OT: Baseball Hall of Fame

[sjballer03]

Looks like the writers have made their feelings about steroids clear. 1st time since 1996 that no one was voted into the Baseball Hall of Fame.

 

[Jikkle]

After seeing Miguel Cabrera cruise to the MVP over Mike Trout because he won the fabled Triple Crown the BBWAA is stuck in the past and the "when it was a game era" of baseball.

So it's not a surprise that they didn't vote anyone in and those guys will never get in. I mean if Pete Rose still can't get in then I don't see how any of the PED guys ever have a sniff at it.

 

[calsnowskier]

After seeing Miguel Cabrera cruise to the MVP over Mike Trout because he won the fabled Triple Crown the BBWAA is stuck in the past and the "when it was a game era" of baseball.

So it's not a surprise that they didn't vote anyone in and those guys will never get in. I mean if Pete Rose still can't get in then I don't see how any of the PED guys ever have a sniff at it.

The issue with Rose is that he is currently serving a lifetime ban from the game. He is not allowed to step foot in the Hall of Fame museum, so how can he be enshrined?

The day he dies, he gets my vote (his punishment will be completed). Until then, or until the ban is lifted, he should not be in the Hall.

 

[Kinzu]

The issue with Rose is that he is currently serving a lifetime ban from the game. He is not allowed to step foot in the Hall of Fame museum, so how can he be enshrined?

The day he dies, he gets my vote (his punishment will be completed). Until then, or until the ban is lifted, he should not be in the Hall.

The morale issue with a lot of people though comes down to what's worst. Do you believe it's worst to have bet on games you coached or to have used illegal substances to give yourself an advantage? I personally feel if what Rose did deserved a life time ban then anyone caught on steroids deserves the same punishment he got. I could even make a good argument that the Steroid use is far worst than his betting on games because the steroid use is creating a clear advantage.

 

[calsnowskier]

The morale issue with a lot of people though comes down to what's worst. Do you believe it's worst to have bet on games you coached or to have used illegal substances to give yourself an advantage? I personally feel if what Rose did deserved a life time ban then anyone caught on steroids deserves the same punishment he got. I could even make a good argument that the Steroid use is far worst than his betting on games because the steroid use is creating a clear advantage.

I dont neccisarily disagree with you.

However...

Rose was found guilty in a court of law. Betting on games is in the rule book for baseball.

Bonds/Clemens/etc were never caught or found to be guilty. They are just assumed to be guilty. PEDs were not illegal by the rules of the game when they were assumed to be taking them.

It really is an apples-to-oranges comparison.

 

[tzill]

The issue with Rose is that he is currently serving a lifetime ban from the game. He is not allowed to step foot in the Hall of Fame museum, so how can he be enshrined?

The day he dies, he gets my vote (his punishment will be completed). Until then, or until the ban is lifted, he should not be in the Hall.

I'm not sure that's true, Cal. MLB doesn't control the HOF.

 

[tzill]

I dont neccisarily disagree with you.

However...

Rose was found guilty in a court of law. Betting on games is in the rule book for baseball.

Bonds/Clemens/etc were never caught or found to be guilty. They are just assumed to be guilty. PEDs were not illegal by the rules of the game when they were assumed to be taking them.

It really is an apples-to-oranges comparison.

It comes down to how you view the HOF. Is it a museum of baseball history or a reward for being a good guy?

 

[erckm510]

Baseball writers are just full of it with their "moral" authority. Greenies was supposedly rampant in the 60's and 70's. That's a PED. The NFL now suspends players for taking it(or at least is the excuse for players to say they use that instead of roids). But for baseball it's ok. There's at least 1 player in the HOF(Gaylord Perry) that threw a spitball which is illegal but hey that's ok too. Ty Cobb was a racist but no one cares about his character. Wonder if it would matter if he actually played against Minority players. And Anabolic steroids was created in the 30's. So players only discovered it in the mid-80's? Yeah right.

But for me, the bottom line is baseball and the writers allowed it to happen. They should live with the consequences and vote in the players that have the HOF stats.

 

[MHSL82]

It comes down to how you view the HOF. Is it a museum of baseball history or a reward for being a good guy?

It's a bit different for me, because even as a "bad" guy, Rose was historically great enough. But without the steroids, who knows if some of these guys would be worthy of being in the museum. Maybe they would have quit baseball if no success or get cut or maybe at best, be an average guy? They wouldn't do it if it didn't make them better. Also, I look to the future on what it states if cheaters and non-cheaters get the same recognition in a museum of baseball history. You can't say, well let these guys in, but from now on... That'll later be repeated and so forth.

And I don't buy the "others did it and you'd never know" angle either. Look at everyone for these things. Punish those you find. That's all you can do. If they take steroids, they already get more money and endorsements, no need to all give them accolades for things they may not have gotten without the steroids. They already got the attention and accolades for their work pre-discovery of steroids. If they think they could have been hall worthy without the steroids and now it's unfair they don't get in, well, then, you shouldn't have taken the damn steroids and proven it cleanly! That's what makes these accolades impressive, when you do it cleanly.

 

[MHSL82]

Baseball writers are just full of it with their "moral" authority. Greenies was supposedly rampant in the 60's and 70's. That's a PED. The NFL now suspends players for taking it(or at least is the excuse for players to say they use that instead of roids). But for baseball it's ok. There's at least 1 player in the HOF(Gaylord Perry) that threw a spitball which is illegal but hey that's ok too. Ty Cobb was a racist but no one cares about his character. Wonder if it would matter if he actually played against Minority players. And Anabolic steroids was created in the 30's. So players only discovered it in the mid-80's? Yeah right.

But for me, the bottom line is baseball and the writers allowed it to happen. They should live with the consequences and vote in the players that have the HOF stats.

I get what you are saying, but people have been speeding for a long time, when I got my ticket a few years ago, there were guys going faster than I was at the time that the cop didn't pull over. It's a shame that other people took PEDs in other eras, but I don't see the solution then being "accept everyone" that may have taken a steroid - if steroids didn't produce the HOF numbers, I'd be ok.

 

[spacedoodoopistol]

I'm pretty sure the deal here is that these writers slobbered all over the home run era and the excitement of the various HR chases in those years.......and are now embarrassed, so they are trying to act like anti-steroid crusaders who WILL NOT TOLERATE cheating.

Anyone with sense - and especially anyone who ever saw them up close - knew that plenty of these players must have been dabbling with some substances to get as big, as quickly, as they did in those years. But caught up in the excitement and popularity of the sport they ALL - baseball executives, fans, writers - turned a blind eye. Now that its been exposed they try to act like some moral compass. Bunch of jokers.

 

[Bemular]

I'm pretty sure the deal here is that these writers slobbered all over the home run era and the excitement of the various HR chases in those years.......and are now embarrassed, so they are trying to act like anti-steroid crusaders who WILL NOT TOLERATE cheating.

Anyone with sense - and especially anyone who ever saw them up close - knew that plenty of these players must have been dabbling with some substances to get as big, as quickly, as they did in those years. But caught up in the excitement and popularity of the sport they ALL - baseball executives, fans, writers - turned a blind eye. Now that its been exposed they try to act like some moral compass. Bunch of jokers.

There is a lot here that is very true - The front-end story is quite accurate; but my hope is that the second half of the story is a little different in that it is more than "an act".

 

[tzill]

It's a bit different for me, because even as a "bad" guy, Rose was historically great enough. But without the steroids, who knows if some of these guys would be worthy of being in the museum. Maybe they would have quit baseball if no success or get cut or maybe at best, be an average guy? They wouldn't do it if it didn't make them better. Also, I look to the future on what it states if cheaters and non-cheaters get the same recognition in a museum of baseball history. You can't say, well let these guys in, but from now on... That'll later be repeated and so forth.

And I don't buy the "others did it and you'd never know" angle either. Look at everyone for these things. Punish those you find. That's all you can do. If they take steroids, they already get more money and endorsements, no need to all give them accolades for things they may not have gotten without the steroids. They already got the attention and accolades for their work pre-discovery of steroids. If they think they could have been hall worthy without the steroids and now it's unfair they don't get in, well, then, you shouldn't have taken the damn steroids and proven it cleanly! That's what makes these accolades impressive, when you do it cleanly.

Museums have complete exhibits of bad dudes. Horrible dudes. Cheaters and non-cheaters will not "get the same recognition." Anyone who knows anything about baseball knows that Ruth compiled his numbers against white opponents and that Hank Aaron didn't. We also know that the mound was lowered in the 60s, that training techniques are very different today than in previous generations. Aaron used amphetamines, Bonds used steroids. Ruth would've likely used either if available. Drawing an artificial line at steroids and saying "THAT isn't Hall worthy" is just plain silly.

 

[tzill]

I get what you are saying, but people have been speeding for a long time, when I got my ticket a few years ago, there were guys going faster than I was at the time that the cop didn't pull over. It's a shame that other people took PEDs in other eras, but I don't see the solution then being "accept everyone" that may have taken a steroid - if steroids didn't produce the HOF numbers, I'd be ok.

You don't know the effect of steroids on performance. Nobody does. You're assuming that steroids have a greater effect on "HOF numbers" than greenies, when there is evidence to the contrary.

Sticking with that narrow view is not defensible...at least not logically.

 

[spacedoodoopistol]

There is a lot here that is very true - The front-end story is quite accurate; but my hope is that the second half of the story is a little different in that it is more than "an act"

An act, but maybe not done consciously. To be more precise, I think they are over-compensating out of shame for their previous naivety.

 

[spacedoodoopistol]

You don't know the effect of steroids on performance. Nobody does. You're assuming that steroids have a greater effect on "HOF numbers" than greenies, when there is evidence to the contrary.

And if we're going to go with "steroids are more powerful a PED than greenies", how would we go about comparing a guy that took a small amount of steroids vs. a guy that took a huge amount of greenies?

The biggest problem here, of course, is that we have no comprehensive idea of who used what, and when. We can look at all the big muscle guys and make assumptions about a player like Bagwell, while nobody would have guessed that little F.P. Santagelo was a juicer. The Mitchell Report was focused on a few teams, because they only had a few informants, so its incredibly misleading to point to that. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that a guy like Kirby Puckett juiced, but you almost never hear his name linked in any serious way. Probably dozens of guys already in the HOF used steroids, to say nothing of greenies.

 

[TobyTyler]

The issue with Rose is that he is currently serving a lifetime ban from the game. He is not allowed to step foot in the Hall of Fame museum, so how can he be enshrined?

The day he dies, he gets my vote (his punishment will be completed). Until then, or until the ban is lifted, he should not be in the Hall.

How 'bout Bonds? When will his punishment be completed in your opinion?

 

[TobyTyler]

You don't know the effect of steroids on performance. Nobody does. You're assuming that steroids have a greater effect on "HOF numbers" than greenies, when there is evidence to the contrary.

Sticking with that narrow view is not defensible...at least not logically.

Wow! I've heard some pretty stupid stuff from you over the years but I think you've outdone yourself here.

 

[MHSL82]

I'm not a baseball guy, I don't really care what the previous guys did or did not do. So I shouldn't really comment here. I wouldn't write a blog on it, just responding on a message board. Ignore what I said if it makes no sense to you.

You guys are right, I don't know how steroids affect numbers compared to greenies.

If steroids don't help produce better numbers, don't take them.
If past players are tainted for taking greenies, then use that in your judgment of history.
If they weren't illegal when they took them, they aren't guilty of cheating.
If players have to combat with users (legal notwithstanding) then take that into account when you vote for clean guys. Lower the bar for clean guys (clean until proven guilty), the true baseball guys will understand the impressiveness of lower numbers.
If you get caught, take the consequences instead of pointing to past, present, or future people who are just as guilty of taking the banned substance.
Unban the substance for all I care, but so long as the substances are banned, I don't care if these HOF numbers worthy players who took steroids are not voted into the museum of baseball history.
If someone doesn't care about being in the Hall, then take them if it gets you more money.
If it doesn't make you more money and you don't care about the Hall, don't take the steroids.
If other bad guys are in the Hall, stop putting more bad guys in the Hall. Take a definition of a bad guy - choose whether it involves criminal actions or ped enhanced results and stick with it. If they later change the definition again, I'd have to look at that before commenting. Whatever that choice is, it should be consistent for the year being voted and be at least contemporary belief.

They need to take a stand at some point or not at all, because if they put off this stand for another 20 years, people will use these 20 years for more evidence of hypocrisy. So what's the solution? Ban the substance but allow them in the Hall? Rid everyone who used something out of the Hall? Unban the substance?

I'm not branding them as bad people based upon moral standards. I'm saying that the HOF numbers are tainted. So too are past numbers, but they either weren't illegal back then, or no one caught them or cared. They now are caught and apparently they at least hypocritically care, so I don't feel bad for them not getting in.

For the record, if they got in, I wouldn't be protesting it, because I don't care that much and apparently the voters didn't currently care if they allowed them in. I'm speaking more to those who don't want the voters to vote on what they now believe because others were allowed in. You can only act now with what you believe, you can't go back in time. Asking them to ignore that because they already let other guys in, is asking them to continue letting them in.

 

[tallglassofwater007]

The "steroid era" for baseball is a joke. Guys have been looking for an edge since the dawn of sports. The all time great players maybe weren't using the same types of drugs, but it is stupid to think they didn't look for any advantage they could get, in the rules or outside of them. I am not saying that it is OK, but it is part of sports, it is part of competition, and it is part of life. You always here how "pure" the game used to be yet you had things like a team fixing a World Series. The earlier years of baseball is filled with scandal.

I say, put the guys in who deserve it no matter the era. It shouldn't matter if you were the biggest asshole in the league. Bonds wasn't the most likeable guy, but he should be a first ballot. If you cut his career at 98' the numbers are good enough to get him in.