PEDs, Steroids and the Hall of Fame

[matfanofold]

To the op...

I like you passion and respect your opinion but I noticed something that seems odd to me:

Either you vote on players based on the merit of their contibution to the game ...

Then you say:

Make the arguement about a player's HOF worthiness about the players accomplishments on the field

However, to me, both of these things are fundementally different. Clearly the HOF has almost never simply took on field accomplishment as the sole bane of induction. Always has a players popularity, charecter, and when needed, off field dealings that impacted negatively ones persona in the sport. So to say that a players on-field accomplishment(s) should be the only charesteristic of induction is fruitless.

Having said that, MLB has strict policies when it comes to banned substance abuse. If a player dishonors himself, his team, his fans, and the game by using a banned substance (and gets cought) then why should it not reflect on the merit of his contribution to the game of baseball? Personally, I think your real issue is with what is considered a banned substance, and if PED's should be on the list. But thats another story...

 

[200lbhockeyplayer]

Baseball is played in eras, each and every era was a level playing field.

The absolute best players of each era should be enshrined in the HOF. The unequivocal "best" players of an entire era. Not the best 5 year stretch, not the best year...but the era.

Did Bonds and Clemens use PEDs? No doubt in my mind. Just as there is no doubt in my mind that they were the single two greatest players (pitcher and offense) of this "PED Era."

Now, whether or not the same writers who avoided writing about steroids in baseball, avoided calling players out so that they still had locker room access, are going to start casting stones by not voting for their induction is extremely hypocritical. Just like the fans who assumed or suspected drug use, but didn't seem to ever make a peep of a complain.

 

[Gonzaleznut]

The average person could reasonably think you're taking a black and white stance on this presumably to force your agenda on this topic, which one could probably think is that Juan Gone deserves serious HOF consideration (?).

However the truth is that steroid use in the MLB and by extension the HOF is by no means the black and white issue you make it out to be here.

HOF voting processes and selection criteria are sophisticated enough to accommodate gray issues such as steroid use and other similar issues, the problem (for better or for worse) is that you and some others probably don't trust the individuals voting to make appropriate judgments - or at least judgments that would conform to your own.

Nobody thinks existing HOF members are perfect, however there is enough evidence out there for HOF voters to make appropriate, reasonable judgments.

Ironically my purpose is not to advocate for Juan Gonzalez to be in the HOF. Although I think he absolutely deserves to be in and at the very least seriously considered. Juan's career was actually cut short by steroids. They screwed up his back and cost him 5 productive years at least.

What I am saying is that NO ONE, NOT ONE SINGLE PLAYER FROM THAT ERA can be exonerated completely from suspicion of using PEDs and therefore if you can't be 100% sure and you have the stance that those who used shouldn't get in then you have eliminated an entire era of players from consideration.

I simply take the position that since no player can be proven innocent then you should throw out the issue and simply look at their accomplishments on the field.

 

[matfanofold]

Just out of interest, but when did you take the stance that people needed to be proven innocent?

 

[Mighty Bombjack]

One can already see the opinion landscape shifting. 4-5 years ago on message boards, the vast majority of people were frothing at the mouth when PED use was brought up. The debate is now more level-headed. I think the true turning point in the debate will revolve around Alex Rodriguez...

Another point to consider here is what the Hall of Fame is and should be (and differing opinions therein). Many advocate for a shrine to the best of the best only, in terms of both players and the game's standards themselves (this comes up when Jim Rice gets in and people say they only want Willie Mays-caliber players in there, making for a very small Hall indeed). Many of us, on the other hand, want the Hall to reflect the history of the game as it actually happened, not as moralists would have had it. The Hall currently has (or had as of Thanksgiving) a little sign at the entrance of the "records room" that says that they do not take a stance on PEDs one way or the other, and that they are going to represent baseball's records as is, without any asterisks. They put this up, no doubt, due to protests about Bonds' gaudy numbers in that room. But methinks that little sign portends the future.

PS- I LOVE this debate.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

One can already see the opinion landscape shifting. 4-5 years ago on message boards, the vast majority of people were frothing at the mouth when PED use was brought up. The debate is now more level-headed. I think the true turning point in the debate will revolve around Alex Rodriguez...

Another point to consider here is what the Hall of Fame is and should be (and differing opinions therein). Many advocate for a shrine to the best of the best only, in terms of both players and the game's standards themselves (this comes up when Jim Rice gets in and people say they only want Willie Mays-caliber players in there, making for a very small Hall indeed). Many of us, on the other hand, want the Hall to reflect the history of the game as it actually happened, not as moralists would have had it. The Hall currently has (or had as of Thanksgiving) a little sign at the entrance of the "records room" that says that they do not take a stance on PEDs one way or the other, and that they are going to represent baseball's records as is, without any asterisks. They put this up, no doubt, due to protests about Bonds' gaudy numbers in that room. But methinks that little sign portends the future.

PS- I LOVE this debate.

The debate simply is: for a known or suspected user, to what extent did PEDs contribute (or allegedly contribute) positively or negatively to HOF voting criteria?

 

[200lbhockeyplayer]

To chime in on the notion of "innocent until proven guilty" - that is solely for a court of law. The court of public opinion has never required, or even expected to follow that notion.

 

[Mighty Bombjack]

One can already see the opinion landscape shifting. 4-5 years ago on message boards, the vast majority of people were frothing at the mouth when PED use was brought up. The debate is now more level-headed. I think the true turning point in the debate will revolve around Alex Rodriguez...

Another point to consider here is what the Hall of Fame is and should be (and differing opinions therein). Many advocate for a shrine to the best of the best only, in terms of both players and the game's standards themselves (this comes up when Jim Rice gets in and people say they only want Willie Mays-caliber players in there, making for a very small Hall indeed). Many of us, on the other hand, want the Hall to reflect the history of the game as it actually happened, not as moralists would have had it. The Hall currently has (or had as of Thanksgiving) a little sign at the entrance of the "records room" that says that they do not take a stance on PEDs one way or the other, and that they are going to represent baseball's records as is, without any asterisks. They put this up, no doubt, due to protests about Bonds' gaudy numbers in that room. But methinks that little sign portends the future.

PS- I LOVE this debate.

The debate simply is: for a known or suspected user, to what extent did PEDs contribute (or allegedly contribute) positively or negatively to HOF voting criteria?

I agree with you. You and I went back and forth on this in a thread about Barry Bonds, and my point there was that anyone who says he should be out of the Hall because of PED use is definitely NOT in agreement with you.

 

[matfanofold]

To chime in on the notion of "innocent until proven guilty" - that is solely for a court of law. The court of public opinion has never required, or even expected to follow that notion.

Quite right you are, but it's entirely another animal to look at a population as a whole and make the blanket 'guilty until proven otherwise' statment based on the known actions of a few. It's one thing to think 'guilty until proven innocent' based on evidence or even speculation you believe to hold merit, it's another to call EVERYONE guilty when many/most have not the shread of either.

But this is also an opinion so....

 

[Gonzaleznut]

To chime in on the notion of "innocent until proven guilty" - that is solely for a court of law. The court of public opinion has never required, or even expected to follow that notion.

Couldn't have put it better myself. Exactly. This debate in in the "Court of public opinion" and therefore rushes to judgement and assumed guilt are part of the process. I don't agree with it, it is just the way it is.

 

[PujolsCollector]

McGwire and Sosa absolutely deserve to be in. Those 2 saved baseball.

McGwire does not deserve to be enshrined, period. He hit a lot of home runs. I'm tired of hearing about him "saving" baseball as well.

He doesn't have 2,000 hits, he's a career .263 hitter, he's got more strike outs than RBI and almost more strike outs than hits. I'm not saying that he wasn't an impressive power hitter, he was. Nothing else about him is Hall of Fame worthy.

People only use his home run total and 1998. Don't get me wrong, he has the rookie record for home runs as well, but he's not a Hall of Famer. You take away his home runs and he barely has 1,000 hits (1,043 to be exact).

How do you not think he saved baseball? He united the country along with Sosa in the race, people who didn't care about baseball became captivated reading each day the totals of the previous nights games. Baseball coming of of the labor strike was going down hill because people began to realize the game was a giant business and not the child's game it had seemed before. He deserves to be in along with many others. He may be a .263 hitter but he has over 500 HRs held the single season HR record when he retired won a world series in Oakland and was a fan favorite. He should be in. When it comes to the steroid issue and hall of fame, baseball writers tear down this wall!!!!

 

[Mighty Bombjack]

To chime in on the notion of "innocent until proven guilty" - that is solely for a court of law. The court of public opinion has never required, or even expected to follow that notion.

Quite right you are, but it's entirely another animal to look at a population as a whole and make the blanket 'guilty until proven otherwise' statment based on the known actions of a few. It's one thing to think 'guilty until proven innocent' based on evidence or even speculation you believe to hold merit, it's another to call EVERYONE guilty when many/most have not the shread of either.

But this is also an opinion so....

I want to add to this that many of us simply want the truth to be known, and punishing those who admit their usage prevents this. So many people want Bonds to be a man and come out and admit fully knowledgable usage of steroids. In the realm of baseball, he currently has ZERO incentive to do so.

 

[Mighty Bombjack]

McGwire and Sosa absolutely deserve to be in. Those 2 saved baseball.

McGwire does not deserve to be enshrined, period. He hit a lot of home runs. I'm tired of hearing about him "saving" baseball as well.

He doesn't have 2,000 hits, he's a career .263 hitter, he's got more strike outs than RBI and almost more strike outs than hits. I'm not saying that he wasn't an impressive power hitter, he was. Nothing else about him is Hall of Fame worthy.

People only use his home run total and 1998. Don't get me wrong, he has the rookie record for home runs as well, but he's not a Hall of Famer. You take away his home runs and he barely has 1,000 hits (1,043 to be exact).

How do you not think he saved baseball? He united the country along with Sosa in the race, people who didn't care about baseball became captivated reading each day the totals of the previous nights games. Baseball coming of of the labor strike was going down hill because people began to realize the game was a giant business and not the child's game it had seemed before. He deserves to be in along with many others. He may be a .263 hitter but he has over 500 HRs held the single season HR record when he retired won a world series in Oakland and was a fan favorite. He should be in. When it comes to the steroid issue and hall of fame, baseball writers tear down this wall!!!!

I believe that the ultimate irony will be when McGwire and Sosa are the two PED users kept out of the Hall. uniquebaseballcards' argument above about considering the role of PEDs when voting for the Hall will preclude them, while letting Bonds, Arod, Clemens, etc. in.

 

[matfanofold]

McGwire and Sosa absolutely deserve to be in. Those 2 saved baseball.

McGwire does not deserve to be enshrined, period. He hit a lot of home runs. I'm tired of hearing about him "saving" baseball as well.

He doesn't have 2,000 hits, he's a career .263 hitter, he's got more strike outs than RBI and almost more strike outs than hits. I'm not saying that he wasn't an impressive power hitter, he was. Nothing else about him is Hall of Fame worthy.

People only use his home run total and 1998. Don't get me wrong, he has the rookie record for home runs as well, but he's not a Hall of Famer. You take away his home runs and he barely has 1,000 hits (1,043 to be exact).

How do you not think he saved baseball? He united the country along with Sosa in the race, people who didn't care about baseball became captivated reading each day the totals of the previous nights games. Baseball coming of of the labor strike was going down hill because people began to realize the game was a giant business and not the child's game it had seemed before. He deserves to be in along with many others. He may be a .263 hitter but he has over 500 HRs held the single season HR record when he retired won a world series in Oakland and was a fan favorite. He should be in. When it comes to the steroid issue and hall of fame, baseball writers tear down this wall!!!!

I somewhat agree,

I differ on the notion that he actually 'saved' baseball. Yes it was on the decline but it would have still been here without him. But I do fully embrace the notion his accomplishment that year reinvigorated the sport and as you say brought many to (and back) to the game. His historic RC and HR breaking seasons were astonishing and his noteriety for hitting the long ball put him in a class very few enter. Bean counters and thoes who did not live through his career may see it differently, but to live through it one has to respect his HOF worth. Well, most will anyhow...

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

[quote="Mighty Bombjack":23s1jl17]One can already see the opinion landscape shifting. 4-5 years ago on message boards, the vast majority of people were frothing at the mouth when PED use was brought up. The debate is now more level-headed. I think the true turning point in the debate will revolve around Alex Rodriguez...

Another point to consider here is what the Hall of Fame is and should be (and differing opinions therein). Many advocate for a shrine to the best of the best only, in terms of both players and the game's standards themselves (this comes up when Jim Rice gets in and people say they only want Willie Mays-caliber players in there, making for a very small Hall indeed). Many of us, on the other hand, want the Hall to reflect the history of the game as it actually happened, not as moralists would have had it. The Hall currently has (or had as of Thanksgiving) a little sign at the entrance of the "records room" that says that they do not take a stance on PEDs one way or the other, and that they are going to represent baseball's records as is, without any asterisks. They put this up, no doubt, due to protests about Bonds' gaudy numbers in that room. But methinks that little sign portends the future.

PS- I LOVE this debate.

The debate simply is: for a known or suspected user, to what extent did PEDs contribute (or allegedly contribute) positively or negatively to HOF voting criteria?

I agree with you. You and I went back and forth on this in a thread about Barry Bonds, and my point there was that anyone who says he should be out of the Hall because of PED use is definitely NOT in agreement with you.[/quote:23s1jl17]

Bonds' PED use weighs much too negatively with regard to the HOF voting criteria...the evidence is so, very, very damning here.

 

[PujolsCollector]

McGwire and Sosa absolutely deserve to be in. Those 2 saved baseball.

McGwire does not deserve to be enshrined, period. He hit a lot of home runs. I'm tired of hearing about him "saving" baseball as well.

He doesn't have 2,000 hits, he's a career .263 hitter, he's got more strike outs than RBI and almost more strike outs than hits. I'm not saying that he wasn't an impressive power hitter, he was. Nothing else about him is Hall of Fame worthy.

People only use his home run total and 1998. Don't get me wrong, he has the rookie record for home runs as well, but he's not a Hall of Famer. You take away his home runs and he barely has 1,000 hits (1,043 to be exact).

How do you not think he saved baseball? He united the country along with Sosa in the race, people who didn't care about baseball became captivated reading each day the totals of the previous nights games. Baseball coming of of the labor strike was going down hill because people began to realize the game was a giant business and not the child's game it had seemed before. He deserves to be in along with many others. He may be a .263 hitter but he has over 500 HRs held the single season HR record when he retired won a world series in Oakland and was a fan favorite. He should be in. When it comes to the steroid issue and hall of fame, baseball writers tear down this wall!!!!

I somewhat agree,

I differ on the notion that he actually 'saved' baseball. Yes it was on the decline but it would have still been here without him. But I do fully embrace the notion his accomplishment that year reinvigorated the sport and as you say brought many to (and back) to the game. His historic RC and HR breaking seasons were astonishing and his noteriety for hitting the long ball put him in a class very few enter. Bean counters and thoes who did not live through his career may see it differently, but to live through it one has to respect his HOF worth. Well, most will anyhow...

I was 3 in 98 when mcgwire broke the record. I remember very little. I have talked to people at cardinals games though. I live in STL and that might be why I have a strong opinion on mcgwire. He was a hero to me for years and really the reason I liked pujols. They said over and over in 01 pujols would replace mac. Well I began to buy into that and he became my favorite player. Mcgwire was a hero to me and just strongly believe he should be in. You are right baseball would still be here but not as strong as it is today.

 

[Gonzaleznut]

If you want to be really hard lined about the "guilt" part of it then only those who have tested positive should be excluded from consideration.

Simply being mentioned in a report, a book, or even admitting it openly does not make someone guilty. There is due process and without a failed drug test that process cannot begin.

 

[200lbhockeyplayer]

As many here know, I could care less about PED usage in baseball when it comes to judging for the Hall of Fame. I am also convinced (again, in a logic based opinion) that at least one current member of the HOF used/abused PEDS. (And no, I'm not referring to anyone specifically.)

My sole issue with this entire topic is the judge and jury.

The writers who never cared to report the goings on inside the locker rooms, the management and ownership that turned an eye, MLB officials who could claim "innocence" by claiming that there was a rule on the books, etc.

These hypocritical ***** want both sides...the profits that came with it, and then the cast stones down upon those same players they covered up for or chose to do nothing about.

What percentage of players used? We'll never know.

What players were clean? We'll never know them all.

What players used? We'll never know them all.

The only things we have are stats and era.

 

[elmalo]

Why do we talk about this in the past tense. The steroid era hasnt ended and wont end as long as steroids are an effective way to improve performance.

 

[dietdew]

The biggest problem with the steroid era is that there are so many guys who had numbers that supposedly make them "automatic" for the H.O.F. Since nobody can definitively say who was or wasn't taking the stuff, they should just let in the top 1 or 3 or whatever percent of the players from that era just like any other era. Guys like Bonds and Clemens (who I hate) would naturally be in this group. I personally would rather see guys like Juan Gonzalez or Jose Canseco who I remember as being truly dominant when I was a kid get Hall consideration than guys like McGwire or Palmero. I would guess the steriod guys start getting in once we find one or more guys already in who took the juice. Unfortunately, a lot of guys will probably have eliminated from the balloting before that happens. I am a huge Kirby Puckett fan; I have also seen here and there insinuations that he may have taken steroids along with some of the other Twins. If someone like Kirby, who many consider to be borderline at best, were ever proven to have juiced, I can't see how you would be able to keep the guys with big numbers. That said, there is no amount of accusation or proof that would ever diminish the way I feel about Puckett or those Twins teams. Finally, steroids do not help everyone...just ask Nick Punto.