Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
soulflower

Should Bonds and Clemens be elected to the HOF?

HOF for PED users?    11 members have voted

  1. 1. Should Bonds and Clemens be elected to the HOF?

    • Yes
      4
    • No
      7

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

70 posts in this topic

I assume that Bonds and Clemens won't get enough votes to be elected to the HOF this year.

 

The reasons for not voting for them seems to be based on emotion not reason. Here's why I think they should get elected

 

They are the two best players on the ballot and two of the best in baseball history. 

 

They played in an era where steroids were widely used by their competition and not frowned upon by the MLB or the press.

 

Many of the same writers who voted for Bonds and Clemens to get their MVP and CY Young awards are HOF voters. So it's hypocritical of them not to vote for these guys now.

 

We don't know which players did or didn't use PEDs. We know there are players in the HOF who used Amphetamines and possibly a few who used Steroids.

 

I think the voters should vote for the best players from that era or give up their voting privileges and let the fans decide.  

Edited by soulflower

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Pete Rose should get in before any of them

 

Pete Rose was banned from baseball so he's not eligible.

 

If the MLB doesn't think Bonds and Clemens should be eligible, take them off the ballot. Otherwise, there's no rational reason not to vote for them... 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The players with the most hits, HRs and Cy Young awards of all-time will probably not get in the HOF.  

 

Pete Rose has been punished enough. Reinstate him and vote him in.  Let those whom MLB sincerely believes used steroids wait at least 10 years, then, if positive evidence (or a confession) has still not been found, vote them in too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All three should be in the Hall.  But they won't because the voters think they are some sort police force protecting their mythical and delusional idea of what MLB is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume that Bonds and Clemens won't get enough votes to be elected to the HOF this year.

 

The reasons for not voting for them seems to be based on emotion not reason. Here's why I think they should get elected

 

They are the two best players on the ballot and two of the best in baseball history. 

 

They played in an era where steroids were widely used by their competition and not frowned upon by the MLB or the press.

 

Many of the same writers who voted for Bonds and Clemens to get their MVP and CY Young awards are HOF voters. So it's hypocritical of them not to vote for these guys now.

 

We don't know which players did or didn't use PEDs. We know there are players in the HOF who used Amphetamines and possibly a few who used Steroids.

 

I think the voters should vote for the best players from that era or give up their voting privileges and let the fans decide.  

yeah, but you totally approve of steroid use, and you want to see more players use them, so that has to be weighed into your opinion. Like my opinion, which is the opposite of your's, there's not much objectivity. it's locked down tight, and your comments on this board pretty much tell us that you have no interest in any reconsideration of your position. I know, because I feel the same way about my opinion.  

 

on the subject of amphetamines, they don't increase your power, bat speed, strength, conditioning or recovery time. so any comparison to roids won't stand up to even a cursory peek into the details. 

 

as for who voted for those players to win seasonal awards, you don't know who voted for those awards, or if those same writers are now withholding HOF votes. some individual writers may openly share who they voted for, but the majority don't share that info. so honestly, you're really reaching to make that point. 

 

steriods were always frowned upon by MLB & the press. you won't find a single example of an MLB exec or owner publicly or privately voicing their support for PEDs. I doubt you would find very many writers, with HOF voting creds, voicing support for the use of PEDs. everyone knew there would be a reckoning, and here it is.     

 

I was watching the HOF round table discussion last night on MLB. They brought up these two players, and their eligibility.  here's what they said.

 

Clemens: it seems to be universally agreed that he started juicing after he left boston. They congratulated DD for making the decision to let Roger walk, because he was breaking down and losing effectiveness. so when they reviewed his stats, they stopped after his 13 years in boston. the idea was, those 13 years showed who the real RC was. and after those 13 years, he was, at best, borderline.

 

Bonds: this was less murky. the consensus was, if you take his production as a Pirate on thru to 1999 (which is assumed to be his last PED free season), he's a HOFer. 

 

the election process isn't a mathematical equation. the votes are cast by humans, not computers. so there will always be an emotional component to it. heck, it's built into the vote with the "character clause". that's why these conversations are always so fun. :)   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The players with the most hits, HRs and Cy Young awards of all-time will probably not get in the HOF.  

 

Pete Rose has been punished enough. Reinstate him and vote him in.  Let those whom MLB sincerely believes used steroids wait at least 10 years, then, if positive evidence (or a confession) has still not been found, vote them in too.

I've always had the suspicion that Rose will be inducted the year after he dies. that will be MLB's way of sticking it to him for all his grandstanding and money grabbing. he'll get in, but he won't be alive to enjoy it.

 

of course, they never let in Shoeless Joe, so I'm probably totally wrong about this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All three should be in the Hall.  But they won't because the voters think they are some sort police force protecting their mythical and delusional idea of what MLB is.

The whole thing has become a joke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 the idea was, those 13 years showed who the real RC was. and after those 13 years, he was, at best, borderline.

 

What did they base that on? He won 20 games three times after he left Boston and posted ERAs under 3.00 5 times 

Edited by bmore_ken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah, but you totally approve of steroid use, and you want to see more players use them, so that has to be weighed into your opinion. Like my opinion, which is the opposite of your's, there's not much objectivity. it's locked down tight, and your comments on this board pretty much tell us that you have no interest in any reconsideration of your position. I know, because I feel the same way about my opinion.  

 

 

Hold your horses. 

I don't object to PED use but I don't condone it either. Steroids should probably be banned(because of the health risks) but I don't think HGH or Amphetamines should be banned. 

 

I do think that some PED use should be allowed under a doctor's supervision. Like for example, some PEDs like HGH shorten recovery time from injury. Under the supervision of a doctor, HGH use seems safer than Cortisone shots. Plus, there's no proven performance benefit for HGH. At best, it might help players feel more refereshed or rejuvenated but it doesn't help them run faster or increase bat speed. 

 

As for the HOF debate, I just want to see some reasonable arguments as to why Bonds and Clemens shouldn't be in given the facts that they're the best ball players on the ballot and there are already cheaters and drug abusers in the HOF. 

 

 

 

on the subject of amphetamines, they don't increase your power, bat speed, strength, conditioning or recovery time. so any comparison to roids won't stand up to even a cursory peek into the details. 

 

None of the benefits of PEDs have been scientifically proven but anecdotally, it's believed that Amphetamines make athletes more awake and alert. It helps baseball players see the ball better. If it helps guys see the ball better it's a PED. 

 

I think where Steroids is different from other drugs historically used by baseball players is, Roids helped aging baseball players extend their peak years. Due to Steroids, guys like Bonds and Palmeiro performed at a high level offensively late into their 30's when historically, baseball players' bodies begin to break down at those ages.  

 

As far as I know, there's no magic drug that will turn me into a great athlete. Enhancing my vision, strength, or recovery from injury isn't going to do me any good because I don't have the skills. 

 

During the era that Bonds and Clemens played, they competed against lots of players who used Steroids. Due to their skills, not drugs, they dominated their era of the game. 

 

 

 

steriods were always frowned upon by MLB & the press. you won't find a single example of an MLB exec or owner publicly or privately voicing their support for PEDs. I doubt you would find very many writers, with HOF voting creds, voicing support for the use of PEDs. everyone knew there would be a reckoning, and here it is.     

 

I disagree. I remember the McGwire/Sosa homerun chase of 98' season. Everyone knew they were on Roids but no one cared. That season was celebrated by fans, the MLB, and the press.

 

The attitudes didn't really change in the Press until Bonds set the new homerun records a few years later. Bonds was a jerk for his entire career and few people were happy to see him breaking all these "sacred" records. 

 

The sports writers still voted for Bonds to be MVP four more times, despite it being obvious from the changes in his body that he was using PEDs.  

 

I was watching the HOF round table discussion last night on MLB. They brought up these two players, and their eligibility.  here's what they said.

 

Clemens: it seems to be universally agreed that he started juicing after he left boston. They congratulated DD for making the decision to let Roger walk, because he was breaking down and losing effectiveness. so when they reviewed his stats, they stopped after his 13 years in boston. the idea was, those 13 years showed who the real RC was. and after those 13 years, he was, at best, borderline.

 

Bonds: this was less murky. the consensus was, if you take his production as a Pirate on thru to 1999 (which is assumed to be his last PED free season), he's a HOFer. 

 

the election process isn't a mathematical equation. the votes are cast by humans, not computers. so there will always be an emotional component to it. heck, it's built into the vote with the "character clause". that's why these conversations are always so fun.  :)   

 

The conversations are fun when they focus on a player's worthiness based on their career Stats. When you start ignoring the Stats and focusing on morals then the conversation gets ridiculous.  

Edited by soulflower

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hold your horses. 

I don't object to PED use but I don't condone it either. Steroids should probably be banned(because of the health risks) but I don't think HGH or Amphetamines should be banned. 

 

 

Really? I remember you posting a comment about how you wish more players used PEDs, because you want to see guys throw 150 mph pitches and hit the ball 800 ft. do you remember that?

 

it's also interesting that you're taking the writers to task for essentially acting in you're "neither condemn nor condone" attitude. during the Sosa/Mac HR chase, most writers neither objected or condoned their PED use. it was the prevailing attitude of the day, much like appeasement with Hitler. in retrospect, I'm sure the silent ones wish they had spoken up the way Tom Verducci did when he wrote about this topic during that summer. 

 

you say you don't condoning PED, but your repeated comments on this topic show me a poster who is very much in favor of it.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

you say you don't condoning PED, but your repeated comments on this topic show me a poster who is very much in favor of it.   

I'm reading his comments the same way

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? I remember you posting a comment about how you wish more players used PEDs, because you want to see guys throw 150 mph pitches and hit the ball 800 ft. do you remember that?

 

it's also interesting that you're taking the writers to task for essentially acting in you're "neither condemn nor condone" attitude. during the Sosa/Mac HR chase, most writers neither objected or condoned their PED use. it was the prevailing attitude of the day, much like appeasement with Hitler. in retrospect, I'm sure the silent ones wish they had spoken up the way Tom Verducci did when he wrote about this topic during that summer. 

 

you say you don't condoning PED, but your repeated comments on this topic show me a poster who is very much in favor of it.   

 

I wouldn't advise any athlete to take Steroids but it's none of my business what they do to their bodies. I don't see the contradiction. 

 

I grew up watching baseball in the 90's. Players using steroids didn't bother me back then, why should it bother me now?

 

That's the same argument I'm making against the writers who supported these players in the Prime of their careers but want to pretend they didn't exist now.  

 

I'm not an Oriole fan so my topics on this forum revolve around general baseball topics. PEDs is a major topic in around HOF voting time because sports writers made it an issue in how they vote...

Edited by soulflower

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't advise any athlete to take Steroids but it's none of my business what they do to their bodies. I don't see the contradiction. 

 

I grew up watching baseball in the 90's. Players using steroids didn't bother me back then, why should it bother me now?

 

That's the same argument I'm making against the writers who supported these players in the Prime of their careers but want to pretend they didn't exist now.  

 

I'm not an Oriole fan so my topics on this forum revolve around general baseball topics. PEDs is a major topic in around HOF voting time because sports writers made it an issue in how they vote...

I don't think you should be bothered by steroid use. you aren't the only one who doesn't care if players juice. there are people on this board who have expressed this opinion in plain english. I have no problem with you're opinions, I think you know that.

 

but since you mentioned the writers again, I'll make this comment again. aside from a very, very select few writers, we don't know who voted for those guys to win seasonal awards, or HOF entry. it's a secret vote in both cases.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Maddux received 97.2 percent of the vote from 571 baseball writers, the eighth-highest all-time. There has never been a player elected to the Hall of Fame unanimously, with pitcher Tom Seaver getting a record 98.84 percent in 1992 and Ryan tabbed on 98.79 percent of votes in 1999.

 

Should have been unanimous.  We'll likely never see another pitcher get 350+ wins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What did they base that on? He won 20 games three times after he left Boston and posted ERAs under 3.00 5 times 

They didn't break it down, but it seemed like everyone at the table was nodding along in agreement. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More evidence that some voters are a-holes

if you don't know very much about the individuals that make up the collective voting body of the BBWAA, then I suggest you never look into it. because it's a joke, and all it will do is make you mad. they have voters who have never written about baseball, and admit to not even following the game...ever. one idiot voted for Shawn Green, because he was the face of the dodgers when they were bad, and because he was "hot"

 

I wish I was joking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maddux, Glavine, and Frank Thomas are in. Bonds and Clemens got dissed again

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-08/maddux-joins-glavine-thomas-in-making-hall-of-fame-on-first-try.html

 

I totally support the three guys who got voted in but how do we know they didn't use PEDs? 

they don't. but it's reasonable to assume the 2 pitchers didn't.

 

but here's a question for the general audience. what's up with Piazza?

 

personally, I don't remember him having any connection to PEDs. was there a connection? the argument I heard on the MLB show was that Piazza and Bagwell were light hitting scrubs in the minors. then they hit the majors, and suddenly they hit 400+ HRs.

 

personally, I think Bagwell was a juicer. his body swelled up and then shrank back down after he retired. that's not normal biology. but Piazza looks the same today as he did when he was playing.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More evidence that some voters are a-holes

I forgot to mention this. I don't know who the writer is, but he said he refuses to vote for anyone from the steroid era. his ballot had one name on it, Jack Morris. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they don't. but it's reasonable to assume the 2 pitchers didn't.

 

but here's a question for the general audience. what's up with Piazza?

 

personally, I don't remember him having any connection to PEDs. was there a connection? the argument I heard on the MLB show was that Piazza and Bagwell were light hitting scrubs in the minors. then they hit the majors, and suddenly they hit 400+ HRs.

 

personally, I think Bagwell was a juicer. his body swelled up and then shrank back down after he retired. that's not normal biology. but Piazza looks the same today as he did when he was playing.  

 

Your post is a perfect example of the problem with the current debate. We have no idea who used or didn't use. Candidates should be judged based on their stats like it has been with any other time in baseball history.  

 

There's no hard evidence that Biggio, Bagwell, or Piazza used PEDs. There's suspicion based on Bagwell's body changes and Piazza's acne. As far as hitting goes, Power is usually the last tool to develop. Lots of player don't really blossom as power hitters until they hit the majors. Robinson Cano looked like a scrub in the minors. 

 

Lots of players who have been caught in recent years violating the drug ban don't look like body builders(A-Rod, Brian Roberts, Ryan Braun, Bartolo Colon, Melky Cabrera, etc). So I don't think we can assume that certain guys were clean just because they weren't all muscled up or that guys who are muscled up must be on Roids(ie Chris Davis). 

 

It seems obvious that Bonds and Clemens used PEDs but it's ridiculous not vote for worthy candidates based on suspicion alone.  

Edited by soulflower

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your post is a perfect example of the problem with the current debate. We have no idea who used or didn't use. Candidates should be judged based on their stats like it has been with any other time in baseball history.  

 

There's no hard evidence that Biggio, Bagwell, or Piazza used PEDs. There's suspicion based on Bagwell's body changes and Piazza's acne. As far as hitting goes, Power is usually the last tool to develop. Lots of player don't really blossom as power hitters until they hit the majors. Robinson Cano looked like a scrub in the minors. 

 

Lots of players who have been caught in recent years violating the drug ban don't look like body builders(A-Rod, Brian Roberts, Ryan Braun, Bartolo Colon, Melky Cabrera, etc). So I don't think we can assume that certain guys were clean just because they weren't all muscled up or that guys who are muscled up must be on Roids(ie Chris Davis). 

 

It seems obvious that Bonds and Clemens used PEDs but it's ridiculous not vote for worthy candidates based on suspicion alone.  

yep, it's a slippery slope. last year, there was a loud set of voices who were frustrated with the voting results. a case in point, Biggio didn't get in because a segment of the voters believe that he is a HOFer, but not a 1st ballot HOFer. how stupid is that? you're either a HOFer, or your not.

 

this year, there is an even louder outcry for reform of the voting process. I bet some things start to change within 2-3 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0