OT: Who's your vote

[yanksfan09]

I haven't voted here. However, I don't get why Biggio is assumed to be a choir boy, when everyone else from the era is thrown under the bus so far? It seems as though if you had any power, natural or not, you are highly suspect even without any real evidence of wrong doing now.

I'll start by saying I don't believe Biggio juiced. However, just because you aren't a big time power guy does not mean you're clean at all. Tons of small skinny speedy type players in majors and minors have been caught since MLB implemented drug testing. Remember Alex Sanchez? As well as a bunch of pitchers. It seems like besides Clemens, most pitchers aren't really suspect from the era, nor are guys who didn't hit 40+ hr every year. However the failed drug test results in last 5 or so years doesn't justify that idea. As looking at Biggio, he was a small middle infielder who had a power spike from 6 to 21 in 92-93. Again, I'm not at all saying I think he was guilty but I don't get why no one seems to remotely think he could be when any larger player with any power isn't treated the same, even if no evidence against them.

Everyone can agree that Bonds and Clemes, McGwire and Sosa, Palmeiro etc... are guilty. However, the whole situation is a huge mess and we will never know all the clean and dirty players. People talk about hearing the other 103 names on the sealed list like it is the answer to the whole era. Well I'll tell ya, even if they released that, which I don't think the ever will, that is not nearly a complete story of who done it either! That was just one random test from one year. The ones that failed were obviously guilty but the ones that didn't fail certainly were NOT necessarily clean ie....Lance Armstrong...

I'm rambling a bit, but I just don't see the logic with Biggio receiving such high voting when others with no evidence against them are seemingly being demonized and being punished as guilty until proven innocent. Biggio also never led the league in hits or average and was only a .280 hitter with minimal power. He had a long healthy career where he was able to compile some nice lifetime stats but there are ton of players I'd vote in before Biggio!

[bosoxfan]

Fred Mcgriff

[bbcard1]

All depends on what you want, and I have mellowed a bit as I got older, but in an odd, passionate way. I see no way you can have a legitimate hall of fame without the players who were clearly among the best of all time. They used illegal drugs, but it was common in the national game at the time...and it is a reasonable bet that the top performers would have been there without it...it's just what you did at the time. So we are steadfastly against regular use of illegal substances? We're going to have to show Babe Ruth the door...he is known to have used and quite probably abused alcohol, which was an illegal substance at the time. Only want nice people? Sorry Mr. Cobb, you have to go. There is some irony is singling out the absolute sins of a few players we are ignoring the greater sins of the game, which are probably less morally repugnant that the segregation of an earlier time. It is probably worth mentioning that, while I am not sure either of them are hall of fame worthy, the Sosa/McGwire home run battle did a great deal to bring baseball back from the bring after the strike and cancelled world series.

[Davalillo]

First, I would not let in any of the players that are guilty or strongly suspected of steroid use. That includes Bagwell, Piazza and probably Biggio. Perhaps players should be forced tp take a lie detector test. I believe that a significant percentage of players were taking steroids back then and that "The Bagwell Conspiracy" is largely true.

Second I am a "small Hall" guy and believe only the best of the best should be in. That too would exclude Biggio.

I would likely vote for Maddux, Thomas and Glavine next year though.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I still think 3000 hits gets you there, although I admit I would have had a tough time supporting Harold Baines. I would have voted for Biggio.

[EvilKing00]

I loved Craig Biggio but was a 281 lifetime hitter, 414 SB (ranks him 64 in SB ever), he did compile over 3000 hits, but was he one of the best players of his time? of all time?

Maybe if he hit 300 or 320 for his life time stat, but I just dont see it.

[EvilKing00]

Originally Posted by Davalillo

First, I would not let in any of the players that are guilty or strongly suspected of steroid use. That includes Bagwell, Piazza and probably Biggio. Perhaps players should be forced tp take a lie detector test. I believe that a significant percentage of players were taking steroids back then and that "The Bagwell Conspiracy" is largely true.

Second I am a "small Hall" guy and believe only the best of the best should be in. That too would exclude Biggio.

I would likely vote for Maddux, Thomas and Glavine next year though.

How do you know who did it or not? Palmero didnt look like a roid guy but was cought, Bonds DOES look like a roid guy and NEVER tested posative. What about Arod? he dosnt look like one but was cought too. Piazza DOES look like one but wasnt cought....What about Randy Johnson, never cought, BUT 40 years old throwing 100mph, and looked like roid rage every pitch, lol.

I dont think we can guess who did and who didnt, Just not fair. What if they put in Madux and glavin, But some players know and seen them doing it. We will never know everyone who did it.

Those with the numbers should get in, just like its always been. We are Judging the players based on those they played against, We Are NOT saying they are better then Babe Ruth or anyone from the years before.

[Touch'EmAll]

Most of the players mentioned couldn't even hold Bo's jockstrap. They are just not the same caliber of player as Bo.

[peterb69]

I would not vote for anybody on this list. Of the 1st timers, only Bonds & Clemens are worthy of that extra distinction of being voted in on the 1st time.
But as a punishment for the fact they did use something, they do not get my vote until year 2.

As for the non 1st timers, I do not think they are worthy to be Hall of Famers. For that matter, many people already inducted in are not worthy in my opinion.

As for next year, I would vote Bonds, Clemens, & Maddux. I don't think Glavine and Thomas are hall of famers.

I would make 1 write in canditate vote however for this year....Pete Rose

[Touch'EmAll]

Greg Maddux was a monster pitcher. Great in any era, and especially great in his era considering the PHD users he made look silly. Down the road, historians will look at Maddux and start ranking him up there with the very best of all time. Not flashy, not big, not strong, just lethally effective.

[Jlighter]

Originally Posted by peterb69

I don't think Glavine and Thomas are hall of famers.

Funny Joke.

[iwantitiwinit]

Two words. Albert Belle.

[dgo71]

Originally Posted by peterb69

I don't think Glavine and Thomas are hall of famers.

Seriously???? Yet you support known cheaters. Mind-boggling.

[ctownboy]

I get SOOOO tired of hearing and reading about the comparisons of Barry Bonds using steroids and Babe Ruth drinking. It doesn't matter, the two are apples and oranges.

Did Babe Ruth drink during Prohibition? Most likely? Was that illegal? Yes. Did his drinking help him on the baseball field? Not likely. Honestly, how hard do you think to was for Ruth to get drunk one night and then show up and play a baseball game the next day? How hard do you think it was for him to wear a wool uniform and stand in 90 degree heat while hung over? How hard do you think it was for him to try and hit a fast ball while staring with bleary eyes at the pitcher who is standing in bright sunlight? I believe if Ruth drank as much as what has been said about him and he played baseball in a hung over state, his stats probably were HURT because of it.

Years after Mickey Mantle retired, I think he was remorseful for drinking and partying so much during his career. I think he said something to the effect of that he wished he had taken better care of his body and NOT partied so much because he would have liked to see what type of numbers he could have put up if he had.

Nope, steroids were illegal when Bonds took them, Commissioner Fay Vincent had sent out a letter in 1991 stating they were against the rules in baseball and that he would punish those who were found to have taken them. On top of this, steroids are a KNOWN performance enhancer.

So comparing what Babe Ruth did to what Barry Bonds did is just plain stupid.

Ruth did something that was illegal but that was most likely detrimental to his stats and career while Bonds did something that was illegal but was VERY helpful to his career.

Oh yea, one last thing. People say that Bonds was already on his way to the HOF when he started using steroids (if he started using in 1999). This, to me, is even more of a reason to keep him OUT of the HOF. If he was already putting up great stats then WHY did he need to use steroids to begin with? Answer - EGO!!!!

Bonds couldn't keep his EGO out of the equation. He couldn't let "lesser" players like McGwire and Sosa soak up the limelight and publicity. So, he took the steroids to "show" the lesser players who was king. In doing so, he put up numbers he otherwise wouldn't have, broke records he otherwise wouldn't have, was paid more than he otherwise wouldn't have been paid and garnered more attention than he otherwise would have gotten.

Bonds didn't NEED to take steroids but he most likely did. Bonds COULD have stayed clean, put up big numbers and THEN talked about OTHER people putting up big numbers and how those numbers were likely tainted. Bonds COULD have been a Hall Of Famer AND a stand up guy who helped clean the sport up. As it is, he is neither.

David