Best HOF ballot of the year

[soxfan1468927]

When a book is written about how you cheated you don't belong in the Hall of Fame.

That's logical

 

[calsnowskier]

I still dont get the reasoning not to vote for Bonds. Even if you break his career down into "pre PEDs" and "post PED's" his first part of his career is more than enough to get him in the HOF. I for one cant make a distinction between any of the guys who played in that era. Im not inclined to "guess" who was clean and who wasnt so to me you either vote for no one from the era or vote for all available people from the era if their numbers deserve it.

I agree with your stance, but I think I understand the logic. I apply a similar logic to Rose...

Bonds was in, but then he sinned and he is out.

I apply this logic to Rose and not to Bonds, however, because Rose is banned from baseball for life. The day he dies, or the ban is lifted (whichever comes first), he "gets my vote". Bonds never broke a baseball rule, and even if he had, he was never caught doing it. If you ignore the PEDS issue, he is a no-brainer HOFer. Same with Clemens.

What REALLY confuses me is how some voters can vote for Bonds but against Clemens, or vice versa. They are both all-time-greats and the only argument against them would be the PEDS issue.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

When a book is written about how you cheated you don't belong in the Hall of Fame.

Better get Gaylord Perry out. That was his autobiography.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

I agree with your stance, but I think I understand the logic. I apply a similar logic to Rose...

Bonds was in, but then he sinned and he is out.

I apply this logic to Rose and not to Bonds, however, because Rose is banned from baseball for life. The day he dies, or the ban is lifted (whichever comes first), he "gets my vote". Bonds never broke a baseball rule, and even if he had, he was never caught doing it. If you ignore the PEDS issue, he is a no-brainer HOFer. Same with Clemens.

What REALLY confuses me is how some voters can vote for Bonds but against Clemens, or vice versa. They are both all-time-greats and the only argument against them would be the PEDS issue.

How did Bonds sin? He didn't break any rules. His actions were completely condoned by everyone until he started breaking records, then writers decided to get all appalled by his actions. I agree, he cheated. But it was part of the culture, and it's immature and pathetic to just ignore a part of history. He was still one of the best and should be recognized as such.

 

[gunnarthor]

How did Bonds sin? He didn't break any rules. His actions were completely condoned by everyone until he started breaking records, then writers decided to get all appalled by his actions. I agree, he cheated. But it was part of the culture, and it's immature and pathetic to just ignore a part of history. He was still one of the best and should be recognized as such.

That's pretty naive Smarther. He did break rules - albeit rules no one gave a shit about. And, IIRC, Game of Shadows suggested that he was juicing after MLB began drug testing.

I'm honestly torn on this PED thing. On one hand, I think ownership and front offices were much more involved in this crap than has been reported and I hate the idea that they should be considered clean in this and all the damage go to the players who were (more or less) forced to cheat to keep their awesome jobs.

On the other hand, cheating wasn't level and it gave some teams serious competitive advantages over others and I sure don't want to reward asshat players like Pettitte, for example, for roiding up while other players had to leave the game early when they didn't.

So, I'm torn. If I knew Bonds plaque would say he used PEDs, I think I'd be ok with it. For now, I'm ok with voters voting in the clean players first and, if they have room, vote in more.

 

[calsnowskier]

That's pretty naive Smarther. He did break rules - albeit rules no one gave a shit about. And, IIRC, Game of Shadows suggested that he was juicing after MLB began drug testing.

I'm honestly torn on this PED thing. On one hand, I think ownership and front offices were much more involved in this crap than has been reported and I hate the idea that they should be considered clean in this and all the damage go to the players who were (more or less) forced to cheat to keep their awesome jobs.

On the other hand, cheating wasn't level and it gave some teams serious competitive advantages over others and I sure don't want to reward asshat players like Pettitte, for example, for roiding up while other players had to leave the game early when they didn't.

So, I'm torn. If I knew Bonds plaque would say he used PEDs, I think I'd be ok with it. For now, I'm ok with voters voting in the clean players first and, if they have room, vote in more.

PED use was NOT against the rules of MLB. That's the point. Everyone said "We need testing! These guys are breaking the rules!" But there were no rules against Andro or The Cream, or anything else that was used.

As for GoS suggesting he used, he was never caught, so it doesn't matter. If he had been caught, than you can say he cheated without resorting to speculation.

 

[calsnowskier]

How did Bonds sin? He didn't break any rules. His actions were completely condoned by everyone until he started breaking records, then writers decided to get all appalled by his actions. I agree, he cheated. But it was part of the culture, and it's immature and pathetic to just ignore a part of history. He was still one of the best and should be recognized as such.

Based on their logic, he sinned. Some people have drawn a line in the sand and they say "Anyone who I even suspect of using PEDs is out!"

Personally, I look at the entire era and basically throw the accumulated numbers out and compare everyone against their peers. Bonds and Clemens are in. Maddux is in. Palmeiro is not. Sosa, McGwire, Bagwell, Walker are more on the line (Bagwell is probably the only one of those guys to get my vote moving forward). Hoffman and Rivera are in.

 

[gunnarthor]

PED use was NOT against the rules of MLB. That's the point. Everyone said "We need testing! These guys are breaking the rules!" But there were no rules against Andro or The Cream, or anything else that was used.

As for GoS suggesting he used, he was never caught, so it doesn't matter. If he had been caught, than you can say he cheated without resorting to speculation.

Are you TrueNiners?

 

[navamind]

Are you TrueNiners?

No, not enough caps lock.

 

[calsnowskier]

Are you TrueNiners?

If I were TrueNiners, I would have stated that he was PROVEN to be innocent because a bird chirped this morning.

Just because there is an argument that does not agree with your assertion, it must be TrueNiners?

 

[gunnarthor]

If I were TrueNiners, I would have stated that he was PROVEN to be innocent because a bird chirped this morning.

Just because there is an argument that does not agree with your assertion, it must be TrueNiners?

Nah, it's just b/c someone actually wrote "he was never caught." It brings painful flashbacks to the good old ESPN boards.

 

[uncfan103]

PED use was NOT against the rules of MLB. That's the point. Everyone said "We need testing! These guys are breaking the rules!" But there were no rules against Andro or The Cream, or anything else that was used.

As for GoS suggesting he used, he was never caught, so it doesn't matter. If he had been caught, than you can say he cheated without resorting to speculation.

I'm not completely sure you're right about that. IIRC, according to the Mitchell Report it was completely illegal.

 

[calsnowskier]

I'm not completely sure you're right about that. IIRC, according to the Mitchell Report it was completely illegal.

Steroids were illegal, yes. But were they against MLB rules? And then we get into the chemical distinctions between different "steroids". I am not a chemist, so I am not going to go there outside of saying that the legalities get very hazy.

If you just want to look at it with the blanket cover of "PEDs are bad", than you have to apply the same criticism to Hank Aaron and just about all players since the beginning of the game.

Right now, there is a list of substances that are against the rules, and there is at least lip-service and going-through-the-motions of testing for them. If a player gets caught now, there is no question. Back in the days of Bonds, there was no testing and the use was rampant throughout the game. To single Bonds or Clemens out is arbitrary. You need to apply the same stink to everyone of the era.

 

[calsnowskier]

I'm not completely sure you're right about that. IIRC, according to the Mitchell Report it was completely illegal.

And even if we do agree that whatever he was using was against MLB rules, he was never caught. There is just hearsay.

Do I believe he use? Absolutely. But where do you draw the line? Did Griffey? I have no idea. Did Bagwell? I have no idea. Did Thomas? I have no idea. But all these players put up un-godly numbers, so you have to at least wonder.

 

[uncfan103]

Steroids were illegal, yes. But were they against MLB rules? And then we get into the chemical distinctions between different "steroids". I am not a chemist, so I am not going to go there outside of saying that the legalities get very hazy.

If you just want to look at it with the blanket cover of "PEDs are bad", than you have to apply the same criticism to Hank Aaron and just about all players since the beginning of the game.

Right now, there is a list of substances that are against the rules, and there is at least lip-service and going-through-the-motions of testing for them. If a player gets caught now, there is no question. Back in the days of Bonds, there was no testing and the use was rampant throughout the game. To single Bonds or Clemens out is arbitrary. You need to apply the same stink to everyone of the era.

According to the Mitchell Report, again this is all just if I'm remembering correctly from when I read about a couple months ago, it was against the rules to use illegal drugs and steroids and became illegal in 1990.

They were not immediately added to the banned substance list or to the list of what was tested for, but that doesn't make them "legal" since it was against the rules to use them.

 

[uncfan103]

And even if we do agree that whatever he was using was against MLB rules, he was never caught. There is just hearsay.

Do I believe he use? Absolutely. But where do you draw the line? Did Griffey? I have no idea. Did Bagwell? I have no idea. Did Thomas? I have no idea. But all these players put up un-godly numbers, so you have to at least wonder.

Bonds would have been on my ballot.

 

[calsnowskier]

Bonds would have been on my ballot.

Sorry, I didnt mean to come across as attacking you, even though I was responding to your post. I am just making the argument

 

[DragonfromTO]

According to the Mitchell Report, again this is all just if I'm remembering correctly from when I read about a couple months ago, it was against the rules to use illegal drugs and steroids and became illegal in 1990.

They were not immediately added to the banned substance list or to the list of what was tested for, but that doesn't make them "legal" since it was against the rules to use them.

Are you talking about the Fay Vincent memo? That memo did not cover players or the MLBPA. Here's what Fay himself had to say about that memo.

Vincent: I don’t remember much about the circumstances and I don’t remember who really pushed for it. But, I can speculate that it came out of an awareness that for people who were not in the union – not protected by the Union agreement – that steroids might be a problem. I think that we had become to realize that there were a variety of other compounds floating around that were dangerous. We’d heard rumors about Jose Canseco. I think we thought that steroids and the like were basically a “football problem”, but we did think that they were dangerous. And so for at least coaches and managers and everybody else in baseball we thought we ought to go on record and say that this is bad stuff and we don’t want it getting a toe-hold in baseball.
I wish I remembered more. Obviously, it wasn’t a major thing because I don’t think any of us thought steroids was really a major issue at the time. We were so wrapped up in cocaine problems, so I just don’t remember that much about it.
I’m sure that what the General Managers are saying is correct that nobody paid too much attention to it because it was aimed at people who probably weren’t big steroid users anyway. I mean the clubhouse man, and the coaches would hardly be taking steroids. But that’s all we could do. We couldn’t do anything with the union because the union wouldn’t even give us a hearing on strengthening the cocaine drug problem laws. I mean, I’m glad I did it (sent the memo), I wished we’d done more.

Interview - Fay Vincent - Former Commissioner

 

[uncfan103]

Are you talking about the Fay Vincent memo? That memo did not cover players or the MLBPA. Here's what Fay himself had to say about that memo.



Interview - Fay Vincent - Former Commissioner

It was illegal before the memo. The memo didn't accomplish anything

 

[soxfan1468927]

It was illegal before the memo. The memo didn't accomplish anything

The earliest occurrence I can find of anything mentioning the illegality of steroids in baseball, is the memo. You obviously have something from earlier. Can you show me?