OT: No One Elected to the Hall?

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by novakjr

What exactly is that supposed to mean? Are you trying to say, that they would be viewed in a better light had they not broken those records?
If Bonds, Mcgwire and Sosa finished with 60 in those seasons, or if Bonds finished his career with 713, then steroids wouldn't have been that big of a deal? That their actions would somehow have been less of an embarassment to the game?

I'm just busting your balls. To an extent. I don't think the final numbers really have to do much with anything. Maris hit 61 without steroids, albeit in more games than it took Ruth to hit 60. Mac, Sosa and Bonds each passed that record with it. Same for the all time records. Ruth set it against a bunch of white guys. Aaron against a more diverse, yet more watered down field, with more games in a season.. Bonds against and even more diverse(yet even more watered down) field, and even more games in a season, while on steroids. Point is, we know all the facts behind these numbers and that won't change. Neither set of numbers, diminishes the others..

David, you've read things into my post that weren't there. Busting my balls is okay, but bust them over something I said.

Yes, the power numbers are sacred. You mentioned the problems surrounding Maris' breaking of Ruth's record, which resulted in an '*' in the record books - just another illustration of how important these numbers are to baseball fans.

No, if the numbers had been lower, it would NOT have made steroids acceptable. Many (most?) board members think Bonds should be in the HOF anyway. If he had not broken the two HR records, I think even more people would be in favor of allowing him (and the others) in. It's just my opinion, but I'm sticking with it.

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by Runscott

If he had not broken the two HR records, I think even more people would be in favor of allowing him (and the others) in. It's just my opinion, but I'm sticking with it.

For the most part. That's exactly what I thought you meant the first time. The wording in my response may have been a bit sarcastically extreme, but at it's core, what you just said, is exactly what I meant.. Maybe I was wrong in wording it that steroids would've been more acceptable, but you pretty much just backed up that the PLAYERS who used them would be..

ESPN just posted a great article.
http://espn.go.com/mlb/hof13/story/_...b-hall-fame-be

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by novakjr

For the most part. That's exactly what I thought you meant the first time. The wording in my response may have been a bit sarcastically extreme, but at it's core, what you just said, is exactly what I meant.. Maybe I was wrong in wording it that steroids would've been more acceptable, but you pretty much just backed up that the PLAYERS who used them would be..

ESPN just posted a great article.
http://espn.go.com/mlb/hof13/story/_...b-hall-fame-be

Okay, so crucify me.