Early Hall Discussion:

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

How do we know what players from the past would have done had PEDs beein available to them? Aaron took greenies, yes? I think the assumption that players in other eras were morally superior is borne of nostalgia bias.

We know that pitchers have always done nefarious things to baseballs, and many hitters over the years have modified (corked) their bats, and there are plenty of stories about deadball era third basemen, like McGraw, tugging at a baserunner's belt to hold him up (when there were only one or two umpires.)

Whether these things can be considered immoral I'm not sure, but certainly they were attempts to gain advantage while operating outside the rules. If old-time ballplayers had access to pills and needles that could make them better and extend their careers, of course some would've gone that route.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mark17

We know that pitchers have always done nefarious things to baseballs, and many hitters over the years have modified (corked) their bats, and there are plenty of stories about deadball era third basemen, like McGraw, tugging at a baserunner's belt to hold him up (when there were only one or two umpires.)

Whether these things can be considered immoral I'm not sure, but certainly they were attempts to gain advantage while operating outside the rules. If old-time ballplayers had access to pills and needles that could make them better and extend their careers, of course some would've gone that route.

I think within an era it's fair to contrast athletes who don't seem to have cheated with those that did (Carl Lewis vs Ben Johnson, Bonds vs Griffey, etc.). But I don't buy the generational comparisons and smarmy assertions that past generations were somehow, as a whole, more virtuous and today's players are scum. My guess is most of the guys who popped greenies also would have done stronger PEDs had they been available.

[cgjackson222]

I am not sure the PED/'roids guys deserve to be in the Hall, but to some extent they are a victim of their own success.

PEDs can be traced all the way back to 1889, when Pud Galvin used Brown-Sequard Elixir, which is testosterone derived from other animals, most notably dogs and guinea pigs. Even Babe Ruth tried to inject himself with extract from sheep testicles in 1925. This act only made him ill and forced him to miss some playing time. So cheaters have gotten more sophisticated and better at it over time.

Steroids found there way into baseball in the 1970s. Tom House, a former pitcher for a few teams, was the first player to openly acknowledge that there were 6 or 7 players per team experimenting with steroids and human-growth hormone. Steroids then took a backseat during the 1980s when amphetamines became the drug of choice. Players from Mike Schmidt to journeyman Dale Berra, were using amphetamines.

MLB practically sanctioned the use of steroids with their lack of any testing/enforcement. In 1990, Congress cracked down on anabolic steroids with the Anabolic Steroids Control Act, which effectively made them an illegal drug. The next year in 1991, MLB Commissioner Fay Vincent made it clear in a memo that it was against the rules to use steroids, but there was no plan for testing/enforcement.

If players like McGwire, Sosa and Bonds hadn't completely re-written the record books, few people would care about their "cheating."

While Bonds is probably a reprehensible human, I do feel like he probably deserves to be in the Hall more than most of the other guys from the era. He was the best player in baseball before people started modern 'roids, and was a late mover in terms of starting his cheating in the 21st century after being tired of being left behind by the likes of McGwire and Sosa.

But because Bonds was better at cheating than others, he seems to get punished more. That and the fact that he won't admit he did it, and is generally not well liked.

So cheating has been around forever. They just got really good at during the steroid era.

[cliffyb]

I think Beltre for sure - he has HOF stats. Helton for sure. And if Utley is a strong candidate, then how can Kent not be? Compare their stats. Kent even has an MVP and bigger power numbers. Fewer injuries too.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by cliffyb

I think Beltre for sure - he has HOF stats. Helton for sure. And if Utley is a strong candidate, then how can Kent not be? Compare their stats. Kent even has an MVP and bigger power numbers. Fewer injuries too.

Utley has a WAR about 10 higher than Kent which appears to mainly be due to Utley being considered a much better fielder. Utley has a dWAR of 17.3 compared to -0.1 for Kent.

[cliffyb]

Good point. Here's an interesting article on Kent's HOF candidacy. I guess he could go either way.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...20/2818324001/