Turn Off Ads?

View Poll Results: How would you vote for the HOF regarding PEDs

Voters
66. You may not vote on this poll
  • Let everyone in, it was part of the game, many used, it happened.

    21 31.82%
  • Let everyone in except the hard, admitted PEDers, i.e., Bonds, Sosa, McGwire.

    0 0%
  • Somewhere in the middle, on somewhat of a case-by-case basis.

    37 56.06%
  • Let in no one with any steroid connections whatsoever.

    8 12.12%
Page 1 of 8 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 108

Thread: How would you vote for the Hall regarding steroids

  1. #1
    Blowing away bad memories Redsfan320's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Oxford, OH
    Posts
    2,282

    How would you vote for the Hall regarding steroids

    First, every option also includes an unwritten section letting Pete Rose in, . Beyond that, how would you vote?

    320
    Last edited by Redsfan320; 01-10-2011 at 08:51 AM.
    I'd rather listen to Kelch read the phone book than suffer through Thom Brennaman's attempt to make every instance on the field the most important event since the discovery of manned space flight. -westofyou

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #2
    Vavasor TRF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Amarillo, TX
    Posts
    13,283

    Re: How would you vote for the Hall regarding steroids

    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.
    Suck it up cupcake.

  4. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Cincinnati
    Posts
    855

    Re: How would you vote for the Hall regarding steroids

    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.
    "I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined, and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road." Stephen Hawking

  5. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta, aka, the most prosperous city in the world.
    Posts
    10,561

    Re: How would you vote for the Hall regarding steroids

    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.

  6. #5
    Member Strikes Out Looking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,433

    Re: How would you vote for the Hall regarding steroids

    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.
    Win the Division

  7. #6
    Box of Frogs edabbs44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    16,296

    Re: How would you vote for the Hall regarding steroids

    Quote Originally Posted by Strikes Out Looking View Post
    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?

  8. #7
    Stat Wanker Hodiernus RedsManRick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    15,931

    Re: How would you vote for the Hall regarding steroids

    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.
    Games are won on run differential -- scoring more than your opponent. Runs are runs, scored or prevented they all count the same. Worry about scoring more and allowing fewer, not which positions contribute to which side of the equation or how "consistent" you are at your current level of performance.

  9. #8
    Box of Frogs edabbs44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    16,296

    Re: How would you vote for the Hall regarding steroids

    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.

  10. #9
    We Need Our Myths reds1869's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Overlooking GABP
    Posts
    4,448

    Re: How would you vote for the Hall regarding steroids

    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.

  11. #10
    Churlish Johnny Footstool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Olathe, KS
    Posts
    13,783

    Re: How would you vote for the Hall regarding steroids

    OK, so this is the thread in which we duke this out.

    Quote Originally Posted by RedsManRick View Post
    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.
    "I prefer books and movies where the conflict isn't of the extreme cannibal apocalypse variety I guess." Redsfaithful

  12. #11
    breath westofyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    PDX
    Posts
    42,383

    Re: How would you vote for the Hall regarding steroids

    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.

  13. #12
    Stat Wanker Hodiernus RedsManRick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    15,931

    Re: How would you vote for the Hall regarding steroids

    Quote Originally Posted by Johnny Footstool View Post
    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.
    Games are won on run differential -- scoring more than your opponent. Runs are runs, scored or prevented they all count the same. Worry about scoring more and allowing fewer, not which positions contribute to which side of the equation or how "consistent" you are at your current level of performance.

  14. #13
    Stat Wanker Hodiernus RedsManRick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    15,931

    Re: How would you vote for the Hall regarding steroids

    Quote Originally Posted by edabbs44 View Post
    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.
    Games are won on run differential -- scoring more than your opponent. Runs are runs, scored or prevented they all count the same. Worry about scoring more and allowing fewer, not which positions contribute to which side of the equation or how "consistent" you are at your current level of performance.

  15. #14
    Box of Frogs edabbs44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    16,296

    Re: How would you vote for the Hall regarding steroids

    Quote Originally Posted by RedsManRick View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by RedsManRick View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by RedsManRick View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by RedsManRick View Post
    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.

  16. #15
    Box of Frogs edabbs44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    16,296

    Re: How would you vote for the Hall regarding steroids

    Quote Originally Posted by westofyou View Post
    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.


Turn Off Ads?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!


RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball


Contact us: Boss | GIK | BCubb2003 | dabvu2498 | Gallen5862 | LexRedsFan | Plus Plus | RedlegJake | redsfan1995 | The Operator | Tommyjohn25