Jump to content



Recent headlines from The Baltimore Sun

Photo
- - - - -

Should Bonds and Clemens be elected to the HOF?


  • Please log in to reply
69 replies to this topic

Poll: HOF for PED users? (11 member(s) have cast votes)

Should Bonds and Clemens be elected to the HOF?

  1. Yes (4 votes [36.36%])

    Percentage of vote: 36.36%

  2. No (7 votes [63.64%])

    Percentage of vote: 63.64%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 soulflower

soulflower

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 46,553 posts

Posted 08 January 2014 - 10:52 AM

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, 08 January 2014 - 10:54 AM.

"...reality has a well-known liberal bias"

#2 bmore_ken

bmore_ken

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 55,212 posts

Posted 08 January 2014 - 11:38 AM

I think Pete Rose should get in before any of them


Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. It has a nice sound to it

Suggs has signed. I've never been so happy to be wrong

Don't blame me, I voted Bob Barr:cool:

#3 soulflower

soulflower

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 46,553 posts

Posted 08 January 2014 - 11:47 AM

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... 

 


"...reality has a well-known liberal bias"

#4 bmore_ken

bmore_ken

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 55,212 posts

Posted 08 January 2014 - 11:53 AM

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

 

Which should be embarrasing to MLB


Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. It has a nice sound to it

Suggs has signed. I've never been so happy to be wrong

Don't blame me, I voted Bob Barr:cool:

#5 Struds

Struds

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,773 posts

Posted 08 January 2014 - 12:10 PM

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.



#6 ivanbalt

ivanbalt

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 12,134 posts

Posted 08 January 2014 - 12:11 PM

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.



#7 weird-O

weird-O

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13,371 posts
  • LocationI'm here from downtown, I'm here from Mitch and Murray.

Posted 08 January 2014 - 12:13 PM

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. :)   


"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics." - Benjamin Disraeli

#8 weird-O

weird-O

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13,371 posts
  • LocationI'm here from downtown, I'm here from Mitch and Murray.

Posted 08 January 2014 - 12:19 PM

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. 


"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics." - Benjamin Disraeli

#9 bmore_ken

bmore_ken

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 55,212 posts

Posted 08 January 2014 - 12:33 PM

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


Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. It has a nice sound to it

Suggs has signed. I've never been so happy to be wrong

Don't blame me, I voted Bob Barr:cool:

#10 bmore_ken

bmore_ken

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 55,212 posts

Posted 08 January 2014 - 12:37 PM

 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, 08 January 2014 - 12:38 PM.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. It has a nice sound to it

Suggs has signed. I've never been so happy to be wrong

Don't blame me, I voted Bob Barr:cool:

#11 soulflower

soulflower

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 46,553 posts

Posted 08 January 2014 - 12:47 PM

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, 08 January 2014 - 12:55 PM.

"...reality has a well-known liberal bias"

#12 weird-O

weird-O

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13,371 posts
  • LocationI'm here from downtown, I'm here from Mitch and Murray.

Posted 08 January 2014 - 02:10 PM

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.   


"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics." - Benjamin Disraeli

#13 bmore_ken

bmore_ken

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 55,212 posts

Posted 08 January 2014 - 02:12 PM

 

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


Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. It has a nice sound to it

Suggs has signed. I've never been so happy to be wrong

Don't blame me, I voted Bob Barr:cool:

#14 soulflower

soulflower

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 46,553 posts

Posted 08 January 2014 - 02:17 PM

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, 08 January 2014 - 02:21 PM.

"...reality has a well-known liberal bias"

#15 weird-O

weird-O

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13,371 posts
  • LocationI'm here from downtown, I'm here from Mitch and Murray.

Posted 08 January 2014 - 02:37 PM

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.  


"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics." - Benjamin Disraeli

#16 soulflower

soulflower

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 46,553 posts

Posted 08 January 2014 - 02:47 PM

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

 

http://www.bloomberg...-first-try.html

 

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


Edited by soulflower, 08 January 2014 - 02:49 PM.

"...reality has a well-known liberal bias"

#17 ivanbalt

ivanbalt

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 12,134 posts

Posted 08 January 2014 - 03:15 PM

 

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.



#18 soulflower

soulflower

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 46,553 posts

Posted 08 January 2014 - 03:24 PM

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

 

More evidence that some voters are a-holes


"...reality has a well-known liberal bias"

#19 weird-O

weird-O

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13,371 posts
  • LocationI'm here from downtown, I'm here from Mitch and Murray.

Posted 08 January 2014 - 03:24 PM

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. 


"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics." - Benjamin Disraeli

#20 weird-O

weird-O

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13,371 posts
  • LocationI'm here from downtown, I'm here from Mitch and Murray.

Posted 08 January 2014 - 03:30 PM

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.


"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics." - Benjamin Disraeli




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users