Jump to content

Olney: PED use shouldn't prohibit HOF votes


SammyBirdland

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 41
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Yeah. Here's the paragraph that I think summarizes his argument:

I've voted for McGwire, and I will vote for Clemens and Bonds and Rodriguez, because within the context of their era -- a time when most of the best players were probably using drugs -- they were the best players. And without benefit of anything close to full knowledge of who used what, and when they used, I think the only fair and consistent standard is to vote for no one at all from the steroid era, or to set aside the question of who used and just vote for the best players.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah. Here's the paragraph that I think summarizes his argument:

I think that's perfectly reasonable. If you try to sort out who used and how much and when and all that stuff you'll make the stuff the Vet's Committee used to do look rational.

Not only that, but with a 75% requirement nobody will be elected by the writers for the next 25 years. And the Hall of Fame wasn't created to not induct anyone. They won't let their business model fail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that's perfectly reasonable. If you try to sort out who used and how much and when and all that stuff you'll make the stuff the Vet's Committee used to do look rational.

Not only that, but with a 75% requirement nobody will be elected by the writers for the next 25 years. And the Hall of Fame wasn't created to not induct anyone. They won't let their business model fail.

Yeah it also makes sense to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree totally, they should all be in. When McGwire played, HGH and anabolic steroids weren't even illegal in the MLB yet. All players from every era of baseball have had some kind of advantage.

Should we put asterisks next to Ruth and Aaron's home run totals because they played when there were no minorities playing the game, no lefty specialists, no dominant closers, almost every pitcher was pitching tired, there was no real minor league system that evaluated players and ensured that only the best players made it to the big leagues, or that players were taking amphetamines as well.

As long as the game has been played, players have been trying to gain some kind of competitive advantage. Steroids and HGH is just a different breed of these types of advantages. If we assume that most players in the era of Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, etc ere using some kind of PED, then these guys in context absolutely dominated their respective era, and that's good enough for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree totally, they should all be in. When McGwire played, HGH and anabolic steroids weren't even illegal in the MLB yet. All players from every era of baseball have had some kind of advantage.

Is there a specific MLB rule against murder, rape, armed robbery, acts of terrorism, embezzlement, fraud, etc?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Their performance is in question, yes, but I think the bigger deal is how they handled everything when the drama unfolded because it speaks to their character. McGuire and Palmerio will be/is hurt more by this than anyone it seems.

I agree totally, they should all be in. When McGwire played, HGH and anabolic steroids weren't even illegal in the MLB yet. All players from every era of baseball have had some kind of advantage.

But they were illegal in the US. MLB doesn't determine the laws of our nation. I think it goes without saying that if there's a law against it you shouldn't be doing it. If they themsevles didn't feel that it was an issue because MLb didn't care then they wouldn't have been so secretive about their use. They knew what they were doing was wrong.

Should we put asterisks next to Ruth and Aaron's home run totals because they played when there were no minorities playing the game, no lefty specialists, no dominant closers, almost every pitcher was pitching tired, there was no real minor league system that evaluated players and ensured that only the best players made it to the big leagues, or that players were taking amphetamines as well.

I'll give you the amphetimines but the rest is Apples to Oranges. You're comparing outright cheating to strategy developments in the game throughout history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, this means that as of the steroids era, the HOF is now irrelevant. If you made it to the HOF before the steroids era, then you are a baseball hero. If you make it to the HOF having played in the steroids era, whoopty-doo, congratulations cheater.

I guess, but some of those guys very likely used steroids as well considering steroids were in the sport well before what most consider to be the steroid era. And a lot of guys who used greenies and the like are in the HOF, which a lot of players and observers feel are more important to players than steroids.

I agree with Olney.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, this means that as of the steroids era, the HOF is now irrelevant. If you made it to the HOF before the steroids era, then you are a baseball hero. If you make it to the HOF having played in the steroids era, whoopty-doo, congratulations cheater.

Ok, so what's the steroids era? Because guys like Tom House admitted that he and his teammates and opponents "took steroids they wouldn't give to a horse" in the 1960s. That would kind of make Aaron, Mays, Yaz, and a bunch of other people whoopty-do cheaters.

Not to mention Pud Galvin, HOF pitcher, bragging in the media about taking bull testicle extract (essentially a steroid precursor) in the 1880s. Could make an argument that the HOF's only 100% guaranteed clean members are Candy Cummings, Harry Wright and Al Spalding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Their performance is in question, yes, but I think the bigger deal is how they handled everything when the drama unfolded because it speaks to their character. McGuire and Palmerio will be/is hurt more by this than anyone it seems.

But they were illegal in the US. MLB doesn't determine the laws of our nation. I think it goes without saying that if there's a law against it you shouldn't be doing it. If they themsevles didn't feel that it was an issue because MLb didn't care then they wouldn't have been so secretive about their use. They knew what they were doing was wrong.

I'll give you the amphetimines but the rest is Apples to Oranges. You're comparing outright cheating to strategy developments in the game throughout history.

Those comparions may be apples to oranges, but they all fall under the category of performance enhancing advantages.

If you threw a guy like Pujols into the 1950s, he would have probably hit 800 home runs easy. But at the same time, no matter how many times you inject Cesar Izturis with steroids, he will never hit more than 10 home runs in a season.

The point is that performance is relative to the era in which a player played in. These guys taking steroids beat other guys taking steroids; they didn't play with Aaron, Ruth, or Mays. With or without PEDs, these guys were still great players for their era which to me, warrants a spot in the HoF. The only meaningful difference I see in the advantages of the steroids era and the advantages of the early to mid 1900s is that except for greenies, advantages back then were out of the players control.

BTW, if any of these guys do get in, then Pete Rose needs to be in the HoF right away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • Posts

    • Twenty people believe there’s a trade before the season that changed the offseason? Hmm I said it when Elias was hired. Nothing of any significance will change until there’s new ownership.  Actually, I questioned his ability to perform his duties with the current ownership. I’m still waiting for an impact signing. However, I think they may have a chance with the young guys. Of course, that assumes a big season from Adley, Gunnar and GrayRod and it’s likely at least one of that group has growing pains.    I also hope Hall gets a real shot as a SP. Too many people didn’t recognize the strides he made in season and he’s always been a starter. His stint in the pen was useful, but that kid has electric stuff.  Don’t get me wrong, Elias has been ok, but how much could he do if they loosened the purse strings? Yes, I know, the Frazier signing, but how bout that Gibson guy!  
    • The biggest development of the season will be the sale of the team.
    • We will be fortunate if GRod has a sub 4 ERA. I don’t see him as any more important than the rest of the starters.  If he is ever a true ace (and the odds are against that), it won’t likely be in 2023. The biggest development to this year will be revolved around all the young players, not just one. Everything about this team and the future success of this organization hinges on them. 
    • I'd say that is a yes. https://www.mlb.com/glossary/transactions/service-time  
    • Unusual, in that Birds usually avoid both Fox and Wolf.
    • Why not keep Al and NL just make each have East and West Divisions. Al East is our current group plus Chicago WS and Cleveland plus an expansion in Charlotte-Nashville. AL west gets the rest NL east is that current group plus Chicago Cubs, Pittsburg, and Cincinnati. the west gets the rest plus an expansion in Vegas or wherever. You play your division 15 times (105 games) and the other division say 6 times (48 games). That gets you to 153, add a 3 game inter league to a close geographic rival (Gnats) you are at 156. Expand Playoffs so top 4 in each Division in. the top 2 advance to face the other geographic Division. league winners in WS
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...