POLL: IN or OUT: YES or NO

[Peter_Spaeth]

Niekro, Spahn, and Randy Johnson all put up most of their numbers after 30, if I recall, and into their 40s were still very productive.

Just checked on Randy's 4 straight Cy Youngs -- 35-38.

[packs]

First a guy says cheating is cheating then he says when a person cheated matters. Okay. I'm not following the logic of the pine tar game either. You say that you think Bonds cheated after 1998. That means he cheated for 9 seasons and won 4 MVP awards during that time, but you're relating that to a single game and hiding a baseball bat?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by packs

First a guy says cheating is cheating then he says when a person cheated matters. Okay.

If you're referring to me, I didn't say that, nor did I imply that.

When I say cheating is cheating, I mean if you'll cheat at the little things, you'll cheat at the big things to. If you'll steal a little item, you'll steal a big item too. If you tell a little lie, you'll tell a big lie too. You get the point.

I just don't understand how someone can say Bonds doesn't deserve to be in the HOF for cheating, when others have cheated too. What is your measuring stick? When does the cheating become a bannable offense? So, it's OK to cheat and throw a spitball, used a corked bat or whatever and get into the HOF, but it's not ok to cheat and use performance enhancing drugs and get into the Hall? What kind of stupid crap is that? Both are cheating, both have the same intent which is to get an advantage. So a spitball is OK, but steroids are a bannable offense? Gotcha. Where's the middle ground? Where's the gray area? In Packs world, where is the baseball cheating line drawn between a bannable offense and a slap on the wrist?

[packs]

Baseball has already decided when too much cheating is enough. There is a sliding scale of penalties and it ends with banishment.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by packs

Baseball has already decided when too much cheating is enough. There is a sliding scale of penalties and it ends with banishment.

So what does it say about steroids and the HOF?

[packs]

It wouldn't say anything about it because the two are separate entities.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by packs

It wouldn't say anything about it because the two are separate entities.

My point exactly. So, I repeat the question. Why are some players kept out of thr HOF for cheating and others are not?

[rats60]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

If you're referring to me, I didn't say that, nor did I imply that.

When I say cheating is cheating, I mean if you'll cheat at the little things, you'll cheat at the big things to. If you'll steal a little item, you'll steal a big item too. If you tell a little lie, you'll tell a big lie too. You get the point.

I just don't understand how someone can say Bonds doesn't deserve to be in the HOF for cheating, when others have cheated too. What is your measuring stick? When does the cheating become a bannable offense? So, it's OK to cheat and throw a spitball, used a corked bat or whatever and get into the HOF, but it's not ok to cheat and use performance enhancing drugs and get into the Hall? What kind of stupid crap is that? Both are cheating, both have the same intent which is to get an advantage. So a spitball is OK, but steroids are a bannable offense? Gotcha. Where's the middle ground? Where's the gray area? In Packs world, where is the baseball cheating line drawn between a bannable offense and a slap on the wrist?

Jenrry Mejía is currently banned for life for using steroids and would be ineligible for the HOF if he had 10 years service. Steve Howe was banned in 1992 for life for violating MLB's drug policy. If it wasn't for the player's union blocking drug testing, Bonds and Clemens and others may have been banned too. The writers are just enforcing MLB's drug policy. These guys broke the rules and hid behind the player's union. Now they are getting what they deserve. Using a spit ball or corked bat gets you a few games. Your comparison is like saying shoplifting and murder deserve the same penalty. They don't.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by rats60

Your comparison is like saying shoplifting and murder deserve the same penalty. They don't.

No, that's how you're reading it and quit putting words in my mouth. Your example has the same consequences for two different crimes.

If you want to use a shoplifting comparison, then I would say it's like stealing a $.03 piece of bubble gum or a $1000 piece of jewelry. In my opinion, there's no difference. A thief is a thief. If you'll steal something little, you'll steal something big. The consequences may be different, but it's still stealing.

[packs]

Bonds is now out. Now I'm in the majority.

[dgo71]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

The consequences may be different, but it's still stealing.

There it is again. The consequences of using a corked bat are you sit a few games and pay a fine. The consequences of using PEDs is you don't get into the HOF. I can't think of a more simplistic way of saying it. Your own argument is basically explaining why there's a difference, and why most voters clearly think one offense deserves a stiffer penalty than the other.

[packs]

It's a poor analogy. An appropriate analogy would be petty theft vs. armed robbery.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by dgo71

The consequences of using a corked bat are you sit a few games and pay a fine. The consequences of using PEDs is you don't get into the HOF.

Wow, really?.

I know the difference in the consequences, but I'm saying the consequences should not be different. You have guys, HOF pitchers like Perry and Ford, that pretty much admit to cheating their entire career. Do you really think it's fair that they get in the HOF and someone that used PEDs doesn't?

[EvilKing00]

both should get. both were the best (among the best) of their era.