OT: Bonds, Clemens, Sosa to be on HOF ballot

[t206blogcom]

I saw this trending on Twitter. I'm a little surprised these guys are being considered. Curious to see how it unfolds. Personally, I'd rather not see these three in the hall, but that's my personal opinion.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/86...ar-hall-ballot

[EvilKing00]

funnu u posted that - Down in the water cooler area there is a discussion going on about the HOF too

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by t206blogcom

I saw this trending on Twitter. I'm a little surprised these guys are being considered. Curious to see how it unfolds. Personally, I'd rather not see these three in the hall, but that's my personal opinion.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/86...ar-hall-ballot

It's interesting, but I like it - gives the writers a chance to punctuate the "No".

[z28jd]

My opinion on it is if you don't put in Clemens, then close the Hall for the entire steroid era. Because you're only guessing on everyone else too. I would put in the best from the era and leave out anyone who has failed since testing has come out, hard to punish a guy pre-testing era when owners were turning a blind-eye to it, yet at the same time rewarding them for it. Unless Derek Jeter or Barry Larkin or Randy Johnson is on this board, anyone who says they positively never used is just assuming. If you don't put in the best from the era(without a failed test ie Manny Ramirez) then don't put in anyone. Simple as that.

Another way to think about it is that the list of banned substances now is so big, there is no way you could assume anyone is not guilty of one of them at some point. More than half the stuff at GNC you could buy yourself, is off-limits to them. So while player X from that era could say he never did steroids or HGH, he very likely did something that is now banned so where do you draw the line?

[packs]

I don't think people are guessing Clemens took steroids though for the same reason I don't think saying Bonds took them is a guess or speculation. If you don't think he took them, he was probably your favorite player once upon a time. He cheated. I know it sucks but accept it rather than trying to say everyone cheated bcause Roger Clemens did.

[HOF Auto Rookies]

So what, let them in. They were THE best at their position, EVER! And that's what the HOF is about, the best of the best. None failed a test, and it's not like steroids made them HOF'ers. Bonds was already a monster at the plate 'pre' steroids and easily had a HOF career, and Clemens was nasty, you saw his rookie year.

Which is more detrimental for the game, a player for supposedly taking a drug compared to a player being a racist or beats there wife? I saw the latter. Bonds was good for baseball, and so were McGwire and Sosa, they revived the game with that magical summer of '98, people watched the game again because of them, they saved baseball.

It's funny how everyone gives a crap about ballplayer's getting caught and not allowing them in the Hall or whatever, but for NFL players, no one gives a damn for failed substance abuse and performance ehancing test failures. But I guarantee the large profile NFL players will get in the Hall who have gotten caught. I mean heck, Ray Lewis and Dante Stallworth killed a man, what was the punishment? Lewis a slap on the wrist, and Stallworth avoided jailtime or had a few weeks with other stipulations. And players get more punishment for taking a drug, that's funny.

That's all I will say on this as it is a never ending topic. But my stance is look past the character and what they did as a person, and focus on what they did on the field. Bonds, A-Rod etc were dumb to take drugs, they were easily going to be the best ever in the game or close to it without them.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by HOF Auto Rookies

So what, let them in. They were THE best at their position, EVER! And that's what the HOF is about, the best of the best. None failed a test, and it's not like steroids made them HOF'ers. Bonds was already a monster at the plate 'pre' steroids and easily had a HOF career, and Clemens was nasty, you saw his rookie year.

Which is more detrimental for the game, a player for supposedly taking a drug compared to a player being a racist or beats there wife? I saw the latter. Bonds was good for baseball, and so were McGwire and Sosa, they revived the game with that magical summer of '98, people watched the game again because of them, they saved baseball.

It's funny how everyone gives a crap about ballplayer's getting caught and not allowing them in the Hall or whatever, but for NFL players, no one gives a damn for failed substance abuse and performance ehancing test failures. But I guarantee the large profile NFL players will get in the Hall who have gotten caught. I mean heck, Ray Lewis and Dante Stallworth killed a man, what was the punishment? Lewis a slap on the wrist, and Stallworth avoided jailtime or had a few weeks with other stipulations. And players get more punishment for taking a drug, that's funny.

That's all I will say on this as it is a never ending topic. But my stance is look past the character and what they did as a person, and focus on what they did on the field. Bonds, A-Rod etc were dumb to take drugs, they were easily going to be the best ever in the game or close to it without them.

Really? Bonds was the best at his position...ever? How many home runs could Ruth have hit on steroids? Have you seen McGwire since the 'roids wore off?

And Clemens? I would argue for Walter Johnson, and certainly over a non-juiced version of Clemens.

Yeah, 'funny' is right.

[egbeachley]

Originally Posted by z28jd

My opinion on it is if you don't put in Clemens, then close the Hall for the entire steroid era.

I assumed Clemens was the guy least deserving to go in. At least the others had HOF-like careers before PEDs. Clemens was 50-49 and going nowhere.

Ignore this post. I have stats mixed up.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by egbeachley

I assumed Clemens was the guy least deserving to go in. At least the others had HOF-like careers before PEDs. Clemens was 50-49 and going nowhere.

Huh???
He had won three cy youngs by 1997

[egbeachley]

nevermind. I must have someone else's statistics mixed up. Need to add a correction to my other post.

[esd10]

all i can say is cheating is cheating and they do not belong in the hof because who will ever know how many homeruns or strikeouts they would have had if they wouldnt have done the juice.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by esd10

all i can say is cheating is cheating and they do not belong in the hof because who will ever know how many homeruns or strikeouts they would have had if they wouldnt have done the juice.

Finally, a fresh viewpoint.

[ls7plus]

IMHO, they're all eventually coming in as the best of their era. I'd like to see it happen with an asterisk as to the known users, but come on now, really--how do you tell who's who??? According to the book written by the former Mets' clubhouse attendant, he supplied hundreds of players! But the baseball writers eventually will reach the consensus that they aren't going to throw out an entire era. It will simply be widely recognized that one simply can't compare pre PED stats with post PED era stats. There are always going to be difficulties in comparing players' performances from different eras in any event, based upon the different conditions under which the game was played.

Face it, as long as the money keeps gettig bigger and bigger, there are always going to be players willing to do whatever it takes to get at the pot of gold!

Best,

Larry

[Cy2009]

Cheating isn't just cheating. If that were the case, how did Gaylord Perry get into the Hall?