Jump to content

Whichever side you're on of the Hall of Fame Steroids Debate ...


mobico

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 101
  • Created
  • Last Reply
I didn't really care for the article. It's an argument I've heard several times before. There are several holes in it that the writer didn't choose to delve into. I would expect as much from ESPN.

*really hate to do this...*

Oh really? Like what? Personally, that particular argument is one I've held for years now. Every era has it's quirks. From 93-05 we can just subsection it into it's own era. Bonds, Clemens et al proved they were the best of that era and should be in the hall of fame. Notice, I don't say "deserve". It wasn't a level playing field but it was the only field we had for more than a decade. The steroid era was part of the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*really hate to do this...*

Oh really? Like what? Personally, that particular argument is one I've held for years now. Every era has it's quirks. From 93-05 we can just subsection it into it's own era. Bonds, Clemens et al proved they were the best of that era and should be in the hall of fame. Notice, I don't say "deserve". It wasn't a level playing field but it was the only field we had for more than a decade. The steroid era was part of the game.

And it went on a lot longer then 93-05.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The process is stupid for the hall. You need a certain percentage to get in. Any dude who has the power of pen to paper controls your fate regardless of what he does or doesn't know. In the other sports that take names out of a hat and of those candidates they vote for the best 4 that year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You get caught cheating you don't get in. Period. Writers will vote in players though to get press.

It really depends on how you view the Hall of Fame. To me, it's a way to tell the story of baseball. As such, I believe that anyone that is essential to tell the story of the game in the era they played should be in the Hall of Fame. To me, that includes Raffy, Bonds, Clemens. It also includes Pete Rose and Joe Jackson.

If I had a ballot, I'd vote 10 guys in, including: Bonds, Clemens, Raffy, Bagwell, Biggio, Piazza, Raines, Schilling, Sosa (and either McGwire, Morris or Martinez).

There are no rules or regulations to the voting as it pertains to the 'cheaters.' As such, it's up to the voter's philosophy. There has been a lot of turmoil about the lack of clarity provided to the voters regarding the steroid users, but I think it's good to leave it up to the hearts and minds of the voters. The hall of fame is important because we fans of the game believe it to be important. The BBWAA members that vote are essential fans of the game that get paid to be fans of the game. I think it'll be interesting to see how these fans continue to treat the PED era players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It really depends on how you view the Hall of Fame. To me, it's a way to tell the story of baseball. As such, I believe that anyone that is essential to tell the story of the game in the era they played should be in the Hall of Fame. To me, that includes Raffy, Bonds, Clemens. It also includes Pete Rose and Joe Jackson.

If I had a ballot, I'd vote 10 guys in, including: Bonds, Clemens, Raffy, Bagwell, Biggio, Piazza, Raines, Schilling, Sosa (and either McGwire, Morris or Martinez).

There are no rules or regulations to the voting as it pertains to the 'cheaters.' As such, it's up to the voter's philosophy. There has been a lot of turmoil about the lack of clarity provided to the voters regarding the steroid users, but I think it's good to leave it up to the hearts and minds of the voters. The hall of fame is important because we fans of the game believe it to be important. The BBWAA members that vote are essential fans of the game that get paid to be fans of the game. I think it'll be interesting to see how these fans continue to treat the PED era players.

Not many, but there are some rules. Most notably the ones that say if you gamble on baseball you're banned, and if you're banned you're ineligible for the Hall.

But that's about it. There's nothing in the baseball or HOF rules that would preclude the induction of someone who corks a bat, pops a pill, or spits on a ball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not many, but there are some rules. Most notably the ones that say if you gamble on baseball you're banned, and if you're banned you're ineligible for the Hall.

But that's about it. There's nothing in the baseball or HOF rules that would preclude the induction of someone who corks a bat, pops a pill, or spits on a ball.

Or an Ump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




  • Posts

    • Remind me what illegal substance Ruth was rumored to have used?
    • I agree with this...somewhat.  But if we do trade Santander this offseason, I think it further hurts us against southpaw starters. I don't want the Orioles to go out and load up on right-handed hitters just to load up on right-handed hitters, but I would like to see the Orioles either (i) commit to adding players that have proven to hit lefties (whether a right-handed hitter or not) or (ii) commit to playing guys like Stowers against lefties instead of writing a completely different lineup against southpaws. Platooning is good and all when it makes sense, but I'd rather not pigeon-hole someone as a platoon player before he's proven himself to be one (particularly when he's shown well against lefties in the minors). 
    • Integrity?  I don't like Aaron Judge making us his ***** for 6+ years.  Let him hit it against someone else.  He's had a great, historic season, it's been plenty fine for MLB.  I like the MLB just fine, but they still can't overcome their issues when Judge is hitting 60+ homers and you have a guy in Anaheim doing stuff no one's ever seen before and they're having a hard time getting people out to the park to see it.  MLB is declining in popularity whether or not Judge hits 1, 2 or 13 homers this weekend.
    • You pitch to Judge if it makes sense in the game to pitch to Judge and you walk him if it makes sense to walk him. The Orioles are "essentially" out of contention, but you still play to win the games. If Judge comes up with a runner on second and 1 out late in a close game, I'm walking him to set up the double-play and go after a lesser hitter. But I'm not walking him to walk him. If he hits 62, 63 or whatever against us then congratulations to him....hopefully we win anyway. 
    • Thank goodness that PED using Ruth lost the record!   Baseball players cheat, they just do. Folks need to grow up about it. Lots of your favorite players growing up were probably cheating. Bonds was just better, better at it and better at baseball.
    • Yes.  I enjoyed the recaps and the video clips.   Thank you!
  • Popular Contributors

  • Popular Now

×
×
  • Create New...