Archived

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

weird-O

Get off your high horse

65 posts in this topic

there has been a growing discussion about the class of players appearing on the HOF, now that sterroid era players are eligible.

 

I just heard Richard Justice share his opinion on the subject. he said writers can't know all the players who used PEDS, as such, it's not fair to not vote for a confirmed user. in other words, known users shouldn't be punished until all users are punished.

 

that's an interesting philosophy. perhaps we should use that in all corners of society. no speeding tickets for anyone, because the cops can't catch every speeder, and so on.

 

then he said the voters need to get off their high horse and let Bagwell in. he must have a real thing for Bagwell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think I might be the only baseball fan in America who doesn't give two shiites about the steroid era

 

I think players at the level of Bonds and Clemens should make the HOF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think players at the level of Bonds and Clemens should make the HOF.

 

I agree 100%. I think if you have the numbers regardless of steroids you should get in. Palmeiro and McGuire should already be in

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bagwell, imo, isn't a HOFer.

You still have other guys, like Dale Murphy, who was unquestionably one of the best players of his era, sitting out there.

Jack Morris, imo, is more deserving than Clemens.

Bonds, on the other hand, still deserves to go in the Hall. He was best player just about anyone alive has seen play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jack Morris, imo, is more deserving than Clemens.

 

Not according to the numbers. Say what you want about Clemens but I'm pretty sure he makes the list of top 10 pitchers of all time for most people

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not according to the numbers. Say what you want about Clemens but I'm pretty sure he makes the list of top 10 pitchers of all time for most people

 

Yeah, you're right.

I just can't stand him - which is creating bias on my part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think I might be the only baseball fan in America who doesn't give two shiites about the steroid era

 

it's that attitude that lets the bad guys win :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bagwell, imo, isn't a HOFer.

 

I agree.

 

I liked Bagwell as a player. he made it fun to watch Astros games. but his body tell me, beyond any reasonable doubt, that he was juicing. as a juicer, he was nowhere near the production level of the other juicers. he needs about 100-125 more HRs.

 

Bonds, on the other hand, still deserves to go in the Hall. He was best player just about anyone alive has seen play.

 

I'd put Griffey jr. above him. Griffey was a significantly better defensive player, and with no hint of PEDs suspicion, he was obviously a bigger offensive presence as well. take away Balco, and I have no doubt Griffey would have surpassed Bonds in power numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree.

 

I liked Bagwell as a player. he made it fun to watch Astros games. but his body tell me, beyond any reasonable doubt, that he was juicing. as a juicer, he was nowhere near the production level of the other juicers. he needs about 100-125 more HRs.

 

 

 

I'd put Griffey jr. above him. Griffey was a significantly better defensive player, and with no hint of PEDs suspicion, he was obviously a bigger offensive presence as well. take away Balco, and I have no doubt Griffey would have surpassed Bonds in power numbers.

 

On a more serious note, completely agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bonds and company made 100’s of million whether or not some nerd like Ken Rosenthal votes for them is trivial. Plus Ken and company jumped on for the ride and didn’t question what was happening at the time. Right now in New York they have an ageless SS but no one except Skip Bayless has had the guts to ask the tough questions. The voters are/were part of problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They need to either simply vote in the best players of the steroid era regardless of how they tested or not vote anyone in. This business where the voters attempt to determine who was and was not clean is ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They need to either simply vote in the best players of the steroid era regardless of how they tested or not vote anyone in. This business where the voters attempt to determine who was and was not clean is ridiculous.

 

so punish everyone?

 

and what years of service do you begin and end this blanket guilty verdict on the entire player's union?

 

are you thinking of something along the lines of - every player whose career included the years between 1989 - 2012 are automatically disqualified from HOF eligibility.

 

for example, Trout, Harper and Machado, if they accomplish HOF caliber careers, are disqualified because they played in the same year as Melky. is this what you have in mind?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
so punish everyone?

 

and what years of service do you begin and end this blanket guilty verdict on the entire player's union?

 

are you thinking of something along the lines of - every player whose career included the years between 1989 - 2012 are automatically disqualified from HOF eligibility.

 

for example, Trout, Harper and Machado, if they accomplish HOF caliber careers, are disqualified because they played in the same year as Melky. is this what you have in mind?

 

I said: "They need to either simply vote in the best players of the steroid era regardless of how they tested or not vote anyone in."

 

There are 2 options there. I would advise the former. The current muddle is absurd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I said: "They need to either simply vote in the best players of the steroid era regardless of how they tested or not vote anyone in."

 

There are 2 options there. I would advise the former. The current muddle is absurd.

 

I understand what you said, I just don't think it's a logical approach. why should the writers be forced to vote in a player they don't want (ex: Raffy Palmiero) so that they can vote in a player they do want (ex: Biggio)?

 

I used Raffy because he has the HOF credentials, but his dirty test, and > 15% of the votes garnered, are telling us he's not welcome in the Hall.

 

I used Biggio because he is already at 72% of the vote so far, so the writers clearly favor him.

 

you're suggesting that they either vote Raffy in, or leave Biggio out until they vote Raffy in. I don't see how that's a good approach. what did Biggio do wrong? why should he be excluded because Raffy was cheating and the hall voters don't want him in?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The writers basically need to get over themselves and the whole 'he cheated oh my god' nonsense. Guys have long taken performance enhancers. But suddenly it matters because why?

 

And yeah vote in the best of the era straight up or don't vote anyone in. Even if you're certain Biggio never took steroids (doubtful given who he was surrounded by) he still benefited from having all those hulking behemoths in the lineup behind him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The writers basically need to get over themselves and the whole 'he cheated oh my god' nonsense. Guys have long taken performance enhancers. But suddenly it matters because why?

 

that's pretty much what Justice was saying on the radio.

 

my personal opinion is that we can't compare HGH, etc. to "uppers" of the 1950's-60's or cocaine of the 1980's.

 

doing coke didn't help a player hit the ball further. speed didn't make a player's muscles repair faster, allowing them to lift more and build more muscle mass faster than the normal rate of growth for a human.

 

so I don't think that argument works. those drugs didn't do anything more for a player than he could achieve with a good night's sleep and eating healthy.

 

just to be clear, I'm not calling you out. it's just a slow period for baseball, and this is something to talk about. and I respect your opinions. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what the answer is on this issue. The truth is that it doesn't bother me too much either way, whether they let everyone in or none of them.

 

Many of these players, like Bonds and Clemens, would have had HOF careers without the steroids. I also think that some of these guys would have just been very good career players instead of HOF types. I have no idea how you try to figure all of that out.

 

What I do no is that imo there is no comparing the 'drugs' of previous generations with what players used during the steroid era. No way in hell. Belanger would have probably hit 25-30 HR's with the stuff available now. Take a look at Bonds when he was young and then take a look at him when it was obvious he was using. I might have been in the minority of baseball fans, but I never enjoyed seeing him walk his swollen head and body up to the plate covered in body armour and simply swing away for the fences. The previous generation of 'PED's' were nothing compared to what the steroid era drugs could do in terms of strength and stamina.

 

I'm with Earl on this when he said that he somewhat understood a player wanting to perform better, but regardless of how you felt on the issue, it absolutely made a mockery of the records. That is probably my biggest issue, the smashing of records and milestones that simply would not have happened, or even come close to happening, without the steroids.

 

In the end, if I had a vote, I would probably vote in those guys who I thought were HOF players even without the steroids. Or maybe not. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites