan, Tom Seaver, Steve Carlton, Cy Young , Sandy Koufax etc

[howard38]

Originally Posted by z28jd

I really hope they are done putting relievers in. I don't want to see Hoffman in, don't want to see Rivera in and no one that made a living pitching one inning. How many of these saves are 2-3 runs, or facing the bottom of a lineup?

There are guys that were real good pitchers putting in 3-4x more time on the mound because they were better pitchers. Hoffman, Rivera, Wagner and any current closer are failed starters at some point in their career. I think it's laughable they get consideration but a guy like Jim Kaat could be a good pitcher over 4500 innings and we consider guys with 1000 or so innings to be worthy.

Bruce Sutter being in kills me and he pitched for awhile when relievers actually had to work. Basically any post-LaRussa A's relievers are no for me. Craig Kimbrel could have 15 more seasons like he's already had, be the best one inning reliever by far and I wouldn't even consider him.

Mariano Rivera was not really a failed starter as he was only given the chance to start ten games as a rookie. Prior to that he had been a very good starter in the minors. He may have been given another chance to start in his sophomore year but he was so good as a reliever in the playoffs that he was made the Yankees set-up man instead.

[conor912]

IMO there's no way career closers should get in and not career DH's. I am from Boston where David Ortiz is a God, regardless of steroid speculation. There is no arguing that he was one of the most clutch, most feared hitters in the game for the better part of a decade, yet when he becomes eligible you're going to hear cries from every corner of the baseball world that he doesn't deserve it because he never played in the field. As for Hoffman and the other closers, electing a guy who threw 40 pitches/week for his entire career is a joke.

[HRBAKER]

The stats although certainly there seem to be of limited importance to a number of writers who question their legitimacy.

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

The stats although certainly there seem to be of limited importance to a number of writers who question their legitimacy.

Yeah, and that's one of the things that I find to be so ironic and hypocritical. The stats are really important when one is championing a given player for induction. Black Ink, Gray Inc., HOF monitor, HOF standards, pure stats and advanced metrics. However, those same stats become "suspect," potentially illegitimate, and thus irrelevant when that same person is arguing against the induction of someone else. Funny how that works.

[johnmh71]

Every time one of the roid guys comes onto the ballot, it should force the Veterans Committee to take a hard look at some of the guys who dominated their era legitimately in the past. I would rather see them put in one of those guys from the 16 team days before one of the offenders.

[HRBAKER]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

Yeah, and that's one of the things that I find to be so ironic and hypocritical. The stats are really important when one is championing a given player for induction. Black Ink, Gray Inc., HOF monitor, HOF standards, pure stats and advanced metrics. However, those same stats become "suspect," potentially illegitimate, and thus irrelevant when that same person is arguing against the induction of someone else. Funny how that works.

That is what PEDs have given us.

[bcbgcbrcb]

To say that Bonds and Clemens should be in the Hall because their stats were good enough before PED's makes no sense. The same thing could have been said for Joe Jackson and Pete Rose. Does it look like those two will be getting in any time soon? Ever?

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by johnmh71

Every time one of the roid guys comes onto the ballot, it should force the Veterans Committee to take a hard look at some of the guys who dominated their era legitimately in the past. I would rather see them put in one of those guys from the 16 team days before one of the offenders.

So who dominated their era "legitimately"? I think the assumption that occurred is one of the biggest problems I have with this whole discussion. I would suggest that most of them cheated (wasn't it Durocher who said that "if you're not cheating, you're not trying"), and that your tolerance for the type of cheating that occurred really forms the basis for your viewpoint about who should be elected to the HOF. Are there levels of cheating such that some types are ok, while others should keep one out of the HOF? Please discuss.

[bcbgcbrcb]

To me, the only valid argument for Bonds and Clemens is that you resign yourself to the fact that during the era of their playing careers, the majority of players were using PED's so if "all" of their contemporaries were doing it, the playing field was level and these two excelled in this environment above all others. Of course, now that opens the door for those players who were one level below the performance of Bonds & Clemens, namely Palmeiro, Ramirez, Pudge, etc. At least now you are judging everyone the same way as always, by stats and not PED use.

I know many people will hate reading this argument but it makes sense.

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

To say that Bonds and Clemens should be in the Hall because their stats were good enough before PED's makes no sense. The same thing could have been said for Joe Jackson and Pete Rose. Does it look like those two will be getting in any time soon? Ever?

Phil, I absolutely didn't say that. Rose doesn't get in because, as I said earlier, he violated the one rule -- the one that says that if you bet on baseball you are kicked out and ineligible -- that is on every clubhouse door. I am more sympathetic to Jackson's plight, since I believe that Comiskey and his cronies were evil bastards who are far worse character-wise than the players who they screwed.

Bonds and Clemens were probably HOFers before there was ever a PED issue involving them. But that's not the biggest issue to me. Rather, IMO, PEDs were a fact of baseball during most of their tenure and, at a minimum, I think baseball condoned it. I think it is hypocritical to jump on the bandwagon and shoot at them while idolizing the earlier HOF players who also cheated and/or suffered from even worse character flaws. Their body of work made them HOFers just as much as the racists, killers, thieves, other drug users and other cheaters are. I understand that my position here is probably in the minority, but at least it has the virtue of being consistent.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by howard38

Mariano Rivera was not really a failed starter as he was only given the chance to start ten games as a rookie. Prior to that he had been a very good starter in the minors. He may have been given another chance to start in his sophomore year but he was so good as a reliever in the playoffs that he was made the Yankees set-up man instead.

Rivera was a solid minor league starter who was always old for the league he was in. His final full year in the minors he had good but not great numbers....only about a strikeout every other inning. Then he got lit up like a Christmas tree as a 25 year old starter in the majors. Perhaps not a failed starter but, at age 26 with a good arm but few quality pitches and solid but unspectacular minor league numbers as a starter....he was removed from that role. There was certainly a reason for it.

Tom C

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by dgo71

One third of 1st Round picks never get even a day in the big leagues. Meanwhile, Piazza was selected in a round that doesn't even exist anymore. I think draft position is the weakest barometer you could have selected to make a case against, or for, a player's HOF worthiness.

The front office decided to groom Hoffman as a closer because they recognized the need to have an effective closer at the big league level and he had a howitzer for an arm. That's not at all to say he could not have started had the organization chosen to go that way. We'll of course never know, but many quality big league starters were two-pitch guys in the low minors. That's why the minor leagues exist, to develop players.

He was drafted out of college....so had he been a pitcher in college his being drafted in the 13th round suggest a pitcher with plenty of flaws. So in the case of a college pitcher, being drafted in the 13th round tells me that you are not especially highly regarded as a pitcher. This turns out to be a non issue because he was not a college pitcher, but a college junior being drafted in the 13th round as a pitcher screams future reliever.

Tom C

[kailes2872]

Originally Posted by dgo71

I hear this statement a lot around this time of year. The fact is nobody knows for sure when these guys started using, so saying they were "already HOFers" is a huge assumption. For that matter, maybe without PEDs these guys suffer a career-ending injury. Maybe they put up 8 straight horrible seasons and their career line is just mediocre. A player isn't a HOFer 7 years into their career, it's the whole body of work. And these guys' bodies of work are tainted. I don't feel the least little bit sorry for them and regardless of when they started or how long they used, if they cheated, they in no way deserve the game's highest honor.

Fair statement. My only point was that even their biggest critics accused Clemens of juicing only once he got to Toronto (192 wins in Boston and 3 Cy Young's prior to that). The two guys in SF accused Bonds in (I believe) '98 or '99 - as he was jealous of the hype and $'s given to Mac and Sosa. If that is to be believed, he had a nice career and 3 MVPs up until that point.

If they retire at that point, they are short career guys with lots of major awards and black numbers. If they flat line and do a 2nd half of the career that is 1/2 of the first, it is like Albert after the FA signing in LA, but probably still on pace for an induction (probably not first ballot, but it seems that it was trending).

If there was a sign on the clubhouse door that said - if you use Steroids or HGH and are caught - or there is circumstantial evidence in your hat size, chin, or back acne - then you will be banned from the game and not allowed into the HOF, then I would line up next to the torch and pitchfork guys. There wasn't. It was the evolution of the greenies culture of the past decade/generation as a way to help the guys get through 6 months and 162 games. That is just my opinion though. It will be heavy banter for the next 72 hours and then we will put it back on the shelf until this time next year when we revisit.

[Duluth Eskimo]

This is the 800 lb elephant in the room that people who love Griffey refuse to consider. He was a great guy and an incredible ball player, but come on. He guy fell apart after pretty much being the most athletic talent in baseball.

P.S. - I am not saying that Griffey was on any performance enhancers, I just find it a bit odd how a gangly guy hit for so much power early in his career and then broke down the last half. I don't know what the indicators are, however, in this world where we are quick to declare if someone was a user and someone else was not a user, our crowd sourced justice is quick to declare him innocent (which he very well may be) and so many others that might have had acne on their back, or hit home runs despite a small stature are quickly declared guilty. I hate this time of year because Bond and Clemens were HOFers before they were ever suspected of using.[/QUOTE]

[dgo71]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

And Bonds still leads in homers, walks, intentional walks, etc. No one wanted to pitch to him. And MLB hasn't taken any of those stats away. Nor can it. Same with Clemens. Saying they cheated as a reason to keep him out is sort of silly IMO, because the laundry list of those who cheated but are in the HOF is long and vaunted. It includes Mays and Mantle (greenies) among others. MLB won't deal with the PED issue, because it can't, being that it was so complicit.

When all is said and done, I don't suppose it really matters much what the voters think. I mean, we complain about their votes every election. And when all that complaining is over, Bonds will still have hit more home runs than anyone else in MLB ever. You can pretend otherwise, but every time you look up the stats, Bonds will be the number one guy. Clemens will still have won more Cy Youngs than anyone else. The guys who were never proven to have used (oh, that would include Bonds, who never failed a drug test but lets exclude him for purposes of this discussion) such as Bagwell and Piazza will still be getting screwed based on some silly "suspicion" that they may have, and none of the stats that are currently oh so important to the HOF discussion will have changed.

PEDs happened. Baseball turned a blind eye because it brought the fans back after the strike and made the owners a lot of money. The same writers who are so sanctimonious about it now weren't so much then, because their columns got them readers and, thus, money. The whole current HOF voting dynamic is bullshit and all the hypocrisy is rather sickening IMO. By any metric that is now in use other than the emotional "he cheated," which can be applied to many of the people already elected, Bonds is a HOFer. So is Clemens. So is Pudge. So are many others.

It is amazing to me that some of the same people who are so against Bonds and Clemens are so in favor of Rose, who violated the most basic rule -- the one that is posted on the door of every clubhouse -- that explicitly says that if you bet on baseball, you are banned for life. Now, that is a rule that is hard to miss, unlike the loosey-goosey steroid baloney that everyone now retrospectively wants to say was so hard and fast in the day. When baseball chooses to address PED usage, one way or the other, which will never happen because it was so complicit, maybe I'll change my stance. Until then, my position is that although the HOF is rapidly becoming largely irrelevant, Bonds and Clemens are the two most deserving ELIGIBLE outsiders looking in. OK, my rant is done.

I didn't see anyone deny that Bonds hit more HRs than anybody. The fact is he cheated to get there, and now nobody will ever know what he would have done without cheating. It's the doubt that makes the steroid scandal such a murky issue.

Comparing the medical steroids of this day and age to greenies is another favored arguement of steroid-era supporters, but it's about as apples-to-oranges as you can get. Steroids improve muscle regeneration, make you stronger, faster, even improve your vision and eye-hand coordination. Greenies are basically the same as a cup of coffee. A jolt of caffeine. It's like saying a Porsche and a Kia are both cars.

It's true, Bonds never failed a drug test. Because they didn't test for HGH and testosterone then. So it's not at all surprising that he never failed a test that was never administered. However, does anyone truly believe that his dramatic and magical uptick in power in his late 30's, so dramatic that in the 130+ history of the game it had never happened before, was completely natural? Maybe it was his ego that caused his head to grow two cap sizes? Anyone who says Bonds did not juice is delusional, and I'm sorry that I cannot think of a nicer way to put that, but it's true.

Steroids may not have been in MLB's little rulebook, but there was definitely a U.S. LAW making them illegal to use in the context these athletes were taking them. I don't know, but I'd think if it's illegal in the United States it would stand to reason they shouldn't be allowed in the game. The rulebook doesn't say I shouldn't run out to the mound and stab the pitcher either. Some things need to be assumed. If these guys thought steroids were A-OK then why was it done in such secrecy and why was there such a stigma on anyone who outted it, such as Canseco? They knew full well what they did was wrong.

I do completely agree with your stance on the writers and MLB itself however. It makes me sick to think a writer (can't remember who right now) actually said he didn't vote for Biggio because Biggio knew guys were using and didn't say anything. Really? Pot calling the kettle black if ever there was such a thing. And MLB certainly created this mess by condoning it, so their stance now is ironic and sad. However, the hypocrisy of these two entities doesn't justify the actions of those who knowingly cheated IMO.

[HRBAKER]

350 Home Runs after the age of 35 - simply amazing.

[dgo71]

Originally Posted by kailes2872

Fair statement. My only point was that even their biggest critics accused Clemens of juicing only once he got to Toronto (192 wins in Boston and 3 Cy Young's prior to that). The two guys in SF accused Bonds in (I believe) '98 or '99 - as he was jealous of the hype and $'s given to Mac and Sosa. If that is to be believed, he had a nice career and 3 MVPs up until that point.

This is when the accusations surfaced. It does not mean the player had just began using at that point. Maybe it was, but maybe it was 5 years earlier or more. Again, we'll never know, nor will we know what the "true" numbers might have been. They may have still been stellar. Maybe not though. That pesky doubt, that they brought upon themselves, is why they are penalized today.

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by dgo71

I didn't see anyone deny that Bonds hit more HRs than anybody. The fact is he cheated to get there, and now nobody will ever know what he would have done without cheating. It's the doubt that makes the steroid scandal such a murky issue.

Comparing the medical steroids of this day and age to greenies is another favored arguement of steroid-era supporters, but it's about as apples-to-oranges as you can get. Steroids improve muscle regeneration, make you stronger, faster, even improve your vision and eye-hand coordination. Greenies are basically the same as a cup of coffee. A jolt of caffeine. It's like saying a Porsche and a Kia are both cars.

It's true, Bonds never failed a drug test. Because they didn't test for HGH and testosterone then. So it's not at all surprising that he never failed a test that was never administered. However, does anyone truly believe that his dramatic and magical uptick in power in his late 30's, so dramatic that in the 130+ history of the game it had never happened before, was completely natural? Maybe it was his ego that caused his head to grow two cap sizes? Anyone who says Bonds did not juice is delusional, and I'm sorry that I cannot think of a nicer way to put that, but it's true.

Steroids may not have been in MLB's little rulebook, but there was definitely a U.S. LAW making them illegal to use in the context these athletes were taking them. I don't know, but I'd think if it's illegal in the United States it would stand to reason they shouldn't be allowed in the game. The rulebook doesn't say I shouldn't run out to the mound and stab the pitcher either. Some things need to be assumed. If these guys thought steroids were A-OK then why was it done in such secrecy and why was there such a stigma on anyone who outted it, such as Canseco? They knew full well what they did was wrong.

I do completely agree with your stance on the writers and MLB itself however. It makes me sick to think a writer (can't remember who right now) actually said he didn't vote for Biggio because Biggio knew guys were using and didn't say anything. Really? Pot calling the kettle black if ever there was such a thing. And MLB certainly created this mess by condoning it, so their stance now is ironic and sad. However, the hypocrisy of these two entities doesn't justify the actions of those who knowingly cheated IMO.

Wow, seriously? Greenies, which were just as illegal as peds, are OK because they were really sort of like coffee? Spare me. Your allusion to running out and stabbing the pitcher applies equally to them. That argument is bullshit and I imagine you know it. Greenies were used because the players believed that they improved eye-hand coordination. And they were used pretty much every game back then. But it wasn't common knowledge and so we couldn't express what I'm sure is now our collective disdain for that form of cheating when we were arguing about the HOF. Knowing what we now know you wouldn't say Mays or Mantle should be elected, right? They were cheaters, true?

Fast forward 20 years and that type of cheating is OK because now we're really upset about the newest form that it has taken. Cheating is cheating. It has happened since the game began and it continues to this day. Give me a freaking break.

[dgo71]

You clearly don't understand the difference in the effects of amphetamines vs steroids. Let alone that greenies were prescribed by team doctors in many instances, which is perfectly legal, as opposed to some back alley pharmacist who is selling metabolic steroids. Guys like Mantle took them because he was out late every night drinking. So yeah, it's basically coffee, and forms of amphetamine can be bought over the counter at any truck stop. They woke players up, they didn't turn long fly outs into home runs.

[howard38]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

Rivera was a solid minor league starter who was always old for the league he was in. His final full year in the minors he had good but not great numbers....only about a strikeout every other inning. Then he got lit up like a Christmas tree as a 25 year old starter in the majors. Perhaps not a failed starter but, at age 26 with a good arm but few quality pitches and solid but unspectacular minor league numbers as a starter....he was removed from that role. There was certainly a reason for it.

Tom C

Of course there was a reason for it but the reason was not failure, which was my only point.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by howard38

Of course there was a reason for it but the reason was not failure, which was my only point.

The reason was they saw the high likelihood of him flaming out as a starter and figured his limited pitch selection and good arm lent itself to a role in the bullpen. They saw a flawed starter who likely would not help them much in that role. Flawed....failed....semantics really.

Tom C

[rats60]

Originally Posted by conor912

IMO there's no way career closers should get in and not career DH's. I am from Boston where David Ortiz is a God, regardless of steroid speculation. There is no arguing that he was one of the most clutch, most feared hitters in the game for the better part of a decade, yet when he becomes eligible you're going to hear cries from every corner of the baseball world that he doesn't deserve it because he never played in the field. As for Hoffman and the other closers, electing a guy who threw 40 pitches/week for his entire career is a joke.

Ortiz without steroids is a borderline case. When you look at advanced metrics, he is behind other 1b like Keith Hernsndez, Will Clark, Fred McGriff and Norm Cash. He does have a good OPS and post season success. War of 47.7 is not good. He may have had a chance to eventually get in if clean.

The problem is that he failed a drug test early in his Red Sox career. That taints everything he did in Boston. He sure wasn't very good in Minnesota. Piazza and Bagwell are struggling to get in with much stronger resumes and weaker connections to steroids. I don't see any way Ortiz even gets 40% of the vote, let alone 75.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

Wow, seriously? Greenies, which were just as illegal as peds, are OK because they were really sort of like coffee? Spare me. Your allusion to running out and stabbing the pitcher applies equally to them. That argument is bullshit and I imagine you know it. Greenies were used because the players believed that they improved eye-hand coordination. And they were used pretty much every game back then. But it wasn't common knowledge and so we couldn't express what I'm sure is now our collective disdain for that form of cheating when we were arguing about the HOF. Knowing what we now know you wouldn't say Mays or Mantle should be elected, right? They were cheaters, true?

Fast forward 20 years and that type of cheating is OK because now we're really upset about the newest form that it has taken. Cheating is cheating. It has happened since the game began and it continues to this day. Give me a freaking break.

Cheating? Do you consider the pre 1920 spit ball pitchers cheaters? Should we try to get them kicked out of the hof? Baseball didn't make greenies illegal until the 70s. Baseball's drug policy was broad and included steroids at that time. I hate the guys who want to say steroids weren't illegal until they started testing for them in the 2000s, because it's not true. Fay Vincent sent a memo to all teams in 1991 stating that to all teams because he was aware of their widespread use in baseball.

As far as Bonds, it is very naive to believe he started using in 98-99. Steroids were in the Giants clubhouse in the late 80s. He had a major jump in production when he moved from a hitters park in 92 to a pitchers park in 93. It is far more likely that he began using in 93. His production jumped again when he hooked up with Balco,the best in the business, in 2000-01.

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by dgo71

You clearly don't understand the difference in the effects of amphetamines vs steroids. Let alone that greenies were prescribed by team doctors in many instances, which is perfectly legal, as opposed to some back alley pharmacist who is selling metabolic steroids. Guys like Mantle took them because he was out late every night drinking. So yeah, it's basically coffee, and forms of amphetamine can be bought over the counter at any truck stop. They woke players up, they didn't turn long fly outs into home runs.

Well, I'm up this morning drinking my greenies, er, coffee. I understand the difference between the two, and they both represent a method of cheating. You can buy various forms of peds over the counter too, or at least used to be able to. How many players have been suspended for taking a banned substance (ironically often an amphetamine) that they bought in an over the counter cold, allergy or cough medicine? And right or wrong, the perception was that the greenies increased hand-eye coordination, which presumably translates into an increased ability to hit the ball. See ball more clearly, move bat faster, hit ball better, you know, that sort of thing. The difference is simply not nearly so much as you have talked yourself into believing.

The fact of the matter is that cheating has been around as long as baseball has been around. If you have convinced yourself that ped usage is a type of cheating that is worse than other types, so be it. But don't try to delude yourself, or me, that one is perfectly OK and the other isn't.

[darwinbulldog]

Unless we assume that pitchers are disproportionately more likely to get caught when they cheat (i.e., stupider), there is pretty good evidence that pitchers were more likely than hitters to have been juicing. That is, a higher percentage of pitchers than of position players used PEDs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/18/sp...anted=all&_r=0

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

I'm very surprised that we are now heavily into the PED time frame of HOF balloting and no one has commented on the fact that the most recent selectees are almost all pitchers, Maddux, Glavine, Pedro, Big Unit, Smoltz (most likely) with only Frank Thomas being a position player. This could continue with guys like Schilling & Mussina garnering more votes as the PED position players begin to show up more and more on future ballots. Is it realistic to think that the only "clean" players during this era were pitchers? Why do we assume that they were not using?

In my opinion, Bagwell was a user. His minor league and amateur resume just do not add up to his major league power numbers. I know anything's possible but.......

Piazza's minor league numbers match up somewhat better but did anyone see him during is first year or two in the minors? Was there a big difference in body size and type from his major league physique?

I would also like to make a comprehensive list of known users who finished with the best career stats. Off the top of my head, these are the ones that I can think of:

Bonds
McGwire
Sosa
Sheffield
Clemens
Pettitte
Palmeiro
M. Ramirez
I. Rodriguez
A. Rodriguez
Bagwell (IMHO)
J. Gonzalez
M. Tejada
Braun
Canseco

Does anyone else have any others that would be surefire HOF'ers based on their career stats?

[darwinbulldog]

I concur with this. I would just say that Aaron, Mays, and Mantle were cheating the best way they knew how and that Bonds and Clemens were cheating the best way they knew how. Given the scientific advancements of the decades that separated them, Bonds and Clemens were able to get better stuff than their predecessors. But I see no particular reason to believe that if Bonds and Clemens had been born earlier that they wouldn't have been using greenies or that if Aaron, Mays, and Mantle had been born later that they wouldn't have been using PEDs.

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

Well, I'm up this morning drinking my greenies, er, coffee. I understand the difference between the two, and they both represent a method of cheating. You can buy various forms of peds over the counter too, or at least used to be able to. How many players have been suspended for taking a banned substance (ironically often an amphetamine) that they bought in an over the counter cold, allergy or cough medicine? And right or wrong, the perception was that the greenies increased hand-eye coordination, which presumably translates into an increased ability to hit the ball. See ball more clearly, move bat faster, hit ball better, you know, that sort of thing. The difference is simply not nearly so much as you have talked yourself into believing.

The fact of the matter is that cheating has been around as long as baseball has been around. If you have convinced yourself that ped usage is a type of cheating that is worse than other types, so be it. But don't try to delude yourself, or me, that one is perfectly OK and the other isn't.

[packs]

It blows my mind that there could possibly be people who don't view Mariano Rivera as a HOFer, let alone one of the greatest pitchers of all time.

Arguments over him being a failed starter don't hold water to me. He wasn't a failed starter. He found his role and dominated in it. Your starter can pitch a great game. But until you finish the game, it's not a win. So unless your position is that starters should have to pitch 9 innings every time they pitch, your argument that relief pitchers aren't important doesn't make a lot of sense.

You don't win until the 9th inning is over. Mariano owned that 9th inning. And in the post-season you were more or less doomed: 8 - 1 with an 0.70 ERA and 42 saves.

That's 50 post-season wins for your team when you had Rivera in the pen. That cannot be denied or diminished. Not to mention that before he even pitched the baseball, you already knew what he was going to throw. And you still couldn't hit it. He was exceptional and extraordinary, everything a HOFer should be.

[jbhofmann]

Adderall is not a substance that will turn deep flys into HRs but it is a banned performance enhancing drug.

Greenies cannot be simply dismissed just because the league didn't recognize the benefits of taking them.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Eventually it will come to light that someone (or more) already in the HOF used PED's during the 1986-2006 era. What happens then?

That's why the more I think about it, the era should just be documented as the steroids era and we should go on with our HOF selections as normal based on stats taken in context of their own era, etc. Those with the best numbers will get in and life will go on........

Jose Canseco, source of much of the known info, has indicated that up to 75% of Major Leaguers were users at some point. He has been right on just about everything that he has told so far, so why doubt him now.......

If Canseco is correct, how can you really differentiate who did and did not?

[darwinbulldog]

I think there's at least as much reason to suspect Rickey Henderson as to suspect Bagwell or Piazza.

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

Eventually it will come to light that someone (or more) already in the HOF used PED's during the 1986-2006 era. What happens then?

That's why the more I think about it, the era should just be documented as the steroids era and we should go on with our HOF selections as normal based on stats, etc. Those with the best numbers will get in and life will go on........

[bcbgcbrcb]

Wasn't it obvious enough to MLB when Luis Gonzalez hit 57 home runs in the early 2000's.........

[bcbgcbrcb]

Well, Glenn, Henderson played on the same Oakland teams with McGwire, Canseco, etc. so..........

[triwak]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

That's why the more I think about it, the era should just be documented as the steroids era and we should go on with our HOF selections as normal based on stats taken in context of their own era, etc. Those with the best numbers will get in and life will go on........

100% agree!

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by packs

It blows my mind that there could possibly be people who don't view Mariano Rivera as a HOFer, let alone one of the greatest pitchers of all time.

Arguments over him being a failed starter don't hold water to me. He wasn't a failed starter. He found his role and dominated in it. Your starter can pitch a great game. But until you finish the game, it's not a win. So unless your position is that starters should have to pitch 9 innings every time they pitch, your argument that relief pitchers aren't important doesn't make a lot of sense.

You don't win until the 9th inning is over. Mariano owned that 9th inning. And in the post-season you were more or less doomed: 8 - 1 with an 0.70 ERA and 42 saves.

That's 50 post-season wins for your team when you had Rivera in the pen. That cannot be denied or diminished. Not to mention that before he even pitched the baseball, you already knew what he was going to throw. And you still couldn't hit it. He was exceptional and extraordinary, everything a HOFer should be.

Rivera pitched about 1 inning per game in 40% of the games the Yankees played in. 70 or so innings per year. I simply cannot see anyone who played less than 5% of the innings that his team played during the season as being a Hall Of Famer. No matter how much he dominated in those 5% of team innings. Now....he was easily the best ever for what he was. No one even close really. To me, the best of a flawed bunch who played so few innings is simply not Hall Of Fame worthy.

And yes, he was a flawed starter. He was a two pitch pitcher when he came up. He got lit up as a starter where he got exposed the second time through the lineup. He was put into the bullpen where his limited arsenal would get better results. Then he perfected the cutter and that pitch was so good that until the last few years of his career he was a one pitch pitcher. He would never get away with that as a starter.

I certainly respect the opinions of those who believe he should be there, and he likely will be a first ballot inductee. I simply do not value the position of relief pitcher much.

Tom C

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

I think there's at least as much reason to suspect Rickey Henderson as to suspect Bagwell or Piazza.

Suspect Rickey LOL Rickey looked like he was juicing so hard at the end of his career that it was amazing he was not walking around with a needle sticking out his butt cheek.

To those comparing greenies to coffee, WOW. Ok to be fair 1 greenie would be like coffee if you could down 50 gallons of it in 5 minutes.

My all-time favorite player is Wade Boggs. He was never caught cheating(in baseball) but like your favorite player I can guarantee he did. Whether it was greenies, steroids, corked bat or something else they cheated. The poster boy of baseball Mickey Mantle did do greenies, had a corked bat, and was rumored to do steroids. Yes steroids were in sports during his time and the 50 years before his time. I am not saying Mantle did steroids because it was way before my time, just that it was rumored he and Maris both juiced.

Also David Ortiz should never be allowed in the HOF unless it is to visit with friends.

Right or wrong these are my opinions and till proven wrong I stand by them.