Originally Posted by registerthis
That's some nice faulty logic you're using there, Cyclone. Let me get this straight: because I don't want to go back and revisit every single potential past sin ever commited by a baseball player, and make a decision based on that information whether or not the player should be allowed to remain in the hall, I have no right to ever argue that a future player should be kept out? That's simply ridiculous, and if you truly believe that I think you're running out of arguments.
I don't advocate for kicking people out because I don't believe that baseball should be in the practice of revisiting and--by default--making remittances for perceived past wrongs. This is the very reason I say that your continued references to sins committed by players 50 and 60 years ago have no bearing on this discussion. I can't control what they did, I can't control what baseball did. This discussion deals with an active scandal today. This is something baseball CAN deal with, and I want them to deal with it correctly.
1) Everything published about Barry Bonds is
in the past, not current. These are reports stating that Bonds used steroids before there was actually steroid testing. Nowhere in those reports does it say that Bonds is still using steroids and faking his way around the current testing program. Baseball has already dealt with steroids and instituted a testing policy. Everything that happened before that testing policy was instituted is now in the past.
Seriously, what do you think the chances are that baseball punishes Bonds for what he did before the testing policy? Does anybody really believe they will punish him?
2) Baseball has set precedent in attempting to revisit history and make remittances for past wrongs by reinstating players long after they were banned. You don't believe they should do it, but they've already done it.
Within the scope of the game, sure, I'll concede that. But i was referring more to the perceptions we place on a player, and the traits and characteristics HoF voters use to decide who and who not to elect to the Hall. If Barry had been caught corking his bat once or twice, or lathering up with too much pine tar, his HoF induction would be a no-brainer. 5 years of significant steroid use that had an evident impact on his statistics? Not so much.
No, Barry pre-1998 was, IMHO, a HoF-caliber player. Absolutely. But, also IMHO, his actions on the field, which helped create this pall over the game that we now see, trump his pre-1998 career. Feel free to disagree with me--certainly that's your right. But this double-standard hypocritical stuff you keep throwing out is pure baloney. Barry Bonds has harmed the game by his actions; my personal feelings that he should not be voted into the Hall because of that is my punishment.
Reg, c'mon, man
I'm not throwing any double-standard hypocritical stuff at you. If you will not advocate removing a man from the Hall who committed a crime of covering up a conspiracy to throw World Series games, but yet then advocate keeping a player who used steroids out of the Hall, then I have to seriously question your standards on how severe each crime really is. I absolutely do not want to do that, but I have to. You stated that you would not support throwing anybody out of the Hall, including Charles Comiskey, but will support not voting Barry Bonds in.
I just don't understand that viewpoint.
The Hall of Fame is about historical perspective. It is not about what the pressing issue of today is, nor is it about what the pressing issue of yesterday is. It is about what the pressing issue of the crime committed fits historically.
Participating in fixing games, conspiring to cover up fixed game scandals, betting on baseball, etc. are all much more severe crimes than using steroids. I know you have stated this already, but what I'm trying to stress is it does not matter if the fixing of the game occurred 80 years ago and steroid use occurred today. Fixing a game 80 years ago is exponentially worse than using steroids today. Likewise, it does not matter if steroid use occurred in 1965 and also occurred today. They are equally as bad.
In 100 years, people will be looking at each case in historical perspective and will see that conspiring to cover up fixed games far outweighs using steroids. They may even know 100 times the amount of information regarding steroids since their inception and their use in baseball. I don't know that information, nobody does, but I wish we all did.
Charles Comiskey? He should absolutely be thrown out of the Hall of Fame.
I'm on record as stating that already earlier in this thread. RedsBaron is also on record as saying that. Why you're not onboard confuses me. Think about it, why am I arguing with you over this and not RedsBaron? It's because he's already stated Comiskey should be out. I asked him, and he answered: Comiskey = out. RedsBaron knows what Comiskey did wrong, and he's in support of tossing the old man out. He also believes Bonds should not belong. Do I disagree with him on Bonds? Sure, but he also believes that Charles Comiskey has no more of a place in the Hall than Bonds. There's absolutely nothing hypocritical about that. It's a fundamental difference of opinion, and we leave it at that.
Listen, Reg, you seem to be taking this personal, but I really hope you're not (I'm not taking it personal), and I'm not singling you out on this issue. Heck, honestly I probably agree with you on just about every Reds-related topic you can think of and you're always making outstanding posts. You and I both know certain unnamed infielders have no place in the starting lineup, and we both know Eric Milton isn't the answer to needing a staff ace. But it is crucial to understand the importance of where each possible baseball crime fits in compared to one another. That said, it's also just as crucial to understand the history of all those other crimes and how they had a dire effect on the game.
The state of the game in 1921 after the uncovering of the Black Sox Scandal and the state of game right now after the uncovering of Steroidsgate are worlds apart. Most fans simply do not understand that. It is not their fault, but without an understanding of the state of the game in regards to gambling, they likely will not develop an understanding of where to properly place steroid abuse. I don't know how much you've read about the Black Sox Scandal, gambling within the game and how it all nearly tore the game to pieces. If you're not all that familiar with it, I would wholeheartedly encourage you to dig into it at your own pace. Again, I know you've stated that gambling is worse than steroids, but if you knew how much
worse gambling was, then I don't think we'd be going back and forth like this.
Baseball was entirely crooked and had an integrity level far lower than most fans can imagine today. When woy makes a comment that more people would rather watch Barry Bonds than Hal Chase, he's absolutely correct. What Hal Chase did does not at all excuse what Barry Bonds has done. However, what Barry Bonds has done comes nowhere close to what Hal Chase did.
Here's the so-called hierarchy according to baseball that I've referenced:
Participating in the fixing of a World Series game
Being complicit in the fixing of a World Series game
Actively participating in the fixing of a regular season game
Placing bets on one's own team in baseball
Placing bets on any game within baseball in which you have no control
Everyone can disagree with that as much as they'd like, but that's how it's always been in baseball, how it currently is in baseball and how it always will be. It is exactly why Peter Edward Rose is on the ineligible list, will not be entering Cooperstown and why baseball will likely do nothing about Barry Bonds breaking a rule that did not exist at the time he broke it. Mark McGwire will be on the Hall ballot next season, but Pete Rose hasn't ever been on the ballot.
To your first point, see my statement above.
To your second, I would say that bat corking, ball doctoring, and excessive pine tarring are examples of activities that are banned not out of any health concern, but because of the benefit they provide the executor of said action. Steroids are likely banned due to a combination of both.
Sorry, but you're a bit mistaken on ball doctoring. It was banned primarily due to player safety concern after a player died on the field of play as a result of being beaned by a dirty ball.