MLB 2008-09 Hot Stove II

[MrRain422]

Personally, I do think that racism has played a role in how negatively some people view Bonds -- not as big a role as his own cheating and the way he's a genuine asshole to everyone, but a role nonetheless. So I don't really have objections to him mentioning it. But yeah, you're not the first to suggest that he may be racist, and that could be true even while being a victim of racism himself. I don't have any personal knowledge of him being a racist or not-a-racist so I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on that particular issue, since there are plenty of other proven reasons to criticize him anyway.

[bobbob1313]

Either way, there's not much proof that Kent isn't a jerk (Unlike Rice), so I'm hoping the subjective argument gets used against him, just for consistencies sake.

[Oil Can Boyd]

By the way, since Jeff Kent's retirement has already been mentioned, hall of famer? I say yes.

If he makes it (and I think he will) I wonder what hat he'll wear. Giants?

[MattZ]

Anyone on the fence on McGwire's HOF status swayed one way or the other now?

[Duck-Billed Catechist]

I think very few people honestly thought that he didn't do teh roids.

[Lammycat]

McGwire will never get in, though. Neither will Bonds.

[rareair]

manny happy returns

[bobbob1313]

I think he's a hall of famer either way. I just don't see how you can keep some people from the steroids era out and not just keep them all out.

 

I'm also not all pissed off about the steroids era like a lot of people. Everyone turned a blind eye to it at the time, so it's completely unfair to penalize the players of the era.

[Lammycat]

I think he's a hall of famer either way. I just don't see how you can keep some people from the steroids era out and not just keep them all out.

It's pretty simple (to me): Players that are considered HoF material from "that era" who were caught or heavily presumed to have used steroids are getting little consideration from the BBWA. Not every player used from that era and the HoF candidates deemed HoF material who were not caught/suspected will get in.

 

Presuming that every player used is not fair to those who didn't. Turning a blind eye does not make it okay, either, and particularly is an insult to those who didn't use. Thus, penalizing players who cheated is completely fair.

[Duck-Billed Catechist]

I think he's a hall of famer either way. I just don't see how you can keep some people from the steroids era out and not just keep them all out.

 

I'm also not all pissed off about the steroids era like a lot of people. Everyone turned a blind eye to it at the time, so it's completely unfair to penalize the players of the era.

Well, if there's overwhelming evidence that they used. Sure it's fair. What's not fair about it?

 

Do you think it's unfair to issue speeding tickets to a select few because most everyone speeds?

[bobbob1313]

Oh, we're talking about what the writers will do? I don't really give a shit what they'll do, because they are for the most part, idiots.

 

I'm concerned about my own opinion, and my opinion is that anyone who has played baseball is eligible, and I'll judge each one by their own merits and relative to the era they played in.

 

Though, when I think about McGwire's case, if it is true that he used starting in 94, then he probably wouldn't have been a hall of famer without them. So, he might not get my fictional vote. Barry Bonds, on the other hand, was a hall of famer (and one of the 15 greatest players ever) before he allegedly started using (1999), so he gets in. Same with Clemens.

 

I just don't think "Steroid User" is enough for me to say someone is or isn't a hall of famer, because I don't think that just using steroids by themselves is enough to keep someone from the Hall. I have to believe they are a hall of fame caliber player because of steroids. So, for McGwire, maybe not if this turns out to be true.

[Lammycat]

Try switching "Steroid User" with "Large Scale Cheater" and maybe it'll make more sense. Probably not, though.

 

Before. After. Who gives a shit? They cheated on a large scale during their career. That merits quetions about their natural abilities and overall career.

[Sir Stewart]

manny happy returns

 

Charlie Pierce is funny. Still, I'm down.

[bobbob1313]

Try switching "Steroid User" with "Large Scale Cheater" and maybe it'll make more sense. Probably not, though.

 

Before. After. Who gives a shit? They cheated on a large scale during their career. That merits quetions about their natural abilities and overall career.

 

We're not going to agree on this, so I'mnot going to get into it.

[MrRain422]

To play Devil's Advocate a bit, how do you all feel about Gaylord Perry, not a steriod user but an admitted cheater throughout his career, being in the Hall? Or other confessed cheaters like Whitey Ford or Ty Cobb?

[Lammycat]

To play Devil's Advocate a bit, how do you all feel about Gaylord Perry, not a steriod user but an admitted cheater throughout his career, being in the Hall? Or other confessed cheaters like Whitey Ford or Ty Cobb?

There's cheating and there's "cheating," in my eyes. Gaylord Perry using a spitball (or Whitey Ford doctoring balls) is on the low end of cheating. Some might even say there is a certain art/skill to doing it and getting away with it. It's almost and accepted part of the game. The penalty for being caught with a spitball is relevant to it's "crime." It's a slap on the wrist. Compare that with the penalties for using illegal/banned substances. Or betting on the game.

 

Ty Cobb spiking guys was crummy and there have been allegations of him betting on and throwing games. If the betting/throwing games was fact I'd say he doesn't deserve the honer of a HoF-er.

[MrRain422]

There's cheating and there's "cheating," in my eyes. Gaylord Perry using a spitball (or Whitey Ford doctoring balls) is on the low end of cheating. Some might even say there is a certain art/skill to doing it and getting away with it. It's almost and accepted part of the game. The penalty for being caught with a spitball is relevant to it's "crime." It's a slap on the wrist. Compare that with the penalties for using illegal/banned substances. Or betting on the game.

 

Okay, no longer playing Devil's Advocate now. In the time period we're talking about for these 'roids, there was no penalty at all for doing them -- it was less against the rules than throwing a spitball was.

 

This is an issue that I think I can relate to both sides of, though for guys like Bonds who were clear Hall of Famers anyway, I'd definitely let them in. Palmeiro probably not. I think that the guys who, while on steroids, dominated a league that was on steroids, showed themselves to be great players. Some of the more borderline guys I'm not sure about. But I think the fact that it was pretty much condoned by MLB for a long time shouldn't be overlooked either. If the small degree of punishment for throwing a spitball means that it's not really a grievous crime, then doesn't the even smaller penalty that existed for steroids during the time period we're talking about suggest that it's an even less grievous one?

[Lammycat]

Steroids/HGH/etc. were banned from the game beginning in '93 (maybe it was '94, I forget). I agree that MLB is culpable in that they did turn a blind eye. No one was investigated during the beginning and middle stages of it's boom. They should have been, but they weren't. I still don't think that this negates the fact that it's a not petty offense. I also don't think it does justice to the players that played on the level during the same period/era.

 

Just different viewpoints on it. I just don't agree with players getting busted for something they did and pointing fingers at everyone else while citing "everyone was doing it" as an excuse. It's a weak defense, imo.

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

I think he's a hall of famer either way. I just don't see how you can keep some people from the steroids era out and not just keep them all out.

 

I'm also not all pissed off about the steroids era like a lot of people. Everyone turned a blind eye to it at the time, so it's completely unfair to penalize the players of the era.

 

 

I have a much greater problem with the 70's generation of baseball players who coked themselves up and had their play suffer.

 

Steroids were used to enhance better play. Steroids won't make you suddenly be able to hit that slider or curveball, but it will help a player in their training.

 

We can get all high and mighty about it, but the players using steroids were looking to enhance their game. The coke heads from the 70's and 80's (i.e. DAVE PARKER, et al) were hurting the game with diminished physical capacity.

[MrRain422]

I also don't appreciate it when players use the "everyone else was doing it" defense. But that doesn't mean I can't consider that myself in evaluating them as players.

 

Some have suggested that Willie Mays used greenies.

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

I also don't appreciate it when players use the "everyone else was doing it" defense. But that doesn't mean I can't consider that myself in evaluating them as players.

 

Some have suggested that Willie Mays used greenies.

 

 

The debate is really silly. If you told (professional) athelets the fellating a donkey would add 25% to their performance on the field/court, we would have a lot of smiling donkeys out there.

[Lammycat]

I think it's a very valid debate as it hinges on what some folks deem acceptable in evaluating a players career. It's also become a tire to some folks around here and, as much as i enjoy the debate, apologize to those who are tired of the argument. It's an argument that's not about to go away (in the larger sense) any time soon, though.

[bobbob1313]

while roids and hgh were banned, there was no penalty on the books. So a spitball was like, even more illegal.

 

If there is an art to spitballs and what not, then can't the argument be made that a player like bonds should be commended for his spectacular steroid training regimen?

[jenbobblehead]

Bobbob, I am not sure something can be "more illegal" than others here. If it was on the books as banned, then it is banned. Just because there was no penalty doesn't make it any less of a sin than anything else. I think it just means that there was no fine. Now, there's no fine on murder and there is on speeding. Does that mean murder is "less illegal?" I know what your point is though. It definitely sends a message to the players when there's a rule with no consequence. But the rule was still there from, what, 93 on? So any time after 93 you're doing something MLB deemed illegal.

[Duck-Billed Catechist]

Steroids won't make you suddenly be able to hit that slider or curveball

There is some evidence that HGH improves eyesight.