PDA

View Full Version : How would you vote for the Hall regarding steroids



Redsfan320
01-10-2011, 09:48 AM
First, every option also includes an unwritten section letting Pete Rose in, :lol:. Beyond that, how would you vote?

320

TRF
01-10-2011, 11:30 AM
I wouldn't let Pete in.

I'd let Bonds and Clemens in. Steroid pitchers had to face steroid hitters and vice versa. While the playing field wasn't completely level, it wasn't a mountain either side had to climb. McGwire used andro when it was ALLOWED by MLB. It was never proven he actually used any illegal substance.

Anyone remember when Bret Boone was skinny? The ability to hit HR's has two components: skill and strength. Boone had the skillset, but not the strength. He "found" that later. Bonds I'm more disappointed in. He had both.

I'm for forgiving the circumstances of why a season or career was great.

Caveman Techie
01-10-2011, 11:43 AM
I put "case by case" just because if they were suspected of using steroids before testing was done or before what they were taking was banned (ala Mcgwire) then I say let em in.

If they got busted after testing was instituted and they want to enter the Hall of Fame then I say the test records should be made public so we can see if it really was a prescription drug that their DR prescribed by accident or a PED.

PuffyPig
01-10-2011, 11:54 AM
I wouldn't let Pete in until he was dead, so that he couldn't profit from the HOF, which is likely his motivation (he could charge more for his autograph). He refused an autograph for my son (on a baseball card) some years back, that did it for me. Pete doesn't sign baseball cards for free, even at a $175 a plate dinner.

I put case by case.

I wouldn't let in steroid users unless it was clear they would have made the HOF anyway. Magwire falls into that category, as I don't believe he would have had the numbers without steroids. While Bonds had the numbers I don't believe his head will fit into the HOF.

Strikes Out Looking
01-10-2011, 12:02 PM
The reason I am in the middle is that for Bonds and possibly Clemens, they had HOF numbers before they did the steroids -- I'd have to weigh that and throw out their PED numbers.

As to Pete -- If I am voting, he's a no at least until Shoeless Joe has been inducted.

edabbs44
01-10-2011, 12:10 PM
The reason I am in the middle is that for Bonds and possibly Clemens, they had HOF numbers before they did the steroids -- I'd have to weigh that and throw out their PED numbers.

As to Pete -- If I am voting, he's a no at least until Shoeless Joe has been inducted.

I think Clemens being an automatic w/o steroids is questionable. Bonds, probably yes.

But does anyone really know when these guys starting using? We assume Bonds in SF and Clemens in Toronto, but do we really know for sure?

RedsManRick
01-10-2011, 01:26 PM
My position is quite simple:

- The HOF is first and foremost a museum of baseball history. Otherwise they wouldn't send balls, gloves, etc. from memorable moments.
- The HOF is primarily for the fans, not the players.
- Omitting players who deserve to be in the HOF based on their on the field accomplishments b/c of off the field activity does not make the HOF a better place.

There has always been cheating and many cheaters are in the hall of fame. That does not mean I condone cheating. However, there are penalties built in to the game which punish cheaters. If a given type of cheating is so heinous as to render a players' on field accomplishments moot, then said cheating should be punished by keeping the player off the field to begin with. However, if a player is allowed to accrue a HOF resume, retroactive banishment does more harm to the game's history than the unfairly accrued statistics.

Players throughout the 60's, 70's and 80's used copious amounts of amphetamines to enhance their performance. Others throughout the games' have scuffed the ball, thrown spitballs, corked their bats, and benefited from signs stolen by a clubhouse attendant using binoculars in the bullpen.

The conduct standard is being inconsistently applied by sanctimonious media members who are complicit in what the era became. The current line being drawn not only makes the HOF a less relevant institution, but the process of moralization has spread to implicate all those from the era, even those for whom there is absolutely no evidence. That Jeff Bagwell is being punished for the actions of Ken Camineti, Mark McGwire, Jose Canseco, Barry Bonds, etc. is beyond unfair.

Players whose on field performance puts them among the elite should be recognized as such. And as a museum of history, the HOF should do it's best to put all accomplishments in context. Babe Ruth didn't have to play against black and hispanic players. Frank Robinson didn't have to hit sliders or cutters. Joe Morgan played in an era where amphetamine use was rampant. And Barry Bonds used steroids to hone his physique and extend his peak in to his late 30s.

If their on field performance merits entry, vote 'em in. Voting them in to the HOF won't remove the stigma. It'll just mean we'll have a more complete record of what happened.

edabbs44
01-10-2011, 01:45 PM
Do you think that PEDs did more to enhance performance for some players than spitballs, stealing signs or even greenies did for others?

I agree that cheating has been around forever, but there seems to be different tiers of cheating. I'm not sure if we ever saw records fall in any other era the way we did in the 90s and 00s due to cheating. Treating the PED users the same as someone who scuffed a ball is like treating the shoplifters the same way as the guys pulling bank robberies and muggings. People are always going to "cheat"...but when their actions cross the line into truly distorting the game itself, I think you need to take another look at the treatment.

These guys didn't care that much about baseball when they were racking up hundreds of millions of dollars along with the all the awards and accolades they received while using. Maybe they don't care about the HOF either.

reds1869
01-10-2011, 02:06 PM
I would vote based purely on performance. We will never know the full extent of who used and who didn't and in my opinion it isn't right to speculate. Even if a player openly admits using my vote would not change. The "other guy" was possibly using too and from what I've heard from former players usage was absolutely rampant. I believe PED usage is wrong, but the taint is so firmly over the entire steroid-era it is best to just move on.

Johnny Footstool
01-10-2011, 02:13 PM
OK, so this is the thread in which we duke this out.


My position is quite simple:

- The HOF is first and foremost a museum of baseball history. Otherwise they wouldn't send balls, gloves, etc. from memorable moments.
- The HOF is primarily for the fans, not the players.
- Omitting players who deserve to be in the HOF based on their on the field accomplishments b/c of off the field activity does not make the HOF a better place.

There has always been cheating and many cheaters are in the hall of fame. That does not mean I condone cheating. However, there are penalties built in to the game which punish cheaters. If a given type of cheating is so heinous as to render a players' on field accomplishments moot, then said cheating should be punished by keeping the player off the field to begin with. However, if a player is allowed to accrue a HOF resume, retroactive banishment does more harm to the game's history than the unfairly accrued statistics.

Players throughout the 60's, 70's and 80's used copious amounts of amphetamines to enhance their performance. Others throughout the games' have scuffed the ball, thrown spitballs, corked their bats, and benefited from signs stolen by a clubhouse attendant using binoculars in the bullpen.

The conduct standard is being inconsistently applied by sanctimonious media members who are complicit in what the era became. The current line being drawn not only makes the HOF a less relevant institution, but the process of moralization has spread to implicate all those from the era, even those for whom there is absolutely no evidence. That Jeff Bagwell is being punished for the actions of Ken Camineti, Mark McGwire, Jose Canseco, Barry Bonds, etc. is beyond unfair.

Players whose on field performance puts them among the elite should be recognized as such. And as a museum of history, the HOF should do it's best to put all accomplishments in context. Babe Ruth didn't have to play against black and hispanic players. Frank Robinson didn't have to hit sliders or cutters. Joe Morgan played in an era where amphetamine use was rampant. And Barry Bonds used steroids to hone his physique and extend his peak in to his late 30s.

If their on field performance merits entry, vote 'em in. Voting them in to the HOF won't remove the stigma. It'll just mean we'll have a more complete record of what happened.

There is a difference between preserving the memory of the game and celebrating it.

The HOF is a celebration of baseball memories. Why would we want to celebrate PED users?

The greenies argument is a fallacy. Simply because greenie users got in before doesn't mean everybody can get in.

westofyou
01-10-2011, 02:22 PM
I would vote based on what guys looked like in pictures when they were 30 versus pictures of them at age 22.

Seems to be the rage.

RedsManRick
01-10-2011, 02:31 PM
OK, so this is the thread in which we duke this out.

There is a difference between preserving the memory of the game and celebrating it.

The HOF is a celebration of baseball memories. Why would we want to celebrate PED users?

The greenies argument is a fallacy. Simply because greenie users got in before doesn't mean everybody can get in.

Should we go back and get rid of those greenies users? Certainly we don't want to continue to celebrate them, right?

You seem to want to conflate enjoyment of the memory of the on field performance with the off the field issues, as if performances which are supported by cheating can not be enjoyed nor celebrated.

It was amazing to watch Barry Bonds hit. Sosa/McGwire was a blast. Those are memories I want to keep. Steroids will always be part of those memories, but if we never kept memories which were bittersweet, we'd keep very few memories.

If we only want to celebrate "pure" players, shouldn't apply that standard equally? Shouldn't we stop celebrating players who used greenies or scuffed the ball? Yes, we may have screwed up in admitting them, but shouldn't we correct our mistake.

I think attempting to draw the line between the player and the performance only serves to feed a sense of moral superiority. If those who would keep "cheaters" out of the hall pursued revealing the act of cheating as it occurred with the same vigor and reacted in the same proportion during the players' career, perhaps this wouldn't feel so self-serving.

For me, I want to celebrate the great accomplishments of the era and the players who achieved them. Though here's a thought, make it so that if a player is ever caught cheating and receives a suspension for doing so, he loses the right to make a HOF speech should he be inducted.

RedsManRick
01-10-2011, 02:38 PM
Do you think that PEDs did more to enhance performance for some players than spitballs, stealing signs or even greenies did for others?

I agree that cheating has been around forever, but there seems to be different tiers of cheating. I'm not sure if we ever saw records fall in any other era the way we did in the 90s and 00s due to cheating. Treating the PED users the same as someone who scuffed a ball is like treating the shoplifters the same way as the guys pulling bank robberies and muggings. People are always going to "cheat"...but when their actions cross the line into truly distorting the game itself, I think you need to take another look at the treatment.

These guys didn't care that much about baseball when they were racking up hundreds of millions of dollars along with the all the awards and accolades they received while using. Maybe they don't care about the HOF either.

I don't know and neither do you. I actually think greenies probably had more of an effect, on balance, than steroids. I bet they enabled players to play many more games at a higher level than they otherwise would have. Maybe guys stole so many more bases back in the day because they were hopped up on speed. I think it's awfully sanctimonious to make an assertion that steroids were degrees worse in the lack of evidence that they actually help you play baseball any better. They certainly keep you in better physical condition, but isn't that what greenies do?

If we go down that road, do you think the correct approach is to try and subtract out the benefits of cheating and then vote -- or to simply deny entrance altogether?

Frankly, I simply don't understand how players using drugs to change their bodies distorts the game more than breaking the rules which govern action on the field itself. I wonder if Maris used greenies when he hit 61? If he did, I wonder how many he would have hit without them. It's a long, slippery road.

If steroids are so horrible, then maybe the punishments for using them should be increased to a full year for the first time and lifetime banishment thereafter. If the crime is so severe, certainly the punishment should correspond.

edabbs44
01-10-2011, 03:06 PM
I don't know and neither do you. I actually think greenies probably had more of an effect, on balance, than steroids. I bet they enabled players to play many more games at a higher level than they otherwise would have. Maybe guys stole so many more bases back in the day because they were hopped up on speed. I think it's awfully sanctimonious to make an assertion that steroids were degrees worse in the lack of evidence that they actually help you play baseball any better. They certainly keep you in better physical condition, but isn't that what greenies do?

I can't see how there is any lack of evidence that steroids and other PEDs made people play better. I really, really can't.

On another note, I don't think that greenies keep you in better physical condition, do they?


If we go down that road, do you think the correct approach is to try and subtract out the benefits of cheating and then vote -- or to simply deny entrance altogether?

Voters can make their own decisions. Personally, if I had a vote, I would go on a case by case basis and make the decision. I don't think that I would try and do something impossible like subtract the benefits. If a player came up and I suspected they used, maybe I would try and see if there was a time where I could determine around when they started using. If I can, I'd then go the Bonds route and look at them pre and post and determine from there.


Frankly, I simply don't understand how players using drugs to change their bodies distorts the game more than breaking the rules which govern action on the field itself. I wonder if Maris used greenies when he hit 61? If he did, I wonder how many he would have hit without them. It's a long, slippery road.

Do you understand that different actions will have different effects?

I have seen articles written about the before and after effects of PED testing and how offensive numbers are back to where they were before the PED explosion. You might know the answer to that...am I correct? If so, if the numbers are back at that level and greenies are also out of the game, would it be out of the realm of possibility to think that maybe greenies didn't have that much of an effect on the numbers? Does anyone have the numbers on this that we can dig into?


If steroids are so horrible, then maybe the punishments for using them should be increased to a full year for the first time and lifetime banishment thereafter. If the crime is so severe, certainly the punishment should correspond.

I bet the punishments would be more severe, except the union probably wouldn't agree to them because all of the players who are trying to start a family might get caught up in the web.

edabbs44
01-10-2011, 03:10 PM
I would vote based on what guys looked like in pictures when they were 30 versus pictures of them at age 22.

Seems to be the rage.

I would use all the evidence, including pictures, to make my decision.

TRF
01-10-2011, 03:23 PM
I'm of the opinion that the HOF should be for the greats of the game, guys that changed the game, and the games most famous players of a particular era. I'd put Marvin Miller in right now.

And as odd as it sounds, I'd enshrine Jose Canseco. His baseball numbers are borderline, but face facts; his impact is pretty lasting. He's synonymous with the steroid era, and its fairly certain he changed the game.

pedro
01-10-2011, 03:26 PM
I'm of the opinion that the HOF should be for the greats of the game, guys that changed the game, and the games most famous players of a particular era. I'd put Marvin Miller in right now.

And as odd as it sounds, I'd enshrine Jose Canseco. His baseball numbers are borderline, but face facts; his impact is pretty lasting. He's synonymous with the steroid era, and its fairly certain he changed the game.

An exhibit on him makes some sense but I wouldn't put him in as a "member"

Same goes for Pete Rose for that matter. His presence shouldn't be absent, he just shouldn't be "honored"

TRF
01-10-2011, 03:37 PM
An exhibit on him makes some sense but I wouldn't put him in as a "member"

Same goes for Pete Rose for that matter. His presence shouldn't be absent, he just shouldn't be "honored"

Yeah, that'd work. I agree on enshrinement. His numbers are very borderline. But he did what he did WITHOUT being suspended for it.

But there should be an exhibit about the steroid era, and he should figure prominently in it. Museums are about history. He helped make history. I think if had gotten a chance to play 2-3 more years, at 500 HR's he might have had more of a case, steroids or no.

Johnny Footstool
01-10-2011, 03:58 PM
Should we go back and get rid of those greenies users? Certainly we don't want to continue to celebrate them, right?

I'd be perfectly fine with that, if we have proof. But no one's going to spend the energy to go back and prove that Joe Morgan popped meds without a prescription.

We can avoid that mess with steroids, because we have a lot of evidence against guys like McGwire, Canseco, Bonds, Bagwell, etc.


You seem to want to conflate enjoyment of the memory of the on field performance with the off the field issues, as if performances which are supported by cheating can not be enjoyed nor celebrated.

It was amazing to watch Barry Bonds hit. Sosa/McGwire was a blast. Those are memories I want to keep. Steroids will always be part of those memories, but if we never kept memories which were bittersweet, we'd keep very few memories.

I don't enjoy being lied to. I loved the Sosa/McGwire battle, but finding out later that both of them were on illegal, banned substances popped that balloon.

There is nothing bittersweet about being lied to.


If we only want to celebrate "pure" players, shouldn't apply that standard equally? Shouldn't we stop celebrating players who used greenies or scuffed the ball? Yes, we may have screwed up in admitting them, but shouldn't we correct our mistake.

See above. But regardless, this is a separate issue. It's like saying, "Speeding is against the law, but we can't go back and catch the drivers who got away with it, so we shouldn't worry about people swerving in and out of traffic, either."


I think attempting to draw the line between the player and the performance only serves to feed a sense of moral superiority. If those who would keep "cheaters" out of the hall pursued revealing the act of cheating as it occurred with the same vigor and reacted in the same proportion during the players' career, perhaps this wouldn't feel so self-serving.

For me, I want to celebrate the great accomplishments of the era and the players who achieved them. Though here's a thought, make it so that if a player is ever caught cheating and receives a suspension for doing so, he loses the right to make a HOF speech should he be inducted.

I want to celebrate great accomplishments of the era, and reward on-field performance, but not when that performance was enhanced using illegal chemicals.

kaldaniels
01-10-2011, 04:07 PM
But Rick, at some point off-field behavior translates into on-field sucess.

If I sell my soul to the devil tommorrow in exchange for hitting a home run in every AB, and everyone knows about it...why should I be in the HOF?

I'm not bothered with people voting for steriod users but let's not act like off-field cheating actions do not lead to better on field results. The lines kinda blur together, that's all I'm saying.

TRF
01-10-2011, 04:28 PM
But Rick, at some point off-field behavior translates into on-field sucess.

If I sell my soul to the devil tommorrow in exchange for hitting a home run in every AB, and everyone knows about it...why should I be in the HOF?

I'm not bothered with people voting for steriod users but let's not act like off-field cheating actions do not lead to better on field results. The lines kinda blur together, that's all I'm saying.

Jose Canseco's twin brother reportedly took the same steroids.

He couldn't hit his way out of a paper bag.

Steroids will help you hit the ball harder, they won't help you hit it though.

dougdirt
01-10-2011, 04:59 PM
I put "case by case" just because if they were suspected of using steroids before testing was done or before what they were taking was banned (ala Mcgwire) then I say let em in.


Steroids have been banned since 1991 in MLB. They just couldn't get the MLBPA to let them test for it.

RedsManRick
01-10-2011, 05:22 PM
I'd be perfectly fine with that, if we have proof. But no one's going to spend the energy to go back and prove that Joe Morgan popped meds without a prescription.

We can avoid that mess with steroids, because we have a lot of evidence against guys like McGwire, Canseco, Bonds, Bagwell, etc.

And here's the problem. What evidence exists against Bagwell? None that I'm aware of. And yet here we are with his name being besmirched.

The evidence standard is great in theory -- unfortunately it doesn't seem to work. Instead, all that is required is implication by association.

Johnny Footstool
01-10-2011, 05:26 PM
And here's the problem. What evidence exists against Bagwell? None that I'm aware of. And yet here we are with his name being besmirched.

The evidence standard is great in theory -- unfortunately it doesn't seem to work. Instead, all that is required is implication by association.

Testimony and association. Circimstantial evidence, to be sure, but evidence does exist. Enough to warrant further investigation, IMO. But most likely, the BBWAA will simply continue to do what they are doing now -- ignoring HOF candidates who have the scent of PEDs on them.

RedsManRick
01-10-2011, 05:27 PM
But Rick, at some point off-field behavior translates into on-field sucess.

If I sell my soul to the devil tommorrow in exchange for hitting a home run in every AB, and everyone knows about it...why should I be in the HOF?

I'm not bothered with people voting for steriod users but let's not act like off-field cheating actions do not lead to better on field results. The lines kinda blur together, that's all I'm saying.

We don't know the degree to which it helps. The studies which have attempted to measure it suggest that the answer is not much, if at all, beyond the health it provides. The extra bat speed translates in to mere extra feet on balls hit. And some would suggest that the decreased mobility resulting from bulking up does more harm than good.

If you sold your soul to the devil, played 15 years and hit 2,000 HR, either:
A) We should have stopped you some where along the way, banning you from the game for being a cheater
B) I'd vote you in to the HOF as the greatest hitter the game ever saw

If it's important for us to protect the games' integrity, surely we'd be on top of that, right? This era happened. I continue to fail to see what is gained by only recognizing the part of we deem in retrospect to be fair.

westofyou
01-10-2011, 05:29 PM
And here's the problem. What evidence exists against Bagwell? None that I'm aware of.


http://www.peterweircave.com/dps/atlas.jpg

edabbs44
01-10-2011, 05:39 PM
And here's the problem. What evidence exists against Bagwell? None that I'm aware of. And yet here we are with his name being besmirched.

The evidence standard is great in theory -- unfortunately it doesn't seem to work. Instead, all that is required is implication by association.

At one point, we had no evidence on anyone.

Here's what we have:

1) Published reports quoting "sources" who stated that a gym owner bragged about supplying Bagwell with PEDs
2) A writer who states that, if Bagwell didn't use, then the "world is flat". This same writer covered the team and researched a book on use by Clemens, who played with Bagwell.
3) The fact that he became comically muscular
4) The fact that his production increased in line with his build
5) The fact that he was work out buddies with other known users
6) The fact that he admittedly used a steroid precursor which is now banned

Add that up and it pushes the needle (no pun intended) to the "yes" side, if you ask me. Way over.

kaldaniels
01-10-2011, 05:40 PM
We don't know the degree to which it helps. The studies which have attempted to measure it suggest that the answer is not much, if at all, beyond the health it provides.


There is no right or wrong answer to this question for it will never been known...but you do think Mac and Sosa and Bonds would have hit 60-70 HRs in a year without steriods??? I sure don't....but like I said the answer will be forever unknown. I think they'd have been lucky to hit 50...but just my opinion. How many do you think they'd have hit...your answer to that will clue me into your thinking.

kaldaniels
01-10-2011, 05:43 PM
Jose Canseco's twin brother reportedly took the same steroids.

He couldn't hit his way out of a paper bag.

Steroids will help you hit the ball harder, they won't help you hit it though.

And if I took steroids I would still have a lifetime .000 BA. But when guys like Bonds takes them their power numbers jump...do you disagree with that?

GADawg
01-10-2011, 05:44 PM
this is a tough one for me....it's all grey. I guess i'm on the side of looking at every case individually. When this debate starts I always try to picture myself in the enviable shoes of one of these players in their prime and considering all the factors try to decide if I would go down that steroid road to try to make myself even better(or in alot of cases to try to keep pace with my peers). If I'm being honest here I can't really say one way or the other so it's hard to be too sanctimonious.

As for the big names being discussed in this thread...for me Bonds is in, Clemens is in, and McGwire was one dimensional and borderline for me anyway. His "confession" interview when he was trying to convince me that he didn't benefit at all from using drops him below that line for me personally.

As for Rose...i heard him speak once at a Chamber of Commerce banquet in my small home town and even as a young person it was obvious to me that he was arrogant and considered himself larger than life(and baseball). Ironically Johnny Bench spoke at the same event a year or so earlier and was nothing but a gentleman and showed a very approachable and humble side. Even with this personal experience Pete is in for me. I think it'd be harder to go back and remove a-holes from the hall than even supposed cheaters....i wouldn't put him in as a manager:D

muddie
01-10-2011, 05:51 PM
I voted 'case by case.' Very good topic and a difficult one as well. They took this up on MLB Network the other day and Tom Verducci gets my vote there.

RedsManRick
01-10-2011, 06:15 PM
There is no right or wrong answer to this question for it will never been known...but you do think Mac and Sosa and Bonds would have hit 60-70 HRs in a year without steriods??? I sure don't....but like I said the answer will be forever unknown. I think they'd have been lucky to hit 50...but just my opinion. How many do you think they'd have hit...your answer to that will clue me into your thinking.

Steroids may very well have helped, but those guys also worked their butts off like crazy. I have no idea -- and again, that's sort of my point. Maybe they hit 15-20 more than they would have. Maybe 3-5. Maybe none. But I'm certainly not qualified to pretend like I know and make a decision on their HOF worthiness accordingly.

The reality is that if either players or owners thought steroid use was threatening the game's integrity, they would have done something about it way before they did. Clearly they didn't see it as that big of a deal.

I will say this. If you believe players who cheat should be ineligible for the HOF, I think the standard should be applied uniformly under the logic of "if you screwed with the integrity of the game, you're out" and take them off the ballot altogether.

TRF
01-10-2011, 06:21 PM
And if I took steroids I would still have a lifetime .000 BA. But when guys like Bonds takes them their power numbers jump...do you disagree with that?

not at all. But I'm thinking a lot of guys bulked up in the minors that never got a sniff of the major leagues too. Talent is talent. The only cheating regarding steroids was how FAST you bulked up. It was a shortcut. one that COULD have been achieved with time... possibly.

and regarding the HOF, well, some of these guys were the best of their era. I can't keep Bonds out of the HOF. His HR's all counted. The Giants reaped the rewards of his "use" and the owners, coaches and FO personnel turned a blind eye. So why should they benefit and Bonds not? Why do Torre and TLR have shots at the HOF as managers when they likely KNEW this was going on?

Accept the era for what it is, vote in the best players from that era, test better and move on.

TheNext44
01-10-2011, 06:34 PM
I've said this before and I will keep saying it until I hear evidence to counter it.

No player every went from an average or above average player, to a Hall of Fame cadnidate because they took greenies. You can not say the same thing about Steroids.

I've taken both, amphetamines as a youngster just wanting to see what it was like, and steroids due to doctor's order for the last six years (and the rest of my life.) And I can tell you that the effects fo the two aren't even close.

With amphetamines, I felt wired and wide awake. Not much different from when I drank too much coffee. I definitely was not faster, nor quicker. Maybe more alert. I then crashed and felt terrible the next day, like the worst hangover I ever felt.

Steroids, on the other hand, make me feel wired and alert too, but I also gained 50 pounds in 3 months. I went from 160 to 210. I have literally doubled my strength based on what I could lift before, and have significantly more endurance. I am a completely different person. Old friends barely recognize me.

The way I look at it, amphetamines are like adding a better gas to your engine, while steroids are like going from a 4 cylinder 6 cylinder engine. There really is no comparison.

TheNext44
01-10-2011, 06:47 PM
Steroids may very well have helped, but those guys also worked their butts off like crazy. I have no idea -- and again, that's sort of my point. Maybe they hit 15-20 more than they would have. Maybe 3-5. Maybe none. But I'm certainly not qualified to pretend like I know and make a decision on their HOF worthiness accordingly.

The reality is that if either players or owners thought steroid use was threatening the game's integrity, they would have done something about it way before they did. Clearly they didn't see it as that big of a deal.

I will say this. If you believe players who cheat should be ineligible for the HOF, I think the standard should be applied uniformly under the logic of "if you screwed with the integrity of the game, you're out" and take them off the ballot altogether.

Most players most likely worked their butts off. The users did before they took steroids and it only got them so far. Taking steroids took them to another level that working out couldn't do. Steroids help in cell growth, which the essential element in getting bigger and stronger. Just look at the football players who take them and the Olympians who took them.

To say that we can't look at certain players and figure out how much steroids helped them is an insult to everyone's intelligence. We can figure out, using formulas and logic, how many runs a certain player produced for his team. Certainly we can use the same intelligence to figure out the effects that steroids had on his numbers. it would be hard work, but certainly doable.

And the argument that since it wasn't outlawed or properly regulated, then it must not have been a threat to the integrity of the game is a logical fallacy. Using this logic, keeping non-whites out of the game didn't harm the integrity of the game either.

WMR
01-10-2011, 06:48 PM
Create a "Steroid Wing" and include EVERY gritty detail of the era.

Same thing they should do with Pete- Put him in and put on his plaque all the crap associated with his name and what he did to the game...

The Hall of Fame shouldn't be about whitewashing eras, IMO. History isn't always pretty, but it's still history.

edabbs44
01-10-2011, 07:25 PM
Steroids may very well have helped, but those guys also worked their butts off like crazy. I have no idea -- and again, that's sort of my point. Maybe they hit 15-20 more than they would have. Maybe 3-5. Maybe none. But I'm certainly not qualified to pretend like I know and make a decision on their HOF worthiness accordingly.

The reality is that if either players or owners thought steroid use was threatening the game's integrity, they would have done something about it way before they did. Clearly they didn't see it as that big of a deal.

I will say this. If you believe players who cheat should be ineligible for the HOF, I think the standard should be applied uniformly under the logic of "if you screwed with the integrity of the game, you're out" and take them off the ballot altogether.

in my field, there were a lot of traders and senior management types who didn't think that loading up their balance sheets with crappy mortgages and other complex products was a bad idea. Show big profits and paydays and people tend to look the other way on certain things.

bucksfan2
01-11-2011, 09:24 AM
in my field, there were a lot of traders and senior management types who didn't think that loading up their balance sheets with crappy mortgages and other complex products was a bad idea. Show big profits and paydays and people tend to look the other way on certain things.

:thumbup:

Caveman Techie
01-11-2011, 10:03 AM
Steroids have been banned since 1991 in MLB. They just couldn't get the MLBPA to let them test for it.

True enough, but androstenedione which is what Mcgwire got "caught" with were not on the banned list of substances until 2004 http://mlb.mlb.com/content/printer_friendly/mlb/y2004/m06/d29/c783595.jsp

kaldaniels
01-11-2011, 10:08 AM
True enough, but androstenedione which is what Mcgwire got "caught" with were not on the banned list of substances until 2004 http://mlb.mlb.com/content/printer_friendly/mlb/y2004/m06/d29/c783595.jsp

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4816607

So he got caught with andro, but admitted steroids. Difference?

bucksfan2
01-11-2011, 10:50 AM
True enough, but androstenedione which is what Mcgwire got "caught" with were not on the banned list of substances until 2004 http://mlb.mlb.com/content/printer_friendly/mlb/y2004/m06/d29/c783595.jsp

McGwire did get "caught" with andro but there are rumors surrounding that. I have heard rumors that the andro was shown in his locker room when steroid rumors arose. Since andro was a legal product there was nothing anyone could really say. IMO andro was a cover for the steroid use that McGwire had throughout his entire career. During the time no one wanted a steroid user to break Marris HR record.

WebScorpion
01-12-2011, 10:36 PM
Great off-season discussion subject! :thumbup:

No one's touched on the method I'd use yet, so here goes:

Treat all cheaters the same. No entry into the HOF during your own lifetime. Which means they'd all have to get in via the veteran's committee. So Joe Jackson could get in now...Pete Rose could get in after he's passed away...Bonds, McGwire, Palmiero, all of them. They forfeit the glory of an entry ceremony, but the Hall still contains the full history in due time.

http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-forum/2c.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)

Griffey012
01-12-2011, 11:42 PM
I voted let them all in. But there should be mention of those convicted in the hall of fame. So some day when I take my kid to Cooperstown it will be easy to explain "No son, Sammy Sosa was not as great of a home run hitter as the likes of Ruth, Mays, Aaron, Griffey, etc. He was infact symbolic of a dark age of baseball" The "steroid era" should be treated just like the rest of the eras in baseball, and serve as a reminder of how the MLB regenerated interest in the game post strike.

Griffey012
01-12-2011, 11:46 PM
McGwire did get "caught" with andro but there are rumors surrounding that. I have heard rumors that the andro was shown in his locker room when steroid rumors arose. Since andro was a legal product there was nothing anyone could really say. IMO andro was a cover for the steroid use that McGwire had throughout his entire career. During the time no one wanted a steroid user to break Marris HR record.

That was straight out of Canseco's book/

kpresidente
01-13-2011, 12:05 AM
I'd scratch off the years I thought they were using steroids, and if their remaining career numbers are still HOF worthy, I'd vote them in. For instance, Bonds and Clemons would probably make it, McGwire and Soso not so much.

TRF
01-13-2011, 10:35 AM
I voted let them all in. But there should be mention of those convicted in the hall of fame. So some day when I take my kid to Cooperstown it will be easy to explain "No son, Sammy Sosa was not as great of a home run hitter as the likes of Ruth, Mays, Aaron, Griffey, etc. He was infact symbolic of a dark age of baseball" The "steroid era" should be treated just like the rest of the eras in baseball, and serve as a reminder of how the MLB regenerated interest in the game post strike.

Would you follow that up with "No son, Ruth probably wasn't as great as his numbers suggest as he never had to compete against African American and Latin American players. He's a symbol of a dark time in baseball called the segregated era. That era lasted MUCH longer than the steroid era and is a blight on the game and our contry as a whole."

westofyou
01-13-2011, 10:37 AM
Would you follow that up with "No son, Ruth probably wasn't as great as his numbers suggest as he never had to compete against African American and Latin American players. He's a symbol of a dark time in baseball called the segregated era. That era lasted MUCH longer than the steroid era and is a blight on the game and our contry as a whole."

Meta data has its time and place.

westofyou
01-13-2011, 10:40 AM
http://itsaboutthemoney.net/archives/2011/01/11/%E2%80%98roids-and-greenies/

‘Roids and Greenies

January 11, 2011 by Larry@IIATMS

Performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) may be the most difficult topic in sports to discuss intelligently.

edabbs44
01-13-2011, 11:05 AM
Would you follow that up with "No son, Ruth probably wasn't as great as his numbers suggest as he never had to compete against African American and Latin American players. He's a symbol of a dark time in baseball called the segregated era. That era lasted MUCH longer than the steroid era and is a blight on the game and our contry as a whole."

Ruth's numbers were great because he played within the rules (as far as we know) and played, to the best of our knowledge, on an even playing field at the time he was in the league. The fact that there was segregation wasn't really his fault.

Sure it should be viewed in context when discussing the history of the game, but should we really penalize him for that? Cy Young owns the record for most wins ever, but does anyone ever really think that he was the best pitcher ever? No. Common sense and context should really be inserted into these types of discussions.

Griffey012
01-13-2011, 11:19 AM
Would you follow that up with "No son, Ruth probably wasn't as great as his numbers suggest as he never had to compete against African American and Latin American players. He's a symbol of a dark time in baseball called the segregated era. That era lasted MUCH longer than the steroid era and is a blight on the game and our contry as a whole."

Edabss summed up my response perfectly, great post. Sure the segregated era is another era in baseball, but it is also an era in our country, not just baseball. It's not like everywhere you walk around town places are selling pins, needles, and steroids to inject yourself with. Babe Ruth couldn't have chose to allow himself to play again african americans and latinos, where the steroid guys could have allowed themselves to play clean ala Frank Thomas and Ken Griffey.


When Babe Ruth played I would bet baseball was irrelevant in Latin America, therefore you would not have had international scouting and players coming from Latin America to the U.S. just to play baseball. There may have been a few, but not nearly as many as there are in today's era.

Plus my son would know all about Jackie Robinson, especially while being at the hall of fame. And definitely before visiting the steroid era.

westofyou
01-13-2011, 11:30 AM
When Babe Ruth played I would bet baseball was irrelevant in Latin America, therefore you would not have had international scouting and players coming from Latin America to the U.S. just to play baseball. There may have been a few, but not nearly as many as there are in today's era.


Hardly irrelevant, the Reds were the first team to sign a Cuban player(s) in 1912... 1st they had to certify that they were white, perhaps one the greatest pitchers was Martin Dihigo (http://www.newsday.com/sports/cuba-s-martin-dihigo-the-immortal-1.880684) who played during Ruth mania. By the time Ruth was retiring the Reds were the first team to train off shore when they went to the PR in the mid 30's.


The problem was no one scouted there because most players were black

Griffey012
01-13-2011, 12:17 PM
Hardly irrelevant, the Reds were the first team to sign a Cuban player(s) in 1912... 1st they had to certify that they were white, perhaps one the greatest pitchers was Martin Dihigo (http://www.newsday.com/sports/cuba-s-martin-dihigo-the-immortal-1.880684) who played during Ruth mania. By the time Ruth was retiring the Reds were the first team to train off shore when they went to the PR in the mid 30's.


The problem was no one scouted there because most players were black

Thanks for pointing that out. Here's a wikipedia link with a little more information about the background of baseball in a lot of countries. I was rather surprised too see it brought and played in most all of these countries before the 1900's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_baseball_outside_the_United_States

RedsManRick
01-13-2011, 12:49 PM
To say that we can't look at certain players and figure out how much steroids helped them is an insult to everyone's intelligence. We can figure out, using formulas and logic, how many runs a certain player produced for his team. Certainly we can use the same intelligence to figure out the effects that steroids had on his numbers. it would be hard work, but certainly doable.

You want to use formulas and logic based on the research that links additional physical ability resulting from steroid use to batted ball distance? Great, take somewhere in the neighborhood of 3-5 HR away from Bonds, Sosa, Big Mac, etc -- if that. The measurable effect is quite small - it's a boost of mere feet.

The biggest boost related to steroid use was mostly like the number of games players were able to play due to faster recovery times. And by this standard, we need to ask how many additional games players were able to play because of speed-laced coffee and little green pills. Sure, Bonds and Clemens maintained a ridiculous level of performance late in to their careers -- both were also health freaks. You know who else was amazingly healthy and effective in to his 40's? Hank Aaron. I'm not making an accusation, I'm just saying, if the logic is that the only way to be so great, so late is through the use of steroids, well either Hank is guilty by association or it's a leap we can't responsibly make. Correlation is not causation after all.



And the argument that since it wasn't outlawed or properly regulated, then it must not have been a threat to the integrity of the game is a logical fallacy. Using this logic, keeping non-whites out of the game didn't harm the integrity of the game either.

Either go the integrity route or don't, but you can't have your cake and eat it to. If it's about illegality, then you have to treat other illegal behaviors, such as amphetamine use similarly. If it's about integrity, then you have treat other eras in which integrity was compromised similarly.

But at its core, those arguments are a facade. They don't hold up because people refuse to carry them to their logical conclusions. Rather, they are a front to the real issue. Steroids made players look different. By looking different in combination with an era of offensive explosion that was supported by the addition of 4 teams, manipulation of the ball itself, etc, people's sense of history was disturbed. No longer were ballplayers the everyman who made it in a pure sport, but true professional athletes in an industry driven by money. Steroids stand for all that offends people about the modern era of sport and those who are associated with them, directly or indirectly, are being punished accordingly.

Sea Ray
01-13-2011, 01:06 PM
The reason I am in the middle is that for Bonds and possibly Clemens, they had HOF numbers before they did the steroids -- I'd have to weigh that and throw out their PED numbers.



I agree with this except those two have lied about it and are still lying about it to this day. I would not consider their vote until they at least come clean. For that reason I'd be more inclined to vote for Jason Giambi as of today

edabbs44
01-13-2011, 01:09 PM
The biggest boost related to steroid use was mostly like the number of games players were able to play due to faster recovery times.

Thre is no way that this is accurate.


Sure, Bonds and Clemens maintained a ridiculous level of performance late in to their careers -- both were also health freaks. You know who else was amazingly healthy and effective in to his 40's? Hank Aaron. I'm not making an accusation, I'm just saying, if the logic is that the only way to be so great, so late is through the use of steroids, well either Hank is guilty by association or it's a leap we can't responsibly make. Correlation is not causation after all.


Hank at 41 - .234/.332/.355
Bonds at 41 - .270/.454/.545
Clemens at 41 - 18-4, 2.98 ERA, 218 Ks

Hank at 42 - .229/.315/.369
Bonds at 42 - .276/.480/.565
Clemens at 42 - 13-8, 1.87 ERA

Hank did have a decent year at 40 and a very good year at age 39, but to try and compare these three guys in their post-40 years is almost ridiculous.

Sea Ray
01-13-2011, 01:12 PM
You want to use formulas and logic based on the research that links additional physical ability resulting from steroid use to batted ball distance? Great, take somewhere in the neighborhood of 3-5 HR away from Bonds, Sosa, Big Mac, etc -- if that. The measurable effect is quite small - it's a boost of mere feet.



Where'd you pull that number from? Barry Bonds went from hitting mid 40 HRs to over 70. What do you think accounted for that jump beyond the 3-5 that we can attribute to steroids?

In the height of steroids we saw folks hitting over 60 HRs . Now they generally don't get past the mid 40s. That's a lot more than a difference of 3-5. Bret Boone's HRs also went up a lot more than 3-5

RedsManRick
01-13-2011, 01:23 PM
Where'd you pull that number from? Barry Bonds went from hitting mid 40 HRs to over 70. What do you think accounted for that jump beyond the 3-5 that we can attribute to steroids?

In the height of steroids we saw folks hitting over 60 HRs . Now they generally don't get past the mid 40s. That's a lot more than a difference of 3-5. Bret Boone's HRs also went up a lot more than 3-5

Extremely suspect, sure. Proof, no. The same desires that lead one to take steroids could also lead one to change his/her approach at the plate, change their workout process/focus, study more film, etc.

I'm asking for real evidence that the increased physical ability resulting from steroid use is the cause of those additional HR. Unless and until we have that, simply taking away the HR (and just the HR) above and beyond the player's previously established level of performance strikes me as overly simplistic. But again, this isn't my approach anyways. I think it presumes way too much about our ability to come up with an alternate reality. I prefer to deal with the one we have.

Don't get me wrong, if somebody can share a scientific study which shows that steroids have a massive affect, my mind is open. I just haven't seen it yet. And even given that study, I don't know how we can ignore the comparable issues pre-dating the era.

Here is a pretty comprehensive take on the subject: http://steroids-and-baseball.com/

edabbs44
01-13-2011, 01:30 PM
Don't get me wrong, if somebody can share a scientific study which shows that steroids have a massive affect, my mind is open. I just haven't seen it yet. And even given that study, I don't know how we can ignore the comparable issues pre-dating the era.

If 1000 people went on a cruise and 500 of them returned home with a severe disease, would we really need to find the specific scientific cause of them becoming infected to comfortably say that something on the cruise cause them to become sick? Or can we reasonably say that they got sick on the cruise?

Just look at the numbers. There's your study.

westofyou
01-13-2011, 01:31 PM
Just look at the numbers. There's your study.

What about the pitchers that used?

RedsBaron
01-13-2011, 01:32 PM
Thre is no way that this is accurate.



Hank at 41 - .234/.332/.355
Bonds at 41 - .270/.454/.545
Clemens at 41 - 18-4, 2.98 ERA, 218 Ks

Hank at 42 - .229/.315/.369
Bonds at 42 - .276/.480/.565
Clemens at 42 - 13-8, 1.87 ERA

Hank did have a decent year at 40 and a very good year at age 39, but to try and compare these three guys in their post-40 years is almost ridiculous.

Yep. Hank Aaron also did not suddenly at ages 36-39 become a much, much greater player than he had been in his 20s and early 30s. Barry Bonds did, but, no, steroids had nothing to do with that. ;)

edabbs44
01-13-2011, 01:36 PM
What about the pitchers that used?

You mean guys like Clemens, Gagne, Pettitte and Kevin Brown? Sure, look at their numbers as well.

RedsManRick
01-13-2011, 01:37 PM
If 1000 people went on a cruise and 500 of them returned home with a severe disease, would we really need to find the specific scientific cause of them becoming infected to comfortably say that something on the cruise cause them to become sick? Or can we reasonably say that they got sick on the cruise?

Just look at the numbers. There's your study.

To say that something on the cruise caused them to be sick? Sure. But that's not what you're doing. You're blaming the raw oysters while ignoring the undercooked chicken, the rough seas, and so forth.

But again, we're getting away from the main thrust of this conversation. Even if we believe that steroids significantly contributed to those players' home run totals, what do we do about it? I still stay they should be in the HOF.

westofyou
01-13-2011, 01:40 PM
You mean guys like Clemens, Gagne, Pettitte and Kevin Brown? Sure, look at their numbers as well.

So in essence with that approach Pedro Martinez was a massive user correct?

edabbs44
01-13-2011, 01:48 PM
So in essence with that approach Pedro Martinez was a massive user correct?

I wouldn't rule anyone out but no, that isn't the result of the approach.

westofyou
01-13-2011, 01:55 PM
I wouldn't rule anyone out but no, that isn't the result of the approach.

Eh?

What's the result of the approach?

Nailing players YOU think used?

westofyou
01-13-2011, 01:57 PM
Pedro Martinez had an ERAplus of 243 and 291 in the 2 most offensive years in MLB since 1930.

By the criteria used here he is clearly a user on the level with Bags

edabbs44
01-13-2011, 01:58 PM
Eh?

What's the result of the approach?

Nailing players YOU think used?

Well, in this discussion, we are talking about questioning whether or not steroids actually helped players play better.

edabbs44
01-13-2011, 02:07 PM
Pedro Martinez had an ERAplus of 243 and 291 in the 2 most offensive years in MLB since 1930.

By the criteria used here he is clearly a user on the level with Bags

If you could give me some more evidence, like the following, I'd probably agree:

1) Reports of gym owners bragging that he supplied Pedro with PEDs
2) Reporters who did research on his teammates using saying that, based on what he found, Pedro definitely used
3) A massive increase in size which corresponded with a massive increase in his performance
4) Admissions of using later banned steroid precursors and the hiring of professional bodybuilders as personal trainers
5) Links to connections with other proven users during the heyday.

Give me some of those as well and I would probably bucket him with some of the others. But a great career, alone, isn't going to make be believe strongly that he was a user.

westofyou
01-13-2011, 02:10 PM
If you could give me some more evidence, like the following, I'd probably agree:

1) Reports of gym owners bragging that he supplied Pedro with PEDs
2) Reporters who did research on his teammates using saying that, based on what he found, Pedro definitely used
3) A massive increase in size which corresponded with a massive increase in his performance
4) Admissions of using later banned steroid precursors and the hiring of professional bodybuilders as personal trainers
5) Links to connections with other proven users during the heyday.

Give me some of those as well and I would probably bucket him with some of the others. But a great career, alone, isn't going to make be believe strongly that he was a user.

He's from a country that sell them over the counter, he played with Manny, he's an outlier big time due to size.

edabbs44
01-13-2011, 02:16 PM
He's from a country that sell them over the counter, he played with Manny, he's an outlier big time due to size.

I'll give you country, to an extent, though it may be controversial.

He was a great pitcher well before Manny came to Beantown. Throw that one out.

Not sure that you can use Pedro's size against him in this argument, as steroids tend to make you bigger in an obvious fashion. Though there are examples to show that this isn't always the case. I'm not a fitness expert but I would assume that you could concentrate on certain parts of the body. Alex Sanchez is the popular example, but didn't he have big thighs? Was Pedro skinny all around?

Not sure this one is strong enough. Though, again, nothing would shock me.

Ron Madden
01-13-2011, 02:51 PM
I'll give you country, to an extent, though it may be controversial.

He was a great pitcher well before Manny came to Beantown. Throw that one out.

Not sure that you can use Pedro's size against him in this argument, as steroids tend to make you bigger in an obvious fashion. Though there are examples to show that this isn't always the case. I'm not a fitness expert but I would assume that you could concentrate on certain parts of the body. Alex Sanchez is the popular example, but didn't he have big thighs? Was Pedro skinny all around?

Not sure this one is strong enough. Though, again, nothing would shock me.

Hal Morris was no Incredible Hulk.

TheNext44
01-13-2011, 02:54 PM
Pedro Martinez had an ERAplus of 243 and 291 in the 2 most offensive years in MLB since 1930.

By the criteria used here he is clearly a user on the level with Bags

Pedro didn't get better in years of age when nearly every other player was getting worse. He simply was always very good and at his prime, he was outstanding. If he put up his best years at age 38-40, then I would be suspicious.

edabbs44
01-13-2011, 02:56 PM
Hal Morris was no Incredible Hulk.

Absolutely, but steroids don't automatically make you huge. There is an obvious working out element in the equation as well.

westofyou
01-13-2011, 02:58 PM
So many rules to remember.

Edd Roush
01-13-2011, 03:06 PM
Great off-season discussion subject! :thumbup:

No one's touched on the method I'd use yet, so here goes:

Treat all cheaters the same. No entry into the HOF during your own lifetime. Which means they'd all have to get in via the veteran's committee. So Joe Jackson could get in now...Pete Rose could get in after he's passed away...Bonds, McGwire, Palmiero, all of them. They forfeit the glory of an entry ceremony, but the Hall still contains the full history in due time.

http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-forum/2c.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)

I love this idea. These guys were a major part of baseball history and were some of the best of all time. Their accomplishments deserve to be recognized. I agree, however, that due to their indiscretions, they should be banned for while they were alive and an asterisk should be placed on their plaque to notate that they used steroids or why they were not allowed to enter the Hall while they were alive.

This is especially true for Pete. As much of a great player as he once was, he is as equally big of a jerk off the field. I have never met Pete, but know a lot of people who talk about how big of a jerk he is. I would hate to see him profit off his Hall of Fame induction and I am going to be very upset when he takes some attention away from Barry when he is inducted because we all know Pete will have a booth set up to profit off of some Reds' fans. Pete is an all-time great who deserves to be inducted, but only after he cannot profit from it in any way.

edabbs44
01-13-2011, 03:17 PM
So many rules to remember.

It's not that difficult. Anyone who was a complete stud in that era should be under suspicion. If there are other factors and pieces of evidence to consider, do it. Then form an educated opinion if you wish.

If you don't care, then go for it.

TRF
01-13-2011, 03:36 PM
So, Jr. is under suspicion too. Better throw Thome and Dunn in there, at least before the major testing started. Frank Thomas thrived in that era, so he's a user too right?

It's probably better to just assume every fringe player that had success used, and every star did too.

Which I guess made it a fairly, though not completely, level playing field.

edabbs44
01-13-2011, 03:38 PM
So, Jr. is under suspicion too. Better throw Thome and Dunn in there, at least before the major testing started. Frank Thomas thrived in that era, so he's a user too right?

It's probably better to just assume every fringe player that had success used, and every star did too.

Which I guess made it a fairly, though not completely, level playing field.

Let's not go overboard.

I think you need to look at each person individually and, if there is reason to believe, then maybe you need to believe.

TRF
01-13-2011, 03:48 PM
so its what woy stated. who YOU think is guilty.

edabbs44
01-13-2011, 03:51 PM
So, Jr. is under suspicion too. Better throw Thome and Dunn in there, at least before the major testing started. Frank Thomas thrived in that era, so he's a user too right?

It's probably better to just assume every fringe player that had success used, and every star did too.

Which I guess made it a fairly, though not completely, level playing field.

For reference. Obviously not anything damning, by any stretch.

http://www.courtsidepost.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/1991-bowman-thome.jpg

edabbs44
01-13-2011, 03:51 PM
so its what woy stated. who YOU think is guilty.

It's my belief and opinion, correct?

TheNext44
01-13-2011, 04:08 PM
You want to use formulas and logic based on the research that links additional physical ability resulting from steroid use to batted ball distance? Great, take somewhere in the neighborhood of 3-5 HR away from Bonds, Sosa, Big Mac, etc -- if that. The measurable effect is quite small - it's a boost of mere feet.

The biggest boost related to steroid use was mostly like the number of games players were able to play due to faster recovery times. And by this standard, we need to ask how many additional games players were able to play because of speed-laced coffee and little green pills. Sure, Bonds and Clemens maintained a ridiculous level of performance late in to their careers -- both were also health freaks. You know who else was amazingly healthy and effective in to his 40's? Hank Aaron. I'm not making an accusation, I'm just saying, if the logic is that the only way to be so great, so late is through the use of steroids, well either Hank is guilty by association or it's a leap we can't responsibly make. Correlation is not causation after all.


You made three separate points in your post, so I will address them with three separate posts.

Concerning the effects of steroids, no offense, but you just don't have a grasp on the facts here.

The biggest effect that steroids has on a baseball player, is that it makes his swing quicker. He's stronger, so the size bat that he normally uses is lighter to him, and he can get it through the hitting zone much more quickly. Using basic physics, that is what makes the ball go farther, not his brute strength.

But more importantly, this allows him to wait longer before he swings so he can determine which pitches to swing at, and know exactly where to swing the bat. Basically, this gives him a much bigger "hot spot" or hitting zone. In Bond's cases, his zone pretty much was any strike, which is why he was intentionally walked so many times. Using steroids doesn't just make you hit the ball farther, it makes you a better hitter. When you are already a great hitter like Bonds was... well I think we all saw those results.

So, if one wants to examine the records and figure out who used steroids, it would be difficult, but not impossible. I would suggest looking at the stats and see which players, who might be Hall of Fame candidates, had a sudden jump in power and average in a short period of time,especially when they were older and should be declining. Remember, I am only concerned with the Hall of Fame here, so it wouldn't take that long and trends would be easy to spot. The suspicious ones would them require more scrutiny as we try to find other evidence that they used.

Like I said it would be difficult, and some mistakes would probably be made on both sides, but I just don't see how mistakes can be avoided with this issue. The fact that MLB turned it's head and let this happen for so long has muddied the waters. No matter what method is used, either users will be let in, or innocent players left out, or both. The answer is not to let everyone in, or to ban anyone who is suspicious, but to use our better judgement and logic to make sure that the fewest mistakes are made.

TRF
01-13-2011, 04:12 PM
IMO the era happened. The stats count. No one is having any awards stripped away. So base it on what we KNOW not what we suspect. Has anyone eligible for the HOF actually tested positive other than Palmeiro? If not, maybe we need to let it go and move forward.

TheNext44
01-13-2011, 04:18 PM
Either go the integrity route or don't, but you can't have your cake and eat it to. If it's about illegality, then you have to treat other illegal behaviors, such as amphetamine use similarly. If it's about integrity, then you have treat other eras in which integrity was compromised similarly.


For me, it's not about illegality. The game is filled with cheaters. I am only concerned with the cheaters who became Hall of Fame candidates by using steroids, who would not have been otherwise.

In terms of integrity, integrity was compromised in other era's but not similarly. You can't argue that Babe Ruth wouldn't have had a Hall of Fame career if he had faced a wider and more diverse group of opponents, since every player in his era faced the same players. Steroids is the only issue of integrity in which individual players did something that separated themselves from the rest of the league, and turned some of them from very good players to Hall of Fame caliber players. That's the issue.

TheNext44
01-13-2011, 04:27 PM
But at its core, those arguments are a facade. They don't hold up because people refuse to carry them to their logical conclusions. Rather, they are a front to the real issue. Steroids made players look different. By looking different in combination with an era of offensive explosion that was supported by the addition of 4 teams, manipulation of the ball itself, etc, people's sense of history was disturbed. No longer were ballplayers the everyman who made it in a pure sport, but true professional athletes in an industry driven by money. Steroids stand for all that offends people about the modern era of sport and those who are associated with them, directly or indirectly, are being punished accordingly.

This argument ignores the fact that as soon as testing started in MLB for steroids, the explosion in numbers ended. Last year was known as the year of the pitcher, but all that really happened was that the numbers normalized to pre-steroid era numbers. And yet, the ballparks are still small, there are the same number of teams, the ball is still the same, and ballplayers train the same. Everything is this same except for steroid testing.

This might not be "proof", but proof is an absurd standard for making rational decisions. We execute individuals without "proof." We are intelligent, rational beings that can make intelligent rational decisions with a high level of accuracy even when, especially when, we don't have proof. We all do it everyday.

Griffey012
01-13-2011, 05:41 PM
You made three separate points in your post, so I will address them with three separate posts.

Concerning the effects of steroids, no offense, but you just don't have a grasp on the facts here.

The biggest effect that steroids has on a baseball player, is that it makes his swing quicker. He's stronger, so the size bat that he normally uses is lighter to him, and he can get it through the hitting zone much more quickly. Using basic physics, that is what makes the ball go farther, not his brute strength.

But more importantly, this allows him to wait longer before he swings so he can determine which pitches to swing at, and know exactly where to swing the bat. Basically, this gives him a much bigger "hot spot" or hitting zone. In Bond's cases, his zone pretty much was any strike, which is why he was intentionally walked so many times. Using steroids doesn't just make you hit the ball farther, it makes you a better hitter. When you are already a great hitter like Bonds was... well I think we all saw those results.

So, if one wants to examine the records and figure out who used steroids, it would be difficult, but not impossible. I would suggest looking at the stats and see which players, who might be Hall of Fame candidates, had a sudden jump in power and average in a short period of time,especially when they were older and should be declining. Remember, I am only concerned with the Hall of Fame here, so it wouldn't take that long and trends would be easy to spot. The suspicious ones would them require more scrutiny as we try to find other evidence that they used.

Like I said it would be difficult, and some mistakes would probably be made on both sides, but I just don't see how mistakes can be avoided with this issue. The fact that MLB turned it's head and let this happen for so long has muddied the waters. No matter what method is used, either users will be let in, or innocent players left out, or both. The answer is not to let everyone in, or to ban anyone who is suspicious, but to use our better judgement and logic to make sure that the fewest mistakes are made.

Excellent post. This analysis further proves what drives me nuts when I hear people when referring to steroids say "steroids don't make the player a better hitter" and "steroids don't make them hit the ball that much further." Sure, steroids do not improve hand eye coordination, but it's much easier to hit a ball when the bat is quicker and lighter because the person is stronger. Not to mention the confidence boost of knowing you have an edge against others in the weight room.

TRF
01-13-2011, 06:45 PM
Lets not forget that "Steroids" has become an almost generic term for PEDS. HGH actually can improve visual acuity. Steroids will eventually destroy a person's body. HGH it seems grows "more" body. HGH can lead to or increase our chances of getting cancer. HGH is to steroids what cocaine is to caffeine.

And knowing that... I'd still let them in. Knowing now that the HR race, the stats of the era are tainted really doesn't take away any good memories i have of the players of the time. I enjoyed every season of the steroid era.

RedsManRick
01-13-2011, 06:47 PM
Like I said it would be difficult, and some mistakes would probably be made on both sides, but I just don't see how mistakes can be avoided with this issue. The fact that MLB turned it's head and let this happen for so long has muddied the waters. No matter what method is used, either users will be let in, or innocent players left out, or both. The answer is not to let everyone in, or to ban anyone who is suspicious, but to use our better judgement and logic to make sure that the fewest mistakes are made.

I agree with your premise, but not your conclusion. While much, much less serious, I think of this like the death penalty. Without it, guilty people get let off easy. With it, some innocent people are killed. Our justice system is the best in the world, but it still errs from time to time. I won't suggest there's a right or wrong answer in the abstract, I recognize the arguments on both sides and do not intend this to be political. However, my personal position is to err on the side of not risking harm to innocent people -- particularly when there's an alternative way to handle the guilty which does not put society at risk.

I would much, much prefer to have known cheaters in the HOF (as we already have) than to have innocent ballplayers kept out due to our mere suspicion. It's similar to my argument for allowing Rose, etc. in. From my point of view, the HOF is a history museum more than anything else. I would not want to conflate the honor of having people speak at their induction ceremony with properly recognizing what happened on the field of play. More harm is done to the fan through the omission of players who are clearly deserving than by the acceptance of a few players who are not. I would support, however, a rule that precludes anybody who was caught cheating during their career from being given the podium at the induction ceremony. But keeping their busts out of the hall is cutting off the museum's nose to spite its face.

I don't think letting the cheaters of the "steroid era" get let off the hook, so to speak, poses any serious risk to the game moving forward. I'm pretty sure the crowd at their induction ceremony would set the proper context. The real effort is in keeping it from happening again.

westofyou
01-13-2011, 06:54 PM
But keeping their busts out of the hall is cutting off the museum's nose to spite its face.


They don't have busts, they have plaques... thus make all PROVEN steroid guys have a different color plaque.

As for the conviction by association angle played here to the hilt based on personal preferences and hearsay, if you can't prove it then what can you do... I mean aside from creating little worlds of self created truth that one walks around in.

traderumor
01-13-2011, 07:43 PM
You want to use formulas and logic based on the research that links additional physical ability resulting from steroid use to batted ball distance? Great, take somewhere in the neighborhood of 3-5 HR away from Bonds, Sosa, Big Mac, etc -- if that. The measurable effect is quite small - it's a boost of mere feet.

The biggest boost related to steroid use was mostly like the number of games players were able to play due to faster recovery times. And by this standard, we need to ask how many additional games players were able to play because of speed-laced coffee and little green pills. Sure, Bonds and Clemens maintained a ridiculous level of performance late in to their careers -- both were also health freaks. You know who else was amazingly healthy and effective in to his 40's? Hank Aaron. I'm not making an accusation, I'm just saying, if the logic is that the only way to be so great, so late is through the use of steroids, well either Hank is guilty by association or it's a leap we can't responsibly make. Correlation is not causation after all.



Either go the integrity route or don't, but you can't have your cake and eat it to. If it's about illegality, then you have to treat other illegal behaviors, such as amphetamine use similarly. If it's about integrity, then you have treat other eras in which integrity was compromised similarly.

But at its core, those arguments are a facade. They don't hold up because people refuse to carry them to their logical conclusions. Rather, they are a front to the real issue. Steroids made players look different. By looking different in combination with an era of offensive explosion that was supported by the addition of 4 teams, manipulation of the ball itself, etc, people's sense of history was disturbed. No longer were ballplayers the everyman who made it in a pure sport, but true professional athletes in an industry driven by money. Steroids stand for all that offends people about the modern era of sport and those who are associated with them, directly or indirectly, are being punished accordingly.
There are still a lot of players who are bulkier and more athletic in appearance because of weight training and the ability to work out in the offseason. Maybe Shallow Hal's had this dynamic to explain why they were upset. Making a broad generalization to draw a conclusion about why folks objected is just as shallow.

I am sure there are just as many thinking fans out there that do not object to bulked up baseball players if it is accomplished through safe, natural means. My objection has nothing to do with appearances. Really, I don't expect guys who look like me to be considered "athletes."

My objection is the moral and ethical responsibility to practice good sportsmanship, which PEDs that make players able to perform at a level that would not be possible but for the PEDs qualifies as poor sportsmanship.

It has long been accepted in athletic competition that artificial means to the end of better performance is unethical. It is accepted ethically that an athlete can do whatever training (exercise, diet, overall healthy lifestyle) to get an edge in athletic competition. It has never been accepted ethically to use drug-based, chemical enhancements to get an edge. Some groups had ruled and procedured on the issue when PEDs rampaged MLB, MLB was behind in rules and procedures on this issue.

I don't think guys should get a free pass simply because the letter of the law was not in place. Ethical guidelines made many men refuse to take that route, and those we suppose are in that group, like Griffey, we applaud. Why should we not consider consequences for those who ignored their conscience and years of athletic ethical guidelines to steer them?

Ron Madden
01-14-2011, 05:09 AM
Absolutely, but steroids don't automatically make you huge. There is an obvious working out element in the equation as well.

I'm sorry, my bad. :redface:

A few of your comments and the before and after pics of Jeff Bagwell led me to believe that in your opinion steroids automatticly turned guys into bigger, stronger and better players.

kpresidente
01-14-2011, 07:10 AM
To say that something on the cruise caused them to be sick? Sure. But that's not what you're doing. You're blaming the raw oysters while ignoring the undercooked chicken, the rough seas, and so forth.

I think the historical case is stronger than you're giving credit to.

What, in the steroid case, is analogous to the undercooked chicken, rough seas, etc in the metaphor? If steroids didn't cause everybody's offensive numbers to skyrocket during the steroid era, and then return to historical norms as soon as it was exposed, what did?

savafan
01-18-2011, 10:05 PM
Nothing after the fact can take away the summer of 1998, the greatest baseball season I ever witnessed, and erase it from my memory.

We want to permanently bar baseball players who used performance enhancers, yet have no problem rooting in for the dog killer, the rapist, the drunk driver, the murderer and the domestic abuser in the NFL playoffs...

edabbs44
01-18-2011, 10:19 PM
Nothing after the fact can take away the summer of 1998, the greatest baseball season I ever witnessed, and erase it from my memory.

We want to permanently bar baseball players who used performance enhancers, yet have no problem rooting in for the dog killer, the rapist, the drunk driver, the murderer and the domestic abuser in the NFL playoffs...

These are two different points.

savafan
01-18-2011, 10:30 PM
These are two different points.

Yes, and I made them in the same post. :p:

GADawg
01-18-2011, 10:43 PM
Yes, and I made them in the same post. :p:

ha! your list wasn't complete...you left out the unholiest of all the scrunge...gamblers:D

savafan
01-18-2011, 10:47 PM
ha! your list wasn't complete...you left out the unholiest of all the scrunge...gamblers:D

That's because they're the guys with the whistles.

mbgrayson
01-19-2011, 01:22 AM
I voted "Let them all in", but don't agree with the rest of that statement.

Maybe I'm just too technical about the whole thing, but I am not aware of any of the current crop of HOF contenders ever being suspended or punished in any way for PED use.

I believe in basic fairness, in the idea that the rules should be clear in advance, and that the league will fairly enforce those rules. When allegations arise after some of these guys retired that they used some unspecified drug, I just can't buy into punishing them when they never got charged, never got a forum in which to defend themselves, and the only court they have ever been convicted in is the court of public opinion. [Bonds may be the exception to this if he is ever convicted...]

The poll question seems to imply that Sammy Sosa is a "hard, admitted PEDer". Thinking I might have missed something, I did a little quick internet research. As far as I can see, Sosa has never admitted to PED use. The New York Times claimed he was on a 2003 list of players who tested positive for some banned substance, but we have no information on which one. In congressional testimony, he swore that he was clean. Nobody is charging him with perjury. Does that mean he really was clean? Of course not, but there is no proof, and to me, he is not a "hard, admitted PEDer". Others will surely disagree, and probably will decide to keep him out of the HOF as a result.

That bothers me. I just think a guy should have a chance to defend himself in a fair forum. And what is the burden of proof? Who has to prove what? I start off with a presumption of innocence. Until and unless a player has been suspended or banned for PEDs, I wouldn't want to exclude him from fair HOF consideration.

I largely agree that the HOF is basically a baseball museum, a shrine to the sport. I also agree that we shouldn't whitewash history there. Of late, we honor Jackie Robinson, but we also never go back and remove the many overt racists in the Hall that fought hard to keep the game segregated.


To that end, BizOfBaseball’s Maury Brown recently unearthed a document from the six most powerful men in MLB in 1946.
The 27-page “steering committee” report was authored and approved by baseball Hall of Famers Tom Yawkey (Red Sox), William Harridge (American League), Ford Frick (Future MLB Commissioner) and Phil Wrigley (Cubs), Sam Breadon (Cardinals), and Lee McPhail (Yankees).
The report was expressly designed as a formal plea to all MLB owners to keep blacks out of MLB. More specifically, it was hastily written to block the impending admittance of Jackie Robinson into MLB by Branch Rickey of the Dodgers.
From HERE. (http://sportsbybrooks.com/civil-rights-game-mlb-honoring-notorious-racists-28367)

On his plaque, the HOF identifies Ford C. Frick as the 'founder of the baseball hall of fame'. Yet when he was active in the game, he worked to exclude an entire race of people from playing the game. At some point, admission into this museum that he helped to create has become the baseball equivalent of sainthood. 'We don't want any gamblers, drug users, or people of poor moral character in this museum with these saints (who also happen to be gamblers, racists, drug users, and people of poor moral character). I would base admission on performance on the field, regardless of various unproven allegations.

To quote a saying I heard somewhere, 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone....'

Orenda
01-19-2011, 02:12 AM
I don't see how you can punish the guys based on conjecture, if there is evidence of use I would probably leave em out.

Question for some of the older forum members, do you think offensive approaches have shifted to where guys are going to put up bigger numbers because hitters are looking to drive the ball more where maybe in the past guys would shorten up or not want to strike out? Just curious, I know I've heard some of the former players complain about how guys don't care if they strike out nowadays.

Also steroids were around before this current group of hall of fame candidates so how can you automatically assume everyone before them was clean?

Orenda
01-19-2011, 02:18 AM
We want to permanently bar baseball players who used performance enhancers, yet have no problem rooting in for the dog killer, the rapist, the drunk driver, the murderer and the domestic abuser in the NFL playoffs...

I thought Andy Pettite's response to why he used ped's was interesting when he gave it. He essentially said that he had just signed a big contract and he wanted to live up to his end of the deal by producing at a high level.

Ron Madden
01-19-2011, 05:09 AM
That's because they're the guys with the whistles.

:bowrofl:

Sea Ray
01-19-2011, 03:08 PM
Extremely suspect, sure. Proof, no. The same desires that lead one to take steroids could also lead one to change his/her approach at the plate, change their workout process/focus, study more film, etc.

I'm asking for real evidence that the increased physical ability resulting from steroid use is the cause of those additional HR. Unless and until we have that, simply taking away the HR (and just the HR) above and beyond the player's previously established level of performance strikes me as overly simplistic. But again, this isn't my approach anyways. I think it presumes way too much about our ability to come up with an alternate reality. I prefer to deal with the one we have.

Don't get me wrong, if somebody can share a scientific study which shows that steroids have a massive affect, my mind is open. I just haven't seen it yet. And even given that study, I don't know how we can ignore the comparable issues pre-dating the era.

Here is a pretty comprehensive take on the subject: http://steroids-and-baseball.com/

The difference between you and me is that I don't need a comprehensive study to show me that steroids led to Barry Bonds' 73 HRs or Brady Anderson's 50 HR season or Bret Boone's yrs in Seattle.

It's just sports, man. If we were voting to convict these folks of murder and send them away for life, OK. But it's just the Hall of Fame and in the case of Boone and Anderson it isn't even that.

Sea Ray
01-19-2011, 03:16 PM
I thought Andy Pettite's response to why he used ped's was interesting when he gave it. He essentially said that he had just signed a big contract and he wanted to live up to his end of the deal by producing at a high level.

Where in the world did you hear that? This is the version I'm most familiar with and it flies in the face of what you wrote:


On December 15, 2007, Pettitte verified McNamee's claim, admitting to using the HGH on two occasions in 2002, as it was meant to help heal an injury, and not to enhance his performance. Pettitte said he felt an obligation to return to the team as quickly as possible. He denied any further usage of HGH during his career; he also denied use of steroids or any other performance-enhancing drug.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Pettitte

Pettitte's response was right out of the steroid playbook. Admit to taking it a minimal amount of times and say it was due to an injury. Never, ever say you used it to gain a competitive advantage

Razor Shines
01-19-2011, 03:20 PM
The difference between you and me is that I don't need a comprehensive study to show me that steroids led to Barry Bonds' 73 HRs or Brady Anderson's 50 HR season or Bret Boone's yrs in Seattle.

It's just sports, man. If we were voting to convict these folks of murder and send them away for life, OK. But it's just the Hall of Fame and in the case of Boone and Anderson it isn't even that.

Brady Anderson's 50 HR season came from him playing a lot of tennis in the off season. I know it. I saw the interview where he said it.

Roy Tucker
01-19-2011, 07:07 PM
They don't have busts, they have plaques... thus make all PROVEN steroid guys have a different color plaque.



http://www.pulledover.com/National-DWI-News-Links/uploaded_images/Ohio-DUI-License-Plates-704410.jpg

edabbs44
01-19-2011, 09:47 PM
Pettitte's response was right out of the steroid playbook. Admit to taking it a minimal amount of times and say it was due to an injury. Never, ever say you used it to gain a competitive advantage

Right on...

"How many times do you guys know about? Once? OK, I used it once."

"Oh wait, you found another time? Oh yeah, I forgot about that one. I only used twice. And it was only to get healthy. And feed the poor."

camisadelgolf
01-20-2011, 01:48 AM
I'm sorry to get off topic, but since Jeff Bagwell was brought up, I just wanted to mention something that I remembered today. For his entire career, he never got a hit off Scott Sullivan.

Orenda
01-20-2011, 04:44 AM
[QUOTE=Sea Ray;2316664]Where in the world did you hear that? This is the version I'm most familiar with and it flies in the face of what you wrote:



Pettitte's response was right out of the steroid playbook. Admit to taking it a minimal amount of times and say it was due to an injury. Never, ever say you used it to gain a competitive advantage[/QUOTE

U might be right, I thought he mentioned his contract in his press conference as to what motivated him to use and i must have mistaken his meaning somewhere.

I never bought the injury non competitive advantage arguments anyhow. If you recover faster than it's an advantage over the guy whose body is still sore from the last days game.