HOF Future Eligibles

[Runscott]

I think too many of the voters believe Bagwell and Piazza might be steroid users. The gate still hasn't opened for anyone who even 'might be' one of them.

[Centauri]

Griffey for sure. Manny and Pudge Rodriguez would be no doubt about it HOF'ers based on their resumes. Trevor Hoffman?!? No way.

Allow me moment to laugh at any writer who does not vote for the Big Unit. You sir, are an idiot.

[sycks22]

I know we're talking about future HOF ballots, but it's amazing how dominate Pedro was for a 7-8 span in the middle of his career. From '97 - '03 he led the league in ERA 5 years with era's of 2.89 and an injury plagued year of 2.39 as his other years. Averaged over 250k's and this is all in the AL without the pitcher hitting and obvious steroid era. This is probably the most dominate a pitcher has been for a 7 year span in the last 50 years. He also won 3 Cy Young's and came in 2nd two more times. 2.20 Era for this 7 years, amazing

[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
Ortiz

Does anyone else have any others that would be surefire HOF'ers based on their career stats? Looks like I missed one big name on my list, just added Ortiz now.

[clydepepper]

I think Jim Thome is almost a no-brainer. A well-liked clean-living power hitter who lasted a long time and was consistently productive.

[packs]

Really surprised Posada doesn't get more love. Other than Pudge and Piazza (both linked to PEDs), who was a better catcher during his era?

If you're the best player at your position in your era, that to me makes you a HOFer.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by packs

Really surprised Posada doesn't get more love. Other than Pudge and Piazza (both linked to PEDs), who was a better catcher during his era?

If you're the best player at your position in your era, that to me makes you a HOFer.

So you think Jack Morris belongs in the hof? I don't think so. Being the best at your position over a period of time doesn't make you a hofer. Posada isn't even the best of his era. Piazza for the early part of his career, Joe Mauer for the later part.

[conor912]

I would be shocked if Posada didn't get in. Probably not first ballot, but soon thereafter. That team was so dominant for those 5-6 years that I think there'll be enough of a cry to push him in.

[packs]

Originally Posted by rats60

So you think Jack Morris belongs in the hof? I don't think so. Being the best at your position over a period of time doesn't make you a hofer. Posada isn't even the best of his era. Piazza for the early part of his career, Joe Mauer for the later part.

I know it's never been proven per se but Piazza is long suspected of PEDs.

Mauer had a good season in 2008 and a great one in 2009, and then played 82 games in 2011, when Posada retired.

It is not the same as Jack Morris. Posada was a switch hitting catcher with power who was great for a decade plus. That's special. There are maybe 2 or 3 great catchers at any given time, who usually burn out after a few good seasons. Sure guys might have a better year, but a better career?

[Greg Sonk]

Griffey is the obvious top of the list of all players not yet inducted, given current voting patterns.

When you have voters refusing to consider Jeff Bagwell despite not being named in the Mitchell report, never failing a drug test, and used andro well before it was a banned substance, anyone in the Manny Ramirez situation has no chance, sadly. That takes out Pudge too. It also sinks Gary Sheffield, who is probably the biggest name I see missing from the discussion.

Posada will get in because WINS, but I wouldn't even take him over Edgar Renteria, who shouldn't sniff the Hall.

Vlad Guerrero is the most interesting one to me. I struggle with objectivity in his case because I've never had more fun watching a position player than I have watching one of his at bats. Realistically, he's very much in that Killebrew/Sheffield/etc group of borderline cases that needs something to push him one way or the other.

I would love to hear someone attempt a cogent argument that Trevor Hoffman of all people is a Hall of Famer and Pedro Martinez isn't. It can't be done. Pedro has exactly one possible strike against him, and it works even more strongly against Hoffman. Please note this isn't a shot directed at anyone other than the BBWAA, because at this point I have so little faith in them that I expect Hoffman to go in first (not that I would vote for him at all).

[t206blogcom]

Griffey Jr within the first 3 times being on the ballot. The rest - no way.

[Robextend]

There is no way Posada is getting into the HOF with 1,600+ hits and awful defense, I don't care how important he was to the Yankees. I think the days of any position player making the HOF with those kind of numbers are over.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Regarding Tim Raines' candidacy, have we all forgotten the drugs? The same issue seemed to derail Dave Parker's HOF chances many years ago. I realize that Raines was a little better player than Parker for his career, although Parker had a higher peak IMHO. Although less qualified, Keith Hernandez too.........

[rats60]

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?

David Ortiz

[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?

[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.

[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

[EvilKing00]

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?

sheffield

[bcbgcbrcb]

Steve:

Sheffield is on my list there.......

[kailes2872]

Originally Posted by sycks22

I know we're talking about future HOF ballots, but it's amazing how dominate Pedro was for a 7-8 span in the middle of his career. From '97 - '03 he led the league in ERA 5 years with era's of 2.89 and an injury plagued year of 2.39 as his other years. Averaged over 250k's and this is all in the AL without the pitcher hitting and obvious steroid era. This is probably the most dominate a pitcher has been for a 7 year span in the last 50 years. He also won 3 Cy Young's and came in 2nd two more times. 2.20 Era for this 7 years, amazing

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.

[dgo71]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

Actually I made a mistake. I forgot Hoffman started as an infielder in the minors, so his draft spot was due to his bat being terrible. That said, however, they did not try to make him a starter. He was a reliever because of his limited amount of major league pitches.

Tom C

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.

[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

[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?

[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)?

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]