rareair Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 So if his career stats after his use began were wiped out would he be a HoF-er? what year would mark the beginning of bonds' use? '98? edit: thanks. i think his stats would warrant inclusion with '99 as a cutoff. Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 QFT You're just as hard headed as I am, so cut the act. You do this every few weeks. You'll start discussing something, and then stop and say "Oh, yea now I remembered why I hate discussing sports with you". Honestly, I don't give a shit. If you don't like discussing sports with me, stop. But quit this shit. Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted January 23, 2009 Author Share Posted January 23, 2009 Even if Bonds retired before his use began he'd almost surely be a HoF-er. Which makes the reasons why he used even more concerning. However, are we going to start picking apart players' careers into segments because they played in the steroid era? Maybe they should, I don't know. "Pre-use" and "Post-use" stats, etc. Rose is banned because of post-player days indiscretions. I have no probalem with his omission from the HoF either, though. Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 My problem with bonds not getting in is he has never been caught and it looks like he's going to escape legal trouble too. Bonds and rose aren't comparable at all, IMO. Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 My problem with bonds not getting in is he has never been caught and it looks like he's going to escape legal trouble too. Bonds and rose aren't comparable at all, IMO. They are comparable in the sense that, in some cases, some issues are bigger than numbers. Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Oh, sure. I meant from the sense that Bonds has never been caught and has maintained his innocence and has even avoided federal prosecutors, whereas Rose agreed to a lifelong ban and has since admitted that he gambled. Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Oh, sure. I meant from the sense that Bonds has never been caught and has maintained his innocence and has even avoided federal prosecutors, whereas Rose agreed to a lifelong ban and has since admitted that he gambled. Sure. And my point is that if you believe that steroids are illegal, and make a candidacy moot, you can take the position that "pre-steroids" stats are irrelevant to the analysis. Because its not just about numbers. I know this has nothing to do with whether Bonds did or didn't use. Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Then barring anyone suspected of using steroids becomes less of a performance issue and more of a character issue. I just don't see why steroids have become the one thing you could not get in trouble for from the game and still be held out of the hall. You can have a history of recreational drug use and you have a better chance of getting in than a steroid user. It's either a performance thing, and you have to judge each by their individual record, or it's a character thing, and then it becomes hard to justify leaving them out if they've never actually gotten in trouble from the game and many people have done far worse and still gotten in. Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 I just don't see why steroids have become the one thing you could not get in trouble for from the game and still be held out of the hall. You didnt answer my tongue in cheek point about whipping out a gun and shooting the pitcher. If steroids are illegal, and you can go to jail for using them, the players engaged in illegal activity. Why does baseball have to have a specific penalty? Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 You didnt answer my tongue in cheek point about whipping out a gun and shooting the pitcher. If steroids are illegal, and you can go to jail for using them, the players engaged in illegal activity. Why does baseball have to have a specific penalty? I didn't notice your point about shooting the pitcher? You can go to jail for stabbing people or using drugs, but there are drug users and Ty Cobbs in the Hall of Fame. There's nothing steroid users have done that numerous players already in the hall haven't done. What is it specifically about steroids that make them so bad that anyone that has any suspicions of use should be barred. Here's the question: You are a BBWAA member. You have a vote. It is 2012. Does Barry Bonds get your vote? He's never been in trouble from the law or baseball from steroid use. Does the mere suspicion keep him out? Link to post Share on other sites
rareair Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 I didn't notice your point about shooting the pitcher? You can go to jail for stabbing people or using drugs, but there are drug users and Ty Cobbs in the Hall of Fame. There's nothing steroid users have done that numerous players already in the hall haven't done. What is it specifically about steroids that make them so bad that anyone that has any suspicions of use should be barred. Here's the question: You are a BBWAA member. You have a vote. It is 2012. Does Barry Bonds get your vote? He's never been in trouble from the law or baseball from steroid use. Does the mere suspicion keep him out? "suspicion" is too kind and skews the question. Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Here's the question: You are a BBWAA member. You have a vote. It is 2012. Does Barry Bonds get your vote? He's never been in trouble from the law or baseball from steroid use. Does the mere suspicion keep him out? I don't know what I'd do. But that's not the question. I am perfectly happy to sit on the fence and point out where I think both sides on this issue are wrong. Pro-Bonds folks insist that steroids didnt have a specific penalty in the game or that his pre-steroids numbers get him in. But steroids are and were illegal. If something is illegal, I don't know why there has to be a specific penalty in the rulebook. Of course it's not allowed. It's illegal. So, if we agree that some issues in baseball are bigger than numbers (Pete Rose), and we can agree that using steroids without a prescription can put you in jail, then I think you can stand on firm ground if you don't think Bonds should get in. I don't know what I'd do if I had a vote. I'd probably vote him in. But I dont think Lammy is wrong, either. Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Is the fact that he admitted to using cocaine the reason why Tim Raines isn't in the hall? I don't think there is anyone out there that would use that argument, yet isn't cocaine just as illegal (if not more) than steroids. The problem I have with it is why are steroids so much worse? It's not because it's cheating, or else Gaylord Perry wouldn't be in the hall. It's not because it was and is illegal, because lots of players wouldn't be in there. "suspicion" is too kind and skews the question. And it is suspicion. He's never been caught, and he seems to be about to get off the federal case. Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Is the fact that he admitted to using cocaine the reason why Tim Raines isn't in the hall? I don't think there is anyone out there that would use that argument, yet isn't cocaine just as illegal (if not more) than steroids. The problem I have with it is why are steroids so much worse? It's not because it's cheating, or else Gaylord Perry wouldn't be in the hall. It's not because it was and is illegal, because lots of players wouldn't be in there. Double whammy. Cheating + illegal.Raines only had one. Perry only had one. Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted January 23, 2009 Author Share Posted January 23, 2009 And it is suspicion. He's never been caught, and he seems to be about to get off the federal case.Is there word that the book is fiction and the evidence points to innocence now? This isn't a rhetorical question, either. How you can compare spitballs to something called "performance enhancing drugs" as similar still confuses me, too. Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Is there word that the book is fiction and the evidence points to innocence now? This isn't a rhetorical question, either. How you can compare spitballs to something called "performance enhancing drugs" as similar still confuses me, too. I'm a big believer in "Innocent until proven guilty". Nothing points to innocence, but the fact of the matter is, he's never been proven to have taken steroids. Obviously, he did, but there's no ban from baseball, and he's not gotten in legal trouble. If I'm a voter, the fact that none of them has been found guilty won't let me just write them off. I will take it into account, but for Bonds, he's in for me. In terms of cheating, to me doctoring a baseball is just as bad as taking steroids, if we're talking about just on the field. Semantics has nothing to do with it. And I'm not saying corking your bat or using too much pine tar is also on the same level. But doctoring a baseball has very real, very noticeable, and very legitimate effects on the outcome of a play. And more than that it is dangerous. Link to post Share on other sites
caliber66 Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Steroid use is not dangerous? Link to post Share on other sites
Winston Legthigh Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 But doctoring a baseball has very real, very noticeable, and very legitimate effects on the outcome of a play. And more than that it is dangerous. Aren't all baseballs at every park rubbed in some super-secret formula mud that they get from some swamp in NJ before every game? Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Steroid use is not dangerous? Dangerous to others. If you want to kill yourself, that's your business. Steroids aren't hurting anyone but the user. And the hearts of all of the fans. Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Then barring anyone suspected of using steroids becomes less of a performance issue and more of a character issue. I just don't see why steroids have become the one thing you could not get in trouble for from the game and still be held out of the hall. You can have a history of recreational drug use and you have a better chance of getting in than a steroid user. It's either a performance thing, and you have to judge each by their individual record, or it's a character thing, and then it becomes hard to justify leaving them out if they've never actually gotten in trouble from the game and many people have done far worse and still gotten in.My take on it is steroids violate the Protestant work ethic, providing a chemical short cut to what should only be attained by hours and hours of grueling work and the commitment and determination that goes with it. To take steroids is to try to get around that work, and that is why I think people have a visceral distaste for them and those who take them. Link to post Share on other sites
caliber66 Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Dangerous to others. If you want to kill yourself, that's your business. Steroids aren't hurting anyone but the user.Roid rage is not a myth. Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Dangerous to others. If you want to kill yourself, that's your business. Steroids aren't hurting anyone but the user. And the hearts of all of the fans. What about the pitcher 60 feet 6 inches away? Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Jesus would throw spitballs. Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted January 23, 2009 Author Share Posted January 23, 2009 My take on it is steroids violate the Protestant work ethic, providing a chemical short cut to what should only be attained by hours and hours of grueling work and the commitment and determination that goes with it. To take steroids is to try to get around that work, and that is why I think people have a visceral distaste for them and those who take them.I think this is a bit what I was getting at when saying there's a certain skill/art to throwing a spitball as opposed to doping to get a leg up on your competitors, which often merely includes other guys playing your position in MLB. It's purely a stats and money based form of cheating (need to keep up with the competition/put up big stats to keep your job, supposedly) whereas throwing a spitball for five innings or whatever is cheating on a game-day scale. I just look at it as a lot less harmless to the sport, overall. Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 What about the pitcher 60 feet 6 inches away? He's probably on steroids too. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts