OT: Baseball Hall of Fame

[MHSL82]

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.

I can accept this, despite all the drivel I wrote earlier, because real fans know the history. I know some of the guys I was talking to basically said this. My thing was the feeling that those who were voting were criticized for how they voted, when they voted against cheaters. If they vote them in, I'm ok with it because they are ok with the cheating - they are closer to baseball than I am. If they don't, I'm ok with it because they are, they're now choosing to do something about it. It was the "how could you vote this way, you're so hypocritical!" There are points on both sides and I just accept how they vote - now, if the wrong people are voting, than that is what should change.

I know what I posted here is convoluted a lot. I guess what I'm trying to say is I wouldn't defend cheaters. What happens, happens. If the current guys don't let them in it doesn't bother me.

 

[erckm510]

PED's are in every sport. In football no one cares that it was used all the way back in the 60's. The 70's Steelers are noted to have many of their players using roids. But no one cares. As long as the PED's don't touch baseballs, yellow jackets or gold medals it's all good.

 

[NinerSickness]

 

[dredinis21]

I am as passionate about baseball as I am about football so please forgive the upcoming onslaught of piss and vinegar directed towards the baseball writers who are voting:

Fuck them. I have no idea why this hallowed group of observationalists are deemed worthy enough to somehow become judge, jury, and executioner of baseball righteousness but their "statement" today showed that they are all idiots.

First off, I think we could all agree that Clemens and Bonds had relatively parallel careers with regards to dominance in the sport (best of the era) while also having roughly the same suspicion and extracurricular activity surrounding it in the form of grand juries, etc. So how can Bonds get 2% less vote then Clemens? Is it racism? Probably not. The only other thing I can assume is that some of these writers are probably salty because Bonds didn't grant them an interview or was an asshole to them. Whichever one you think it may be, neither should hold any weight when determining who should make it into the HOF.

This bullshit notion that character and integrity played a part gets blown out of the water by the fact that the HOF currently has wife beaters, racists (members of the KKK), and admitted cheaters already enshrined. Hell, Ty Cobb is the biggest asshole this game has ever seen and he was a 1st ballot HOF with 98% of the vote.

The fact is that the HOF is a museum that should tell the story of baseball, should tell the story of great players dominating their respective eras and I fail to see why this "steroid era" is any different. Much like there is a story to be told about the Black Sox scandal or Cliff Flood being baseball's first FA or Jackie Robinson integrating baseball, the strike of 1994 coupled with the circumstantial evidence surrounding the offensive boom that took place shortly after that frankly SAVED the game can absolutely be told at Cooperstown. Guys like Bonds, Piazza, Clemens, Biggio were the best in their era and the HOF should show as such.

Everyone is baseball is guilty of turning a blind eye to what was going on, baseball writers included so it is completely hypocritical to me to see those same writers who glorified it 15 years ago to now take a moral stand. Where was your outrage in 1995? I didn't see ESPN or any other news station for that matter complain when they were LITERALLY stopping normal news broadcasting to cut to a Sosa or McGwire at bat in 1998. I didn't see the writers refuse to write non-stop about the HR chases that ultimately SAVED baseball. Hell, I'm pretty sure Pulitzers were won off the backs of these players yet I haven't heard any of these writers come out and return those awards.

So here we are...with a great number of great players that got shafted by a bunch of dip-shits that suddenly found the fucking sack to ride the moral high horse...the same writers that turned a blind eye when it was smack in front of them, the same writers that made money off these players in the form of guest appearances on networks or through their columns about these players or their successes are now pretentious enough to act as if they are the gatekeepers to integrity and character.

IDGAF if they are letting these players in next year, the bottom line is that if they are HOF next year, then they were HOF this year too. Nothing about their stats are going to change in the next 364 days to sway the vote. Every writer who thinks he is proving a point or punishing the players by not voting them in this year should be kicked in the taint...repeatedly.

 

[MHSL82]

I see your point. I am one of the few that think a murderer can tell someone not to murder, a thief can tell someone not to steal - it's a good message despite the messenger. Hypocritical, sure, but I don't care. The message is right, murdering and stealing shouldn't happen (self-defense is not murder). So for a writer to say you shouldn't commemorate a player for steroids when they did so during the chase, if right is right. I can also buy an argument that you can commemorate a steroid user, I'm just saying the hypocritical part of the message doesn't make the message wrong.

However, I also wouldn't commend them for their message like people are giving these writers credit for "taking a stand." I wouldn't believe the murderer if he was just saying it to save himself (i.e. telling someone not to murder him). I think these writers who didn't care when the records were being broken now are acting like they should get a pat on the back for taking a stand or should be let off the hook for not saying anything earlier. Vote how you want, but you're not special. You're not gutsy - if you were, like you said, you'd have spoken out during the HR chase with McGwire and Sosa.

If one thinks it was taking a blind eye to what was going on, one would surely think that voting them into the Hall of Fame now would be turning a blind eye. I don't suggest that once someone makes a mistake that they must continue with their mistake for the sake of consistency. But these guys, if they take a stand here, they have to continue it when someone else is breaking records. I doubt they do, so this is just a façade. This isn't a real stand, and that's where I am bugged by it too. If you didn't have the balls to say it during the chase for 61, you won't in the future. Skip this façade and vote for if you think they are good enough to get in on the merits.

But I'm bugged by the whole thing, anyway. I said earlier that I supported them voting however they believed to be right for the current time. I still support that, I won't defend Clemens or Bonds with arguments of "everyone was doing it," "there are worse guys in the Hall," "others are guilty of taking other non-steroid PEDs," etc. Just take your consequences of how they vote. Things will be righted in time because I don't think the writers will continue to take a stand, I think they'll find some other justification to turn a blind eye later. But, I agree that the microscope should be on the writers as well.

One thing I could see is if you get caught, your punishment is suspension and/or fines and a stricter testing schedule afterwards - but not the Hall. Alternatively, they still could have the numbers and moments in there, without the people in there. They could have the historical moments, just not a bust of the player. But it feels like it's getting too late. They are talking about integrity of the player, but the more you take out, I could see that eroding the integrity of the Hall itself if it's so replete of relevant people and stats.

As an aside, why are writers the ones voting? Do we have enough HOF members alive and coaches and former players? I know some may be biased, especially if they took steroids - but if they don't care, we shouldn't either.

 

[NinerSickness]