HOF Future Eligibles

[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.

[HRBAKER]

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

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.