Baseball HOF Vote; Nobody Gets In. - Page 3

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsc123 

 

From 87 through 99, Bonds averaged 33 home runs a year.  Really really good.  From 2000 through 2004, he averaged 52 home runs.  Those were his age 35-39 seasons.  

 

So yes, Bonds had some amazing skills.  But the steroid turned him from a lesser Joe Dimaggio into Babe Ruth.  When he turned 35.   

Vijay Singh won more tournaments over 40 than he ever did in his 20s and 30s. Granted it is a different sport and Bonds did look a lot bigger but my point is that age alone cannot be used as an indicator of steroid use, it needs to be proven. 

I was discussing this with a guy at work who is a big baseball fan and he brought up a good point in that McGuire, Sosa and Bonds brought baseball back from a pretty significant drought after the lockout. They restored a lot of the fan support and viewership that had been lost which is hard to ignore and needs to be acknowledged.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CanuckAaron 

Vijay Singh won more tournaments over 40 than he ever did in his 20s and 30s. Granted it is a different sport and Bonds did look a lot bigger but my point is that age alone cannot be used as an indicator of steroid use, it needs to be proven. 

That's so "apples to oranges" that it's not even worth making that point.

Not sure about your area, but a lot of the HoF voters in the Boston area are nitwit reporters.  Some I would accuse of not understanding the object of the game.  I am not sure how they got the gig.  You would think the HoF would have better criteria for the voters as well.

I understand that induction into the HOF is an honor and not guaranteed to any baseball player but we're not talking about any baseball player, we're talking about the guy that currently holds MLB's career HR record, who had a HOF career prior to being accused of PEDS use.  MLB has not removed his name from the record books, they haven't erased his stats during the PEDS years or taken away any wins the Giants accumulated during his time with them, same for Clemons, Sosa, ARod, Pettite and McGwire. 

Cobb was a racist, Ruth was known to show up to games drunk, Aaron and Schmidt have both admitted to regularly using greenies so it's not like everyone inducted into the HOF had a flawless character.  If MLB chooses to recognize the players accomplishments that have admitted to or were suspected of using PEDS then I don't believe the baseball writers should allow their use or suspected use of PEDS to bias their decision. 

I can't imaging a HOF without Clemons, Bonds, Piazza, Bagwell, Alex Rodriguez, Sosa, McGwire, Palmiero and others who I may have missed.   Schilling is right in that MLB executives, owners, coaches, players and the press all had an idea these guys were on PEDS, but they overlooked it because MLB was trying to attract the fans back after they alienated them with the strike.  I remember the chase for the single season home run record interrupting regular programming so the news could provide updates.  Broadcast stations did the same when Bonds was about to break Aarons record.  These guys saved baseball, put it back in the national spotlight  and now they are being ostracized from baseball.  

I remember hearing all the arguments before ARod was linked to PEDS how there was no way he ever used PEDS, which proves that not every PEDS user looks like Bonds or the Hulk.  We have no idea how many others used PEDS but just didn't have physique or the natural ability to play at the higher levels that would lead people to question their use of it.  It's very possible players using PEDS have already been inducted into the HOF.  We know for certain greenies users are in the HOF and continue to be inducted without question of their integrity. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by CanuckAaron 

Vijay Singh won more tournaments over 40 than he ever did in his 20s and 30s. Granted it is a different sport and Bonds did look a lot bigger but my point is that age alone cannot be used as an indicator of steroid use, it needs to be proven.

Quote:

Originally Posted by geauxforbroke 

That's so "apples to oranges" that it's not even worth making that point.

Yes, I agree.  Golfing well into your later years is common ... hitting 40 homers in your 40's, not so much.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CanuckAaron 

I was discussing this with a guy at work who is a big baseball fan and he brought up a good point in that McGuire, Sosa and Bonds brought baseball back from a pretty significant drought after the lockout. They restored a lot of the fan support and viewership that had been lost which is hard to ignore and needs to be acknowledged. 

However, I tend to agree some with this.  Baseball made a killing off of these guys while happily ignoring what was going on.  Without those seasons right after the strike, specifically the '98 McGwire/Sosa Maris chase, who knows where baseball would be right now?  Now they get thrown under the bus as the bad guys, and MLB acts as if their hands are clean.

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf 

I understand that induction into the HOF is an honor and not guaranteed to any baseball player but we're not talking about any baseball player, we're talking about the guy that currently holds MLB's career HR record, who had a HOF career prior to being accused of PEDS use.  MLB has not removed his name from the record books, they haven't erased his stats during the PEDS years or taken away any wins the Giants accumulated during his time with them, same for Clemons, Sosa, ARod, Pettite and McGwire. 

 

Cobb was a racist, Ruth was known to show up to games drunk, Aaron and Schmidt have both admitted to regularly using greenies so it's not like everyone inducted into the HOF had a flawless character.  If MLB chooses to recognize the players accomplishments that have admitted to or were suspected of using PEDS then I don't believe the baseball writers should allow their use or suspected use of PEDS to bias their decision. 

 

I can't imaging a HOF without Clemons, Bonds, Piazza, Bagwell, Alex Rodriguez, Sosa, McGwire, Palmiero and others who I may have missed.   Schilling is right in that MLB executives, owners, coaches, players and the press all had an idea these guys were on PEDS, but they overlooked it because MLB was trying to attract the fans back after they alienated them with the strike.  I remember the chase for the single season home run record interrupting regular programming so the news could provide updates.  Broadcast stations did the same when Bonds was about to break Aarons record.  These guys saved baseball, put it back in the national spotlight  and now they are being ostracized from baseball.  

 

I remember hearing all the arguments before ARod was linked to PEDS how there was no way he ever used PEDS, which proves that not every PEDS user looks like Bonds or the Hulk.  We have no idea how many others used PEDS but just didn't have physique or the natural ability to play at the higher levels that would lead people to question their use of it.  It's very possible players using PEDS have already been inducted into the HOF.  We know for certain greenies users are in the HOF and continue to be inducted without question of their integrity. 

Good post.  Well said.

And aren't "greenies" just a polite term for speed?  As in, meth?  Pretty sure that would/should qualify as a PED, since the guys performing on the field after taking them would, had they not taken them, be sleeping in the locker room.

EDIT:

From Wikipedia:

In the United States, clobenzorex tablets (among other varieties of stimulants, such as amphetamine) have been used by athletes who ingest the drug to reduce fatigue, increase attention, and improve reaction times during athletic activities. The green-tinted Asenlix capsules (generic forms can be seen as half light green, half dark green capsules marked "IFA") are known as "greenies" among US baseball players, a slang term that in current use has expanded to generically refer to any amphetamine class stimulant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsc123 

A lot of people say this, and its a true statement.  But it doesn't justify admission to the HOF.  The players were wrong.  MLB was wrong.  The writers were wrong.  How does that excuse the player's conduct?  And how does that get them into the HOF?  The HOF is not MLB.  The HOF had no part in it.

That's fair.  Here's my silly analogy ... ... (if this whole situation happened in Aaron Sorkin's world.)

MLB is Colonel Jessup, the players are Dawson and Downey, and the fans are Private Santiago. ;)

"Colonel Jessup said he ordered the Code Red!  What did we do wrong?  We did nothing wrong?"

"Yeah we did.  We were supposed to fight for people who couldn't fight for themselves.  We were supposed to fight for Willie."

The players should have known better, so they do deserve some blame, but MLB carries as much, or more, for allowing the practice.  And if you disagree with me it's only for one reason ...

wait for it ...

"You can't handle the truth!!!!!!!"

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsc123 

 

By "proof" do you mean a drug test?  The Book Game of Shadows is really convincing.  He told a grand jury that he used a clear substance and a cream that he received from Greg Anderson.  

 

I get that people want "proof" before calling a guy a cheater but CSI isn't real life.  people are convicted every day on the testimony of witnesses and nothing else.  When people come out and say "I saw Bonds use steroids" that is proof.

     Because it is in a book or online that makes it true? I am not saying that I do not believe Bonds juiced, he probably did but nobody knows for certain and the MLB, baseball writers and the HOF etc. looked the other way and benefited from it for way too long for them to all of a sudden have some sort of moral epiphany.

     Also, it is easy to say that they are cheaters and should be outcast etc. but whose to say that anyone of us would not do the same thing? We are talking about millions of dollars, fame (maybe infamy) being on the line and if that gets dangled in front of a lot of people who knows what they might do. It is too easy to ostracize people after the fact when none of us were there and did not have to make those decision in those circumstances. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by geauxforbroke 

 

That's so "apples to oranges" that it's not even worth making that point.

Why? The evidence that Bonds "juiced" because he is older is the same as saying that something was up with Vijay because he was older. Vijay's wins are not common and not expected, to the best of my knowledge he has more wins in his 40s than anyone in history, thus it is an anomaly and consistent with the idea that older athletes cannot produce at high levels unless they juice. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by CanuckAaron 

Why? The evidence that Bonds "juiced" because he is older is the same as saying that something was up with Vijay because he was older. Vijay's wins are not common and not expected, to the best of my knowledge he has more wins in his 40s than anyone in history, thus it is an anomaly and consistent with the idea that older athletes cannot produce at high levels unless they juice. 

Still not apples to apples. At all. You can't draw a parallel between baseball and golf. Tom Watson dang near won The Open Championship at 59. How many 59 year old power hitters are there in the majors?

Quote:

Originally Posted by CanuckAaron 

         Also, it is easy to say that they are cheaters and should be outcast etc. but whose to say that anyone of us would not do the same thing? We are talking about millions of dollars, fame (maybe infamy) being on the line and if that gets dangled in front of a lot of people who knows what they might do. It is too easy to ostracize people after the fact when none of us were there and did not have to make those decision in those circumstances. 

 

Regardless of who amongst us would or would not have taken PEDS  (I might have if it meant the difference between me playing or not), it does not make it right.  Just because the temptation and reward are great, that does not justify doing wrong.

I just hope none of the pro pot-head crowd is anti PEDs