My opinion on this has always been "cheating" between the lines is "ok", cheating outside the lines is not. The players can police the game themselves when its done between the lines (HBP, hard slides, etc.) but how do players stop others from using steroids?

 

How can you police a pitcher from throwing a spitball? Nobody ever stopped Gaylord Perry from throwing doctored balls.

How can you police a pitcher from throwing a spitball? Nobody ever stopped Gaylord Perry from throwing doctored balls.

 

Charge the mound, throw at him when he's batting. To compare doctoring a baseball to taking steroids is pretty ridiculous in my mind.

Charge the mound, throw at him when he's batting. To compare doctoring a baseball to taking steroids is pretty ridiculous in my mind.

This is the way I've always looked at it. Speeding and murder are both crimes. One gets a fine the other jail.

 

Everyone is entitled to look at it however they want. That is what is so much fun about it.

Charge the mound, throw at him when he's batting. To compare doctoring a baseball to taking steroids is pretty ridiculous in my mind.

 

How so? Doctoring a ball gives a pitcher an unfair advantage. That's an extra pitch to his arsenal that other pitchers don't have. It also makes his other pitches more effective. What's the difference?

How so? Doctoring a ball gives a pitcher an unfair advantage. That's an extra pitch to his arsenal that other pitchers don't have. It also makes his other pitches more effective. What's the difference?

 

For one thing, the talk of Perry started because of the "ethics" part of being a HOFer. Taking anabolic steroids without a prescription is a federal crime, putting a little vaseline on a ball a couple times a game is not.

For one thing, the talk of Perry started because of the "ethics" part of being a HOFer. Taking anabolic steroids without a prescription is a federal crime, putting a little vaseline on a ball a couple times a game is not.

 

You are right. Using amphetamines (greenies) is a federal crime as well, yet they were rampant in MLB. Willie Mays & Mike Schmidt have admitted to using them, how can they be in the Hall of Fame? That's not very "ethical" of them.

My opinion on this has always been "cheating" between the lines is "ok", cheating outside the lines is not. The players can police the game themselves when its done between the lines (HBP, hard slides, etc.) but how do players stop others from using steroids?

Steroids are cheating within the lines. You only need them for work done on the field.

Rock and Lee Smith!

 

I honestly wouldn't care if Bonds got in.

You are right. Using amphetamines (greenies) is a federal crime as well, yet they were rampant in MLB. Willie Mays & Mike Schmidt have admitted to using them, how can they be in the Hall of Fame? That's not very "ethical" of them.

Again it's a matter of where the crime is on the spectrum. Would someone get the same sentence for "greenies" as for cocaine? Almost all MLB players used greenies up until 5 years ago. That doesn't mean that it is the same offense that steriods are. One helps you to fight off fatigue, keeps you alert and helps you focus so you can perform at your best level. The other actually improves what your best level is.

5 hour energy may be the next PED.

5 hour energy may be the next PED.

The popularity of it has increased the last couple of years

About 1/3 of the votes have been publicized, and at this pace Biggio is close, but no one will get in.

 

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/newsst...ollecting_gizmo

 

Updated 7:35 AM ~ 173 Full Ballots ~ (30.2% of vote ~ based on last year)

 

Cooperstown = Ghost town? %.

 

71.1 - Biggio

61.3 - Raines

60.7 - J. Morris

60.1 - Bagwell

59.5 - Piazza

44.5 - Bonds

43.4 - Clemens

38.7 - L. Smith

38.7 - Schilling

37.0 - Trammell

34.7 - E. Martinez

19.7 - D. Murphy

19.7 - McGriff

16.8 - L. Walker

13.9 - McGwire

13.9 - S. Sosa

12.7 - Raffy

9.2 - Mattingly

———————————

2.9 - Lofton

1.7 - P. Rose (goofy write-in’s)

1.7 - Bernie Williams

0.6 - D. Wells

0.6 - J. Franco

0.6 - S. Alomar Jr.

0.6 - S. Green

About 1/3 of the votes have been publicized, and at this pace Biggio is close, but no one will get in.

 

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/newsst...ollecting_gizmo

 

Rock just keeps getting closer and closer every year. Makes me believe he will eventually get in. He may lose votes next year because of the 10 person rule. With The Big Hurt, Maddux, Glavine, Kent and Mussina all getting on the ballot its getting pretty bloated. Makes me think they will take some votes away from guys like Rock, Lee Smith, Larry Walker, etc.

Alan Trammell according to Bill James is the 9th best SS of all time. I don't know if he is that high, or Bill James is that high, but the guy was a great player both offensively and defensively. He's definitely HOF material.

can I ask why folks aren't voting Piazza in the other thread? I know he's not going to make it, but it's a travesty for the best catcher in the history of the game not to be a 1st ballot

HOF

can I ask why folks aren't voting Piazza in the other thread? I know he's not going to make it, but it's a travesty for the best catcher in the history of the game not to be a 1st ballot

HOF

Presumably he's getting lumped in with the roiders based on suspicions but without the proof out there for the other guys.

Presumably he's getting lumped in with the roiders based on suspicions but without the proof out there for the other guys.

 

That's my rationale.

That's my rationale.

how is that fair? literally never been named in ANY report.

also I used to be on your side SS, but recently i've been realizing that the hall of fame is FULL of cheaters and guys who did whatever was available to give themselves a competitive edge.

 

why do we condemn the roiders but not the guys who used amphetamines? the hall is full of bad guys. why are these bad guys worse?

 

and to keep people out based purely on circumstantial evidence is absurd.

how is that fair? literally never been named in ANY report.

 

How is baseball acting like steroids didn't happen for a generation until it got the point where baseballs anti-trust exemption could have been in danger before taking real action, fair? Looking at Piazza's career, I think it is a fair guess.

also I used to be on your side SS, but recently i've been realizing that the hall of fame is FULL of cheaters and guys who did whatever was available to give themselves a competitive edge.

 

why do we condemn the roiders but not the guys who used amphetamines? the hall is full of bad guys. why are these bad guys worse?

 

and to keep people out based purely on circumstantial evidence is absurd.

 

We can't go back today and change what happened 30/40/50 years ago. It would be like saying well they didn't have real civil rights back then, so we shouldn't hold people to that standard today.

 

Again, baseball put itself in this position by refusing to do anything about the drug culture in the game.

I have to say, and I am sure I will get railed on... but some of the arguments I am hearing for voting in Bonds, Clemens and other roiders are just empty.

 

1. "There are other cheaters in the Hall, so why can't others get in?" This is the famous 8 year old kid argument... why should I be punished? Such-and-such did it! Bulls***. Just as law enforcement cannot catch every crook, you cannot expect that to be a reason to not try. That argument says to me "I don't feel like making a real judgment here, so I'm going the lazy route".

 

2. "The character clause is stupid/unnecessary" or "it is too subjective". Voting for the Hall, by its nature, is subjective. There is no specific statistical criteria. Of course you have to make subjective calls. And if you think the character clause is bogus, I get that, that's fine... but it IS there, and those are the rules provided.

 

3. "We cannot be judge and jury or try people for PED - no conviction, no issues" If you are voting for the Hall, you ARE judge and jury for that purpose. That's the entire idea - you are making a call about someone's admission to the Hall. You are deciding. So yeah, you are. Now, how you USE the evidence you can gather, is up for much debate. If your line in the sand is a conviction, or maybe a positive test, or significant body of evidence, or even just rumor... then that is your line.

 

4. "We will never know who all used and who didn't, so you can't make that judgment" This is similar to the lazy argument mentioned above. Of course you don't know, you are not God. Your responsibility, if you are a writer on the vote, is to go with the information you have.

 

For me personally, it is body of evidence. For Piazza, I have never seen anything remotely resembling acceptable evidence - only performance for a low draft choice. For Bonds or Clemens or Palmeiro, there is a plethora of evidence, that for me personally, is enough. But that is just my view, aside from the 3 silly arguments above.

 

There are good arguments for allowing Bonds or the like to get in, no doubt. You may think the character clause is to be weighed against others and is less important, which I get... or you may think that your line in the sand for cheating is convictions... or you may think that their impact on the game was so materially positive that it outweighs the allegations of PED use. I can respect any of those arguments... just not the stupid ones lined out above.

 

So for me, Piazza rates "clean" for my test. Bonds, Clemens and Palmeiro are not, in my view. Sosa is a tough one, the eye test and wholly unnatural performance curve (and giant head, and odd behavior) are all scary enough that I would be he did, but the evidence is nowhere near that against Bonds, Clemens and Palmeiro. Fortunately, Sosa's body of baseball work isn't as strong as theirs, so I can feel good about leaving him off regardless.

 

One final thing... cheating between the lines versus steroids... to me, there is a huge difference. Doing something that is per se illegal to gain an effective tools advantage usable at all times is, in my view, far worse than getting a small edge by throwing a spit ball. However, I can certainly see the argument otherwise on this one.

 

NYT did report Sosa was on the Mitchell Report with a positive test. Sosa never fought that idea.

I kinda go back and forth on whether ANY roiders should be in the HOF, but lately I've been leaning more towards letting guys like Bonds and Clemens in, but not guys like Sosa and Palmeiro. My rationale on it is that steroids did not make Bonds and Clemens HOFers, they just made them into the top tier of HOFers. Steroids did take guys like Sosa and Palmeiro who were better than average ballplayers and help them forge HOF careers. Don't know if that makes sense to anyone else or not, don't really care.

NYT did report Sosa was on the Mitchell Report with a positive test. Sosa never fought that idea.

The mitchell report list was made public. Sosa was not on that.

 

I assume you're meaning the list of people who tested positive in 2003, when MLB did their initial survey tests that were supposed to be anonymous. That list has not been officially released.