PDA

View Full Version : If Bonds had stayed off the juice...



Chip R
01-17-2009, 11:47 PM
Would he have surpassed Aaron?

Would he still be playing?

*BaseClogger*
01-17-2009, 11:51 PM
No, he would have been one of the greatest of all time but with less homers.

No, either way he would be over 40 and retired...

OnBaseMachine
01-17-2009, 11:53 PM
No way. He had 435 homers through his age 34 season and had never hit more than 46 homers in a season. Then all of a sudden he jumped up to 49 in 2000 and 73 a year later. He ended up hitting 327 homers from age 35 until age 42. He may have reach 600-650 without the steroids but there's no way he would've caught Hank Aaron, IMO.

Jpup
01-18-2009, 03:03 AM
It's funny that now we get the news that the "clear" was not illegal and no one knows if it actual grows muscle tissue. Barry is going to walk free.

jojo
01-18-2009, 07:58 AM
Concerning the original questions, who knows what a "clean" Bonds would've done if the pitchers weren't juiced.....

IMHO, Bonds is a first ballot HOFer and really the vote should be unanimous.

To me, a more debatable question is, "should Barry's dad be in the hall?"

RedsBaron
01-18-2009, 08:55 AM
No and no.
From all reports, Bonds started juicing in the late 1990s. By then he had already compliled a career resume worthy of first ballot induction into the HOF.

RFS62
01-18-2009, 09:06 AM
No and no.
From all reports, Bonds started juicing in the late 1990s. By then he had already compliled a career resume worthy of first ballot induction into the HOF.


Agreed. He was a Hall of Famer without the juice. But no matter what you think of him personally, when he was at the Frankensteinian heights of his power, he was the greatest hitter who ever lived.

The combination of his incredibly direct and simple stroke, his plate discipline, the body armor on his elbow allowing him to take away the inside of the plate..... there has never been anything like it and likely never will be again.

pahster
01-18-2009, 09:10 AM
A question for those who say Bonds shouldn't be inducted in the Hall of Fame: does the use of amphetamines also disqualify players in your minds? And what of other forms of cheating (i.e. spitballs and such).

_Sir_Charles_
01-18-2009, 09:38 AM
Well, the way I look at it is that if we're going to keep players out based on personal choices and personal flaws instead of just their playing abilities, then we keep ALL the juicers out. I just don't see much difference between Pete's case and Bonds'. So as long as Rose is out of the HoF, so should Bonds, McGwire, Palmerio, Sosa, etc.

RFS62
01-18-2009, 09:48 AM
A question for those who say Bonds shouldn't be inducted in the Hall of Fame: does the use of amphetamines also disqualify players in your minds? And what of other forms of cheating (i.e. spitballs and such).



That's a great question. It's going to be debated a lot over the next few years as we figure out how to view the "steroid era".

Bonds is such a unique case. He's a guy many fans don't like personally, regardless of his talent. He sneered and snarled his way to the top as he claimed two of the most prestigious records in all of sports.

I think many people want to use him as the poster boy for the steroids controversy. It's like we can turn our head to the Pudge Rodriguez' of the world because we like them.

The whole Bonds story line would be great for wrestling. It would be hard to invent a better villain.

Chip R
01-18-2009, 09:56 AM
I don't think he would have passed Aaron if he had stayed off the juice.

However, I think he still might be playing now if he had stayed off of it. Before all the juice stuff went down, the worst you could say about him was that he was a jerk. I think the steroids contibuted to his knee problems but, as we saw with Jr., injuries can happen to juice-free guys. The reason he isn't playing now is that he has knee and legal problems. Take away those legal problems and he's starting in LF or DH for someone.

OnBaseMachine
01-18-2009, 12:10 PM
FWIW, I agree that Bonds is a first ballot Hall of Famer.

cincrazy
01-18-2009, 12:44 PM
Bonds is a Hall of Famer, either way. I have a problem with keeping the roider's out. What if you keep McGwire out, but then let someone else in, and only after he's inducted do you find out he was a user. I don't think Bonds even gets close to Aaron without steroids. To my understanding, he started taking them because of his knee problems. I think if anything the steroids helped heal his knee problems, and that his body would have went in the other direction (the way of Griffey Jr.) without the steroids.

redsmetz
01-18-2009, 01:13 PM
A question for those who say Bonds shouldn't be inducted in the Hall of Fame: does the use of amphetamines also disqualify players in your minds? And what of other forms of cheating (i.e. spitballs and such).

I just read a book about Buck O'Neill and he, over the years, would always say they didn't use steroids back in his day...because it didn't exist back then. His point was that down through years, players always looked for whatever would give them an edge.

westofyou
01-18-2009, 01:53 PM
I just read a book about Buck O'Neill and he, over the years, would always say they didn't use steroids back in his day...because it didn't exist back then. His point was that down through years, players always looked for whatever would give them an edge.
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=crasnick_jerry&id=2289509

During the Pittsburgh drug trials in the mid-1980s, outfielder John Milner testified that Willie Mays introduced him to a liquid amphetamine known as "red juice." More than a decade later, Tony Gwynn spoke of rampant amphetamine use in the game, and David Wells referred to greenies in his book, "Perfect I'm Not: Boomer on Beer, Brawls, Backaches, and Baseball."

Amphetamines have become as much a part of the clubhouse scene as card games and hot feet. In a Kansas City Star story last year, former Royals outfielder Brian McRae recalled how there were always two pots of coffee brewing in the clubhouse -- one conventional and the other laced with stimulants. "I had to make sure I got the unleaded," McRae said.
While some medical professionals have observed that amphetamines might heighten an athlete's senses or quicken reaction time, the more commonly held view is that stimulants are performance "enablers" rather than performance "enhancers."

The baseball season is a marathon in every sense, with seven weeks of spring training followed by 162 games in six months, interspersed with rain delays, cross-country flights and constant scrutiny to perform. Sometimes players need a kick-start just to roll off the clubhouse sofa and up the dugout stairs.

Red in Chicago
01-18-2009, 01:56 PM
No and no.
From all reports, Bonds started juicing in the late 1990s. By then he had already compliled a career resume worthy of first ballot induction into the HOF.

Agree 100%.

With regards to the HOF, I saw an interview with Tom Verducci, where he stated he would not be voting for Bonds due to the steroid issue.

He also lumped in Sosa, Clemens and Big Mac. Never heard him mention Palmiero, but you gotta believe he wouldn't be getting his vote either.

Highlifeman21
01-18-2009, 01:59 PM
I just read a book about Buck O'Neill and he, over the years, would always say they didn't use steroids back in his day...because it didn't exist back then. His point was that down through years, players always looked for whatever would give them an edge.

This holds true for every sport, and both the amateur and professional levels.

It even transcends sport. I don't care who you are, what you do, or what you're doing. People want edges.

westofyou
01-18-2009, 02:01 PM
This holds true for every sport, and both the amateur and professional levels.

It even transcends sport. I don't care who you are, what you do, or what you're doing. People want edges.


1889, a Pittsburgh pitcher named Jim "Pud" Galvin became the first baseball player to be widely known for using a performance enhancer. (He was nicknamed "Pud" because his pitching supposedly turned opposing batters into "pudding" -- much like Barry Bonds' brain.) Before pitching a game against Boston, Pud used something called the elixir of Brown-Sequard... essentially testosterone drained from the gonads of an animal. And, low and behold, the juiced-up Galvin won.

The Washington Post all but pushed the drug in an article from 1889:

"If there still be doubting Thomases who concede no virtue of the elixir, they are respectfully referred to Galvin's record in yesterday's Boston-Pittsburgh game. It is the best proof yet furnished of the value of the discovery."


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5314753

Red in Chicago
01-18-2009, 02:03 PM
Out of curiosity, if you were to trade shoes with Bonds, Clemens, Big Mac, etc, do you think you would have taken the juice if given the opportunity? I'm talking about "back in the day", not now.

I'm not much of a risk taker and consider myself a pretty honest guy, so I don't think it's in me to do such a thing.

RedsBaron
01-18-2009, 02:15 PM
Out of curiosity, if you were to trade shoes with Bonds, Clemens, Big Mac, etc, do you think you would have taken the juice if given the opportunity? I'm talking about "back in the day", not now.

I'm not much of a risk taker and consider myself a pretty honest guy, so I don't think it's in me to do such a thing.

If I had had the talent of Bonds, Clemens or McGwire, I hope I would not have juiced. I think I would have had a harder time resisting the temptation to juice if I was a marginal major leaguer, where juicing could make the difference between my being in "The Show" or not.

GAC
01-18-2009, 08:02 PM
No and no.
From all reports, Bonds started juicing in the late 1990s. By then he had already compliled a career resume worthy of first ballot induction into the HOF.

Absolutely true. His huge ego and jealousy of all the attention Big Mac and Sosa were getting allowed the guy to make a very bad life decision.

Pride goeth before a fall.

OUReds
01-18-2009, 10:07 PM
Out of curiosity, if you were to trade shoes with Bonds, Clemens, Big Mac, etc, do you think you would have taken the juice if given the opportunity? I'm talking about "back in the day", not now.

I'm not much of a risk taker and consider myself a pretty honest guy, so I don't think it's in me to do such a thing.

No. I don't cheat.

I can understand, if not condone, juicing if it's a player struggling to stay in the majors.

If you a hall of fame level player taking steroids though? You just need to go away. The greed and hubris that drives such a decision is sickening.

That none of them will ever get in the hall of fame is not nearly punishment enough. I hope Clemens is indicted on perjury.

Phhhl
01-18-2009, 10:18 PM
I don't think it makes any difference if Bonds or McGwire or Clemens would have been hall of famers before they started juicing, or if they would have been in the hall if they had never juiced at all. This argument is made all the time, but it means absolutely nothing because there is overwhelming evidence that all of these guys did use performances enhancing drugs. Basically, they have forfeited consideration of what they might have been in consideration of what they actually were; Cheaters. No way any of these idiots belong in the hall of fame, and I frankly have a hard time understanding people who continue to argue on their behalf.

Jpup
01-18-2009, 11:53 PM
I don't think it makes any difference if Bonds or McGwire or Clemens would have been hall of famers before they started juicing, or if they would have been in the hall if they had never juiced at all. This argument is made all the time, but it means absolutely nothing because there is overwhelming evidence that all of these guys did use performances enhancing drugs. Basically, they have forfeited consideration of what they might have been in consideration of what they actually were; Cheaters. No way any of these idiots belong in the hall of fame, and I frankly have a hard time understanding people who continue to argue on their behalf.

Where is the evidence? What Bonds took was not illegal and there is no evidence on McGwire other than his "not here to talk about the past."

OUReds
01-19-2009, 12:00 AM
What Bonds took was not illegal

How so? Anabolic steroids are absolutely illegal to aquire and use without prescription.

cincrazy
01-19-2009, 12:20 AM
Where is the evidence? What Bonds took was not illegal and there is no evidence on McGwire other than his "not here to talk about the past."

Take a look at Barry Bonds at bat for the Pirates in 1991 on the MLB Network, then get footage of him batting in 2001 for the Giants... HGH is undetectable my friend...

RedsBaron
01-19-2009, 07:48 AM
First, I don't know for certain that any of these guys juiced, but there certainly is some strong circumstantial evidence supporting this belief.
Second, I've yet to make up my mind as to whether or not I would ever vote to induct a player into the HOF whom I believed had used illegal performance enhancing drugs, but one possible difference between guys such as Bonds and Clemens as compared to McGwire, Sosa and Palmiero is whether or not I believe a player would have made the HOF had he not juiced.
In the cases of Bonds and Clemens, I think they had performed at a high enough level for a long enough period of time prior to ever juicing so as to warrant HOF induction. I'm not nearly so sure that McGwire, Sosa and Palmiero would have complied numbers that, on the surface, are HOF worthy without juicing.

jojo
01-19-2009, 08:13 AM
I think we don't know nearly enough about "juicing" in baseball to use it as a criteria for making decisions about HOF worthiness.

blumj
01-19-2009, 08:37 AM
I think we don't know nearly enough about "juicing" in baseball to use it as a criteria for making decisions about HOF worthiness.
What exactly is the impact of deeming someone as not HOF worthy, though? It's not as if there's any possible way to erase a person from history.

jojo
01-19-2009, 08:46 AM
What exactly is the impact of deeming someone as not HOF worthy, though? It's not as if there's any possible way to erase a person from history.

It colors the way we interpret history. Basically IMHO, that speaks to the very core of the HOF's mission.

To me that's the most damning thing about the Mitchell report-it was a farce that now stands as the official account of the issue.

blumj
01-19-2009, 09:03 AM
It colors the way we interpret history. Basically IMHO, that speaks to the very core of the HOF's mission.

To me that's the most damning thing about the Mitchell report-it was a farce that now stands as the official account of the issue.
I tend to think of our willingness to re-interpret history as one of our greatest cultural strengths.

Jpup
01-19-2009, 09:15 AM
How so? Anabolic steroids are absolutely illegal to aquire and use without prescription.

The clear was not illegal.

Jpup
01-19-2009, 09:18 AM
Take a look at Barry Bonds at bat for the Pirates in 1991 on the MLB Network, then get footage of him batting in 2001 for the Giants... HGH is undetectable my friend...

That would not hold up in court. You can accuse someone of something, but there is no evidence. No one has proven that he did it.

I really think he took PHDs, but I am not sure anyone has proof of it. That was my point.

jojo
01-19-2009, 09:45 AM
I tend to think of our willingness to re-interpret history as one of our greatest cultural strengths.

I agree but by the same token, great care should be taken when interpreting it in the first place. Right now the only voices defining the steroids issue have been hostile witnesses (mlb/players union)-whose answers aren't more informative than yes/no-and self-righteous moralizers (sports writers) who frankly are quickly fading from even being a leading authority on the sport they cover. Neither group is free of significant conflicts of interest and neither group actually did much to legitimately investigate the issue. One side produced the mitchell report and the other was content with the offering and quickly quickly got past the temporary break from their Bonds/Sosa/McGwire bashing.

blumj
01-19-2009, 09:59 AM
I agree but by the same token, great care should be taken when interpreting it in the first place. Right now the only voices defining the steroids issue have been hostile witnesses (mlb/players union)-whose answers aren't more informative than yes/no-and self-righteous moralizers (sports writers) who frankly are quickly fading from even being a leading authority on the sport they cover. Neither group is free of significant conflicts of interest and neither group actually did much to legitimately investigate the issue. One side produced the mitchell report and the other was content with the offering and quickly quickly got past the temporary break from their Bonds/Sosa/McGwire bashing.
PEDs aren't going away, though. How we see this piece of that issue in the future is going to be colored almost entirely how we view PEDS in the future.

jojo
01-19-2009, 10:19 AM
PEDs aren't going away, though. How we see this piece of that issue in the future is going to be colored almost entirely how we view PEDS in the future.

I'm really just arguing for an exhaustive, thorough, non-self-serving effort at defining the last 20-30 years.

I guess I'm skeptical (absent such an effort) that using PEDs use as a criteria for HOF voting will lead to a more accurate version of history.

IMHO, if the HOF isn't going to be a reliable resource concerning the history of the game, it's pretty irrelevant.

westofyou
01-19-2009, 10:26 AM
IMHO, if the HOF isn't going to be a reliable resource concerning the history of the game, it's pretty irrelevant.

Yep, it like the game is a mirror of our society, placing a void there that would represent the PEDS age (Which BTW no one can decide when and who started it) would be a travesty. Not noting it would be like a chapter in German history that ended with the Armistice and the next one started with the Marshall Plan.


Take a look at Barry Bonds at bat for the Pirates in 1991 on the MLB Network, then get footage of him batting in 2001 for the Giants... HGH is undetectable my friend... Emmit Till knew of that sort of lawyering

fearofpopvol1
01-19-2009, 01:13 PM
Based on his play alone, yes, Bonds should go on.

However, many people forget and overlook that one of prerequisites for getting in is "character." If "character" is truly factored into the equation, Bonds should never get in.

jojo
01-19-2009, 01:24 PM
Based on his play alone, yes, Bonds should go on.

However, many people forget and overlook that one of prerequisites for getting in is "character." If "character" is truly factored into the equation, Bonds should never get in.

There wouldn't be many inducted before the 30's either.

fearofpopvol1
01-19-2009, 02:30 PM
There wouldn't be many inducted before the 30's either.

That's a fair point. I think the difference is that obviously there just wasn't the same amount of media coverage then. There were also fewer accounts of what those people were like and what they did.

Then you also have that whole thing of Bonds breaking the most sacred record in baseball too...

OUReds
01-19-2009, 05:26 PM
The clear was not illegal.

That was Bond's lawyer's contention. it is indeed true that the clear was not categorized by the Justice Department as a steroid until January 2005 under the Anabolic Steroids Act of 2004.

However, the clear was derived from (illegal) anabolic steroids with the purpose of enhancing performance, and was likely (ie. if you were to ask anyone other then Bonds or Marion Jones) illegal under The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 and the Anabolic Steroids Control Act of 1990.

Even if you believe that the clear was legal at the time Bonds took it, it was "legal" only under the thinnest of technicalities, and clearly not legal by the spirit of the law. It was also clearly verboten under MLB rules.

I may be in the minority here, but all this hand wringing over the proof beyond a shadow of the doubt and knowing enough about the juicing to use it in our evaluation of a player's HOF credentials is silly. Proof beyond a shadow of a doubt is strictly a legal concept used in criminal law. We aren't trying to imprison anyone by debating steroids in baseball and their role in evaluating HOF worthiness, so it doesn't apply. You can be sure enough that a player cheated to exclude him for the HOF, yet not have enough evidence to convict them criminally. They are completely separate issues and burdens of proof. And to think that a player could have taken steroids and yet still be worthy of induction? Well, I vehemently disagree.

cincrazy
01-19-2009, 05:37 PM
That would not hold up in court. You can accuse someone of something, but there is no evidence. No one has proven that he did it.

I really think he took PHDs, but I am not sure anyone has proof of it. That was my point.


I'm not saying it would hold up in court. But IMO, from my own eyes, there is no way on this earth Bonds didn't use something to enhance his body. I think he should be a Hall of Famer, I've stated that repeatedly, even if there ends up being proof.

I think it's impossible to "prove" any of this unless someone has actual video footage of it, otherwise they'll always be able to argue their way around it. You could prove it was delivered to their house, but you still can't prove they actually used it.

backbencher
01-19-2009, 07:21 PM
That would not hold up in court.

Thank goodness Chip asked his questions on a message board, then.

I think that there are plenty of people who know more about what went on in locker rooms, and *their own* locker rooms, than I do. And - aside from all of the other obvious pointers - their commentary/silence pretty telling.

My opinions on Bonds:

1. If he had Clemente'd after 1999, he would have died a clear-cut first-ballot HOFer. Bonds should have won 2, maybe 3, MVPs that he did not because he was held to a higher standard than anyone else in baseball.

2. The body armor was as big/bigger factor in Bonds's success as any PEDs. I still don't understand why there was not more complaining about it. It was absolutely ridiculous.

3. Bonds would not have hit 700 HRs without PEDs.

RedsBaron
01-19-2009, 07:34 PM
I may be in the minority here, but all this hand wringing over the proof beyond a shadow of the doubt and knowing enough about the juicing to use it in our evaluation of a player's HOF credentials is silly. Proof beyond a shadow of a doubt is strictly a legal concept used in criminal law. We aren't trying to imprison anyone by debating steroids in baseball and their role in evaluating HOF worthiness, so it doesn't apply. You can be sure enough that a player cheated to exclude him for the HOF, yet not have enough evidence to convict them criminally. They are completely separate issues and burdens of proof. And to think that a player could have taken steroids and yet still be worthy of induction? Well, I vehemently disagree.

:clap: Absolutely spot on. I totally believe in the presumption of innocence and the requirement that someone be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before a person can be convicted of a crime and incarcerated----but those concepts do not apply with regard to deciding whether or not a player's alleged misconduct makes him unworthy of induction into the Hall of Fame.

Sea Ray
01-20-2009, 12:32 AM
FWIW, I agree that Bonds is a first ballot Hall of Famer.

I agree he's a Hall of Famer but not a first ballot. To me he doesn't go on my ballot the first year. That's the price he pays for juicing.

WebScorpion
01-21-2009, 09:44 AM
Personally, I'd treat them all just like Pete Rose. They certainly belong in the Hall of Fame, but not in their own lifetime. That's the only way I know to take the Hall of Fame from them without taking them from the Hall of Fame. Posthumous induction.

klw
01-21-2009, 06:53 PM
Should we keep out players who pretend to be catching a ball to decoy a runner? Should we keep out of the Hall shortstops who don't stay on 2nd base until the catch the ball while turning two? Players that run outside the baselines? Guys who steal signals? Does it matter if they take a peek back at the catcher or are they reading from their lead off second? Should A-Rod be kept out for his bushleague play in Toronto a couple of years ago? Used a spitball? Used a corked bat? Used no-doz? Ritalin? 15 Cups of coffee? Spit on a teammate? Spit on an ump? Cursed out a fan? Cursed out a player? Curse out an ump? What if a guy has a DWI? Hit a teammate? Hit his wife? Smuggled coke in from Canada?

What level of cheating is to be condoned or what level leads to a ban? Why does everyone get worked up about the sanctity of the Baseball HOF but not care about the NFL or NBA versions? It is a Hall of Fame. You put in the best players, the ones you remember. If a few infamous guys get in to then so be it. Nothing says the plaque can't have some interesting bits of info on it.

Strikes Out Looking
01-21-2009, 07:46 PM
He goes in after Shoeless Joe and Pete. He could have retired in 1999 and got in.

If he'd never used anything (and for sake of argument I think he did--he's my age and I stopped growing pretty much in my late teens and my head is the same size as it always has been), he wouldn't be playing today nor would he have broken Hank's or Maris (or Sosa or McGuire) single season mark.

mth123
01-22-2009, 06:31 AM
Should we keep out players who pretend to be catching a ball to decoy a runner? Should we keep out of the Hall shortstops who don't stay on 2nd base until the catch the ball while turning two? Players that run outside the baselines? Guys who steal signals? Does it matter if they take a peek back at the catcher or are they reading from their lead off second? Should A-Rod be kept out for his bushleague play in Toronto a couple of years ago? Used a spitball? Used a corked bat? Used no-doz? Ritalin? 15 Cups of coffee? Spit on a teammate? Spit on an ump? Cursed out a fan? Cursed out a player? Curse out an ump? What if a guy has a DWI? Hit a teammate? Hit his wife? Smuggled coke in from Canada?

What level of cheating is to be condoned or what level leads to a ban? Why does everyone get worked up about the sanctity of the Baseball HOF but not care about the NFL or NBA versions? It is a Hall of Fame. You put in the best players, the ones you remember. If a few infamous guys get in to then so be it. Nothing says the plaque can't have some interesting bits of info on it.

:thumbup:

WebScorpion
01-22-2009, 09:05 AM
Should we keep out players who pretend to be catching a ball to decoy a runner? Should we keep out of the Hall shortstops who don't stay on 2nd base until the catch the ball while turning two? Players that run outside the baselines? Guys who steal signals? Does it matter if they take a peek back at the catcher or are they reading from their lead off second? Should A-Rod be kept out for his bushleague play in Toronto a couple of years ago? Used a spitball? Used a corked bat? Used no-doz? Ritalin? 15 Cups of coffee? Spit on a teammate? Spit on an ump? Cursed out a fan? Cursed out a player? Curse out an ump? What if a guy has a DWI? Hit a teammate? Hit his wife? Smuggled coke in from Canada?

What level of cheating is to be condoned or what level leads to a ban? Why does everyone get worked up about the sanctity of the Baseball HOF but not care about the NFL or NBA versions? It is a Hall of Fame. You put in the best players, the ones you remember. If a few infamous guys get in to then so be it. Nothing says the plaque can't have some interesting bits of info on it.
For spitting on an ump, I would definitely not vote for a player on his first ballot. I don't think I've ever seen a more classless act on a baseball diamond. :thumbdown

westofyou
01-22-2009, 09:59 AM
For spitting on an ump, I would definitely not vote for a player on his first ballot. I don't think I've ever seen a more classless act on a baseball diamond. :thumbdown

Juan Marichael?

Babe Ruth once slugged an umpire, now if Hirschback said what he is alleged to have said then all I can say is, wipe it off John.

OUReds
01-22-2009, 10:23 AM
Should we keep out players who pretend to be catching a ball to decoy a runner? Should we keep out of the Hall shortstops who don't stay on 2nd base until the catch the ball while turning two? Players that run outside the baselines? Guys who steal signals? Does it matter if they take a peek back at the catcher or are they reading from their lead off second? Should A-Rod be kept out for his bushleague play in Toronto a couple of years ago? Used a spitball? Used a corked bat? Used no-doz? Ritalin? 15 Cups of coffee? Spit on a teammate? Spit on an ump? Cursed out a fan? Cursed out a player? Curse out an ump? What if a guy has a DWI? Hit a teammate? Hit his wife? Smuggled coke in from Canada?

What the line is for non-induction is subjective and is going to vary from person to person. If your point is that the above offenses are just as bad as steroid use, then I disagree.

For me, while the above represent moments of individual stupidity, none of them represent a systematic effort to tilt the competitive balance of the game towards those willing to break the law and MLB rules.

As far as induction into the hall of fame, the level of cheating that disqualifies you for getting in is that which 26% of the BBWAA members finds sufficiently egregious. I know that isn't a hard and fast rule, which might make some uncomfortable, but it's good enough for me.

BCubb2003
01-23-2009, 12:17 AM
Meanwhile, Mark McGwire's brother is peddling a tell-all book that says he introduced Mark to using steroids.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/sports/baseball/23mcgwire.html?ref=sports

RedsBaron
01-23-2009, 06:57 AM
Meanwhile, Mark McGwire's brother is peddling a tell-all book that says he introduced Mark to using steroids.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/sports/baseball/23mcgwire.html?ref=sports

McGwire's brother is doing it out of love, so everything is okay. I'm sure any profits derived by book sales will be donated to charity. :rolleyes:
I don't however agree with the viewpoint that because some players get away with some minor level of cheating, say, the "phantom doubleplay," we should give steroid users a free pass. Imagine a future presidential contest between two 55 year old candidates: One candidate smoked marijuana as a 19 year old while the other candidate snorted cocaine last week. Yeah, they both broke the law, but I sure would not regard the two instances the same.

BCubb2003
01-23-2009, 10:13 AM
Even if it's legal, something like Tommy John surgery or Lasik, but it leads to somebody hitting 90 homers a season or pitching five no-hitters in a row, does that player deserve to be in the Hall of Fame, or should it be the doctor?

Sea Ray
01-23-2009, 11:09 AM
Meanwhile, Mark McGwire's brother is peddling a tell-all book that says he introduced Mark to using steroids.




Well he'll have to get in line behind Canseco who also claims to have introduced McGwire to steroids. I don't think I'll be running out and buying that book anytime real soon.

oneupper
01-25-2009, 12:44 PM
I may be in the minority here, but all this hand wringing over the proof beyond a shadow of the doubt and knowing enough about the juicing to use it in our evaluation of a player's HOF credentials is silly. Proof beyond a shadow of a doubt is strictly a legal concept used in criminal law. We aren't trying to imprison anyone by debating steroids in baseball and their role in evaluating HOF worthiness, so it doesn't apply. You can be sure enough that a player cheated to exclude him for the HOF, yet not have enough evidence to convict them criminally. They are completely separate issues and burdens of proof. And to think that a player could have taken steroids and yet still be worthy of induction? Well, I vehemently disagree.

Great Post. I join you in the minority.

Always Red
01-25-2009, 05:32 PM
Should we keep out players who pretend to be catching a ball to decoy a runner? Should we keep out of the Hall shortstops who don't stay on 2nd base until the catch the ball while turning two? Players that run outside the baselines? Guys who steal signals? Does it matter if they take a peek back at the catcher or are they reading from their lead off second? Should A-Rod be kept out for his bushleague play in Toronto a couple of years ago? Used a spitball? Used a corked bat? Used no-doz? Ritalin? 15 Cups of coffee? Spit on a teammate? Spit on an ump? Cursed out a fan? Cursed out a player? Curse out an ump? What if a guy has a DWI? Hit a teammate? Hit his wife? Smuggled coke in from Canada?

What level of cheating is to be condoned or what level leads to a ban? Why does everyone get worked up about the sanctity of the Baseball HOF but not care about the NFL or NBA versions? It is a Hall of Fame. You put in the best players, the ones you remember. If a few infamous guys get in to then so be it. Nothing says the plaque can't have some interesting bits of info on it.

Great question, and it's one that I have asked on this site more than once.

Any Hall of Fame that would include Gaylord Perry needs to think long and hard about disqualifying any other players for "cheating."

westofyou
01-25-2009, 05:42 PM
In a profession where the physical is dominate in the triune nature of man, it would be surprising indeed if we did not find here and there an occasional scalawag.

Branch Rickey