SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Writers elect no one to the HOF
|
Post by remember04 on Jan 10, 2013 8:10:50 GMT -5
At what point do we say: hey, it's just sports? Steroids aren't the end of the world,. Cooperstown would be a much more interesting place with all these guys in. For the kids who die taking them it is the end of the world. So there are a lot of parents on here, would you want your kid taking steroids if it means he/she can dominate in their respective sport? As far as the morality of it and the morons that are in the hall, just because you've made a mistake before doesn't mean you should continue to make it. Lots of people make mistakes. Once you realize it then you stop. There has to be a cut off point somewhere. I agree that there are people who should definitely be in though and you can't hold the whole era responsible for the players that did use.
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Jan 10, 2013 8:34:55 GMT -5
PEDs obviously have clouded the water for HOF voting. That is indeed unfortunate in the abstract and for those who might have been clean during the so-called steroid era. But did not the players bring this situation upon themselves by either drugging or remaining silent to the situation as Curt Shilling publicly said today? I respect and support the current vote and find it personally and morally gratifying. The HOF has a clause that puts emphasis on Integrity. That clause, unaltered over time, has resulted in the exclusion of Shoeless Joe Jackson, Pete Rose and perhaps others from admittance...players that otherwise had more than requisite and legitimate statistical credentials. All players want to be the best that they can be and some choose (and will continue to choose) artificial means as they become available to achieve or maintain performance level for as long as possible. There is, today, an obvious monetary incentive as well. But, the so-called HOF 'morals clause' exists for a reason. IMO if players do not adhere to that standard, they should not be given HOF consideration. I say this whether or not their stats before suspicion or accepted damning test results, would otherwise qualify them. And, I don't give credence to the position that others during that time might have been using as well. Tough. To me Integrity is the cornerstone of the game across the board. If that standard is abandoned, then I will cease to be a fan. Otherwise give carte blanche to every team and hope that your team has the best chemist. Is that what people want in the quest to finish first and nominate your team's player(s)? If so, where is the legitimate gratification? I certainly don't want to be a part of that world. Babe Ruth was an alcoholic and played during Prohibition. Additionally, during the last decade of Hank Aaron's career steroids were commonplace in most athletics; there's no proof that "Hammerin Hank" didn't extend his career artificially. I choose not to damn people without proof and without understanding the context within which they were immersed.
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Jan 10, 2013 8:42:43 GMT -5
For the kids who die taking driving them it is the end of the world. So there are a lot of parents on here, would you want your kid taking steroids driving if it means he/she can dominate in their respective sport get to school for an education? Fixed
|
|
|
Post by rangoon82 on Jan 10, 2013 10:45:27 GMT -5
|
|
Gwell55
Veteran
Posts: 616
Member is Online
|
Post by Gwell55 on Jan 10, 2013 11:16:04 GMT -5
The counter to this argument is obviously that since steroid use is illegal, the majors should not need have specific rules regarding their use. Laws obviously supersede the rules of MLB. I am sure we could think of underhanded/illegal things everyone would consider cheating that is not specifically banned by an MLB rule, but would breaking the laws of the US. Not saying I believe that the steroid users should be banned, but that specific argument is very weak. Countering that: Then noting that illegal activities such as gambling kept Rose out BUT Alcohol use during prohibition didn't keep anyone out. Cocaine highly illegal didn't keep anyone out. Greenies distributed freely in the clubhouse highly illegal also didn't keep anyone out. Use of drugs such as amphetamines ("greenies" in baseball vernacular) and marijuana in the game. Both have a long history in baseball; John Milner in fact in testimony, spoke of Willie Mays and Willie Stargell, both iconic figures and Baseball Hall of Famers, giving him "greenies". Milner died at age 50 in Atlanta, Georgia on January 4, 2000. They made it and this is the exact same character issue It is well noted that amphetamines were used to enhance the performance of players who couldn't otherwise play at peak day after day. Performance was the issue with their use just like steroids today. Upon your logic of weakness of character and performance, than in my era Aaron, Ripken, Stargell, and Mays along with some others are wrongly elected than. The supposed quality BBWA writers once again are totally at fault by this logic and look at what they did with Mays: "Willie Mays' unquestionable career statistics and longevity in the pre-PED era, the more recent acknowledgement of Mays as perhaps the finest five-tool player ever, and the overwhelming consensus of many surveys and other expert analyses carefully examining Mays' relative performance, have led to a growing opinion that Mays was possibly the greatest all-around baseball player of all-time."
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Jan 10, 2013 12:51:54 GMT -5
I would suggest letting Bonds/Clemens &c drop off the ballot, or at least off the ballots of most voters, get on with electing players generally considered clean, and let the Veteran's Committee decide on the others with the perspective of time. The counter to this argument is obviously that since steroid use is illegal, the majors should not need have specific rules regarding their use. Laws obviously supersede the rules of MLB. I am sure we could think of underhanded/illegal things everyone would consider cheating that is not specifically banned by an MLB rule, but would breaking the laws of the US. Not saying I believe that the steroid users should be banned, but that specific argument is very weak. Countering that: Then noting that illegal activities such as gambling kept Rose out BUT Alcohol use during prohibition didn't keep anyone out. Misses the point I think. The point is that although baseball did not have a specific rule against illegal use of PEDs, it was clearly and universally considered cheating, even when it was, shall we say, not discouraged. Amphetamines were not clearly and universally considered cheating, as far as I can tell. Neither was, or is, abuse of caffeine, which remains a common drug of choice. As for Rose, he bet on baseball, which has been a cardinal sin since the Black Sox scandal. "Illegal gambling" wasn't his problem. It may not seem like the line is clear, and it may not always make sense -- steroids are a perfectly valid medical treatment, for example -- but from everything I've read the line was clearly understood within baseball.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Jan 10, 2013 12:52:10 GMT -5
The counter to this argument is obviously that since steroid use is illegal, the majors should not need have specific rules regarding their use. Laws obviously supersede the rules of MLB. I am sure we could think of underhanded/illegal things everyone would consider cheating that is not specifically banned by an MLB rule, but would breaking the laws of the US. Not saying I believe that the steroid users should be banned, but that specific argument is very weak. Countering that: Then noting that illegal activities such as gambling kept Rose out BUT Alcohol use during prohibition didn't keep anyone out. Cocaine highly illegal didn't keep anyone out. Greenies distributed freely in the clubhouse highly illegal also didn't keep anyone out. Use of drugs such as amphetamines ("greenies" in baseball vernacular) and marijuana in the game. Both have a long history in baseball; John Milner in fact in testimony, spoke of Willie Mays and Willie Stargell, both iconic figures and Baseball Hall of Famers, giving him "greenies". Milner died at age 50 in Atlanta, Georgia on January 4, 2000. They made it and this is the exact same character issue It is well noted that amphetamines were used to enhance the performance of players who couldn't otherwise play at peak day after day. Performance was the issue with their use just like steroids today. Upon your logic of weakness of character and performance, than in my era Aaron, Ripken, Stargell, and Mays along with some others are wrongly elected than. The supposed quality BBWA writers once again are totally at fault by this logic and look at what they did with Mays: "Willie Mays' unquestionable career statistics and longevity in the pre-PED era, the more recent acknowledgement of Mays as perhaps the finest five-tool player ever, and the overwhelming consensus of many surveys and other expert analyses carefully examining Mays' relative performance, have led to a growing opinion that Mays was possibly the greatest all-around baseball player of all-time." Alcohol and recreational drugs do not affect the play of baseball. It is unquestionable that amphetamines do not change the ability of a player. They do not make a player stronger, the ball travel farther when it leaves bat, or increase the MPH of a fastball. To equate alcohol to steroid use undermines your argument about the hall of fame and goes down path about public policy. At least that's my opinion. In my opinion, it is far better to argue simply that the hall of fame has never taken the sportsmanship and integrity clause seriously when determining who should be in hall of fame. The best example is Gaylord Perry, who cheated on the field (using the spitball) and was still admitted to the hall of fame. Additionally, few care or investigate the use of corked bats when determining who should be in the hall of fame.
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Jan 10, 2013 13:17:16 GMT -5
Alcohol and recreational drugs do not affect the play of baseball. It is unquestionable that amphetamines do not change the ability of a player. They do not make a player stronger, the ball travel farther when it leaves bat, or increase the MPH of a fastball. To equate alcohol to steroid use undermines your argument about the hall of fame and goes down path about public policy. At least that's my opinion. In my opinion, it is far better to argue simply that the hall of fame has never taken the sportsmanship and integrity clause seriously when determining who should be in hall of fame. The best example is Gaylord Perry, who cheated on the field (using the spitball) and was still admitted to the hall of fame. Additionally, few care or investigate the use of corked bats when determining who should be in the hall of fame. I've got to disagree with your argument points, but I agree with your final point. Alcohol and rec. drugs absolutely do affect the play of baseball. David Wells threw his perfect game drunk as an example. Cocaine, amphetamines and even caffeine absolutely enhance performance. Go to PubMed and look up "Caffeine + Performance". Another example: the NCAA limits the amount of caffeine that athletes can have in their system. Energy is a massive performance enhancer, it does actually allow a player to throw harder, run faster, etc.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 10, 2013 15:14:45 GMT -5
Steroid testing did little no nothing to bring down offensive levels in baseball the first few years it was in effect, then the amphetamine ban went into effect, offense dropped off a cliff.
This is of course a sport defined by the endurance test of a 162+ game season, where players have to play 20 games in a row at times, deal with double headers, day-game-after-a-night-game situation, planes landing at five in the morning, etc, so there's a fairly obvious utility to using stimulants. And of course, the players who suffer most from this grind are everyday players. IE, hitters as opposed to hitters. So unlike with steroids, there's a fairly obvious reason to think that an amphetamine ban would hurt hitters more than pitchers.
As far as I can tell, there's as much evidence that the current low offensive levels in baseball have to do with amphetamines being out of the game as anything else. But none of that gives anyone an excuse to stick it to Barry Bonds, so whatever, it's not important.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Jan 10, 2013 16:24:20 GMT -5
I"m troubled by the whole debate. I don't think players who used PED's should be in the hall, but Bonds and Clemens were probably hall worthy before the steroid era. I have no answers. I'm sad for the game I love.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Jan 10, 2013 16:34:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 11, 2013 7:44:33 GMT -5
I"m troubled by the whole debate. I don't think players who used PED's should be in the hall, but Bonds and Clemens were probably hall worthy before the steroid era. I have no answers. I'm sad for the game I love. I still don't understand why PED use is so special and unique among all the terrible things that HOFers have done over the years. And if you say that they effect the play on the field more than anything else... well, you can believe that if you want. But it's important to remember that's why you're believing it: because you want to. There's no scientific basis for saying that whatsoever.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Jan 11, 2013 8:25:19 GMT -5
And if you say that they effect the play on the field more than anything else... well, you can believe that if you want. But it's important to remember that's why you're believing it: because you want to. There's no scientific basis for saying that whatsoever. "If you fall off that cliff, you'll probably die." -- "Has there been a scientific study proving that?" "Um.... I think they've shown it in lemmings and sheep..." -- "But no human trials?" "Maybe they had trouble finding volunteers."
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 11, 2013 11:55:16 GMT -5
I"m troubled by the whole debate. I don't think players who used PED's should be in the hall, but Bonds and Clemens were probably hall worthy before the steroid era. I have no answers. I'm sad for the game I love. I still don't understand why PED use is so special and unique among all the terrible things that HOFers have done over the years. And if you say that they effect the play on the field more than anything else... well, you can believe that if you want. But it's important to remember that's why you're believing it: because you want to. There's no scientific basis for saying that whatsoever. That's ridiculous. Do you really believe that Bonds would have mashed 73 HRs or slugged .800 without his steroids? Do you really believe Clemens would have had his "twilight of his career" the way he did without steroids? They were great players, but they were not the superman comicbook videogame stat players that their numbers claimed they were. Do you believe Ken Caminiti would have been the 1996 MVP without steroids? Or Canseco the '88 MVP without them? How about the great Eric Gagne? Players who were fringe (read Verducci's article re: Dan Naulty) were able to use it to their advantage over those who didn't. If you want to debate the impact of steroid vs the amphetamines players were routinely taking in the 60s and 70s, and how much that impacted their performance vs how much steroid impacted performance in the 90s then that's a slightly different conversation. But to say that steroids didn't inflate numbers along with capsizes and body sizes makes no sense whatsoever.
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Jan 11, 2013 12:37:02 GMT -5
But to say that steroids didn't inflate numbers along with capsizes and body sizes makes no sense whatsoever. Steroids do not make your bones grow. Nor, despite common thought, do they actually make you more muscular, in and of themselves. HGH can cause bone growth. Steroids allow you to recover more quickly, that's all. In the baseball sense, that means you're not playing at 70% all season, but at 95%. In the "gettin friggen yuge" sense, that means that you can train at a higher intensity, more frequently. Interestingly, some of them (dianabol?) increase blood flow to ligaments and tendons which can increase healing. Other things that allow you to recover more quickly and effectively: sleep, creatine, food, foam rollers, ice packs, heat wraps, massages, etc. To be fair, none of those things are as effective as steroids, but you can't assume that without taking them Clemens doesn't have a career resurgence.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Henley on Jan 11, 2013 12:53:25 GMT -5
"That's ridiculous. Do you really believe that Bonds would have mashed 73 HRs or slugged .800 without his steroids? Do you really believe Clemens would have had his "twilight of his career" the way he did without steroids?
They were great players, but they were not the superman comicbook videogame stat players that their numbers claimed they were."
Do you think Hank Aaron would've mashed 755 home runs in 3,298 games over 23 seasons if it weren't for his use of amphetamines? Do you think Mickey Mantle would've hit 536 home runs if he didn't have amphetamines to play through the hangovers? Willie Mays, Ted Williams, Mike Schmidt, Pete Rose......want me to go on?
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Jan 11, 2013 13:44:10 GMT -5
This is plain ignorance and shameful at that. If you have the audacity to write Ted Williams off as a product of PEDs, first give him credit for the seasons he missed serving in the military. Disgraceful.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jan 11, 2013 13:55:25 GMT -5
Again, Tom Yawkee is in the Hall of Fame. Multiple commissioners and owners who are in the Hall of Fame systematically discriminated against players based on race, which obviously effected the baseball product (substantially decreasing the possible talent pool). There is no rational argument to stress the morality clause now after essentially ignoring it from the jump. It's the internet era, kids walking into the HOF will know the PED connection to Bonds and Clemens.
The most baffling part about this to me is Rickey Henderson. Clearly Piazza and Bagwell were hurt by the era they played in, neither had any real evidence against them. How did Rickey Henderson get a pass when he played in the same era and did things that are out of his world? Or Nolan Ryan for that matter...people talk about Bonds hitting 73 HR's, but um is it normal to pitch forever like Nolan did? We can play this circumstantial evidence all day, but I'm pretty confident at least one person who is already in the HOF at least dabbled in PED's at one point. It's too late for the morality police, they've already lost.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Henley on Jan 11, 2013 14:22:34 GMT -5
This is plain ignorance and shameful at that. If you have the audacity to write Ted Williams off as a product of PEDs, first give him credit for the seasons he missed serving in the military. Disgraceful. How is it disgraceful? Ted Williams was an amazing player. He was supremely talented and had unprecedented success at the plate, especially when you consider his seasons lost to the military. He has also been linked to amphetamine use. It doesn't tarnish his legacy or change anything he did as a player. He deserves to be in the Hall of Fame.
|
|
|
Post by honkbal on Jan 11, 2013 15:12:50 GMT -5
This is plain ignorance and shameful at that. If you have the audacity to write Ted Williams off as a product of PEDs, first give him credit for the seasons he missed serving in the military. Disgraceful. How is it disgraceful? Ted Williams was an amazing player. He was supremely talented and had unprecedented success at the plate, especially when you consider his seasons lost to the military. He has also been linked to amphetamine use. It doesn't tarnish his legacy or change anything he did as a player. He deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. And if anything his military service provides an even stronger link to amphetamine usage.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 11, 2013 15:50:57 GMT -5
"That's ridiculous. Do you really believe that Bonds would have mashed 73 HRs or slugged .800 without his steroids? Do you really believe Clemens would have had his "twilight of his career" the way he did without steroids? They were great players, but they were not the superman comicbook videogame stat players that their numbers claimed they were." Do you think Hank Aaron would've mashed 755 home runs in 3,298 games over 23 seasons if it weren't for his use of amphetamines? Do you think Mickey Mantle would've hit 536 home runs if he didn't have amphetamines to play through the hangovers? Willie Mays, Ted Williams, Mike Schmidt, Pete Rose......want me to go on? As I mentioned in my original post, the amphetamines vs PEDs of the 90s is a different argument. I don't think any of those guys had their heads grow to the point they couldn't get their caps all the way down on their heads. You can't tell me that Bonds circa 1999 - 2007 and Aaron were even remotely built the same way. Bonds looked like the incredible hulk just as McGwire did. Aaron was just a kind with amazingly quick wrists. The original argument was that steroids don't help inflate the numbers. I'm sure amphetamines kept the athletes "alert" and more to their natural capacity, but the steroids and PEDs moved players beyond their natural limits and to their peak limits on an everyday basis. They could work out like it was nothing. Mere mortals would be sore. Kind of makes me think of the 1998 HR chase. Griffey was right there with McGwire and Sosa most of the way until he gave out and slowed down as the season wore on. McGwire and Sosa had no slowdown whatsoever. Nor did Bonds 3 years later. So did the greenies help players of the past era and can it be considered cheating? Maybe. It's like they were drinking strong coffee before the game and probably during, but what these guys were taking was beyond that. Then there's the morals debate. Ty Cobb, Tom Yawkey, and Cap Anson, to name a few, were very, very flawed people to say the very least. But did they cheat the game? You can make an argument that Yawkey and Anson, with their bigoted ways and influence, did. But being a bad human being doesn't mean you cheated the game. You could argue that Gaylord Perry is a cheater and doesn't belong, because he cheated within the game, although it took him about 20 years to get caught. Pete Rose cheated the game as did Shoeless Joe before him. And you can say that guys using PEDs cheated the game and created an unfair playing field. Alot of players were cheating, but not everybody was. If Pedro is indeed as clean as he claims, you could imagine what his already ungodly numbers would be if he pitched against guys who weren't already roided up? They'd be Bob Gibson 1968ish.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Jan 11, 2013 16:01:11 GMT -5
It was grossly ignorant to demean Williams' career stats and claim he would never have reached them without supposed amphetamine use, when we all know if anything Williams' numbers are vastly understated due to his honorable service in wartime, and shameful to lump him (and the other HOFs) in with a guy like Pete Rose, who earned his lifetime ban. The argument was disgracefully bad, the lack of class disgraceful as well. Dragging down Ted Williams in order to excuse Barry Bonds? Come on. Pro-PED zealotry is not an excuse to tar as many players as possible with the same brush especially when you know you're grossly ignorant of what the players did and did not do, and that in all likelihood nothing they did was banned or even considered cheating.
|
|
|
Post by mainesox on Jan 11, 2013 16:26:38 GMT -5
The Hall of Fame is nothing more than a museum; it's a place to go to see the history of the game, and the players who had the greatest impact on that history. Steroids or not, those guys needs to be in the Hall of Fame because they are a huge part of the history of the game. What's with all of the morality policing? Include the information about them using/being tied to steroids if you need to, but put them in.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Jan 11, 2013 16:30:57 GMT -5
Include the information about them using/being tied to steroids if you need to, but put them in. Why not have an exhibit featuring these players and their accomplishments and the controversy, but don't give them a plaque or induct them as HOFers? There's nothing to stop the Hall from doing the former - why insist on the latter?
|
|
|
Post by mainesox on Jan 11, 2013 17:03:46 GMT -5
I really don't care at all about the hall of fame, or who they induct, I just think leaving a huge part of the history of the game out over some false sense of morality is foolish.
|
|
|