PEDs, Steroids and the Hall of Fame

[trauty]

If Don Sutton is in the Hall of Fame then I have no problem with McGwire in the Hall of Fame. Sutton was never even close to the best pitcher in the game and won 20 games just once (in an era that had a lot of 20 game winners). He was a very good pitcher that was able to compile good career numbers. He fails the "Fame" test (not that that necessarily matters). Oh, and he actually got busted for cheating in 1978 and was caught again in 1987 (http://wezen-ball.blogspot.com/2009/05/don-sutton-and-his-blister.html).

 

[sportscardtheory]

Yes, because scuffing a baseball is the same as injecting chemicals into your body.

 

[elmalo]

Yes, because scuffing a baseball is the same as injecting chemicals into your body.

It is against the rules and it gives you a competitive advantage, so, in a way, yes, it is.

 

[muskiesfan]

So, is Harmon Killebrew being in the Hall of Fame laughable as well?

Is this the game we're going to play?

Hits
McGwire- 1,626
Killebrew- 2,086

Runs
McGwire- 1,167
Killebrew- 1,283

Doubles
McGwire- 252
Killebrew- 290

Triples
McGwire- 6
Killebrew- 24

Home Runs
McGwire- 583
Killebrew- 573

RBI
McGwire- 1,414
Killebrew- 1,584

Stolen Bases
McGwire- 12
Killebrew- 19

Walks
McGwire- 1,317
Killebrew- 1,559

Strike Outs
McGwire- 1,596
Killebrew- 1,699

Slash
McGwire- .263/.394/.588
Killebrew- .256/.376/.509

MVPs
McGwire- 0; 5 Top 10 finishes
Killebrew- 1; 7 Top 10 finishes

I'm sure someone will mention that Killebrew had a longer career. Does not matter. Their numbers are their numbers. If you want to go further into sabremetrics, black ink, gray ink, and so on, I can. If you take away Killbrew's home runs, he still almost has as many hits as McGwire does with his home runs.

Neither was a hitting giant, but I have no problem with Killebrew being in.

 

[sportscardtheory]

Yes, because scuffing a baseball is the same as injecting chemicals into your body.

It is against the rules and it gives you a competitive advantage, so, in a way, yes, it is.

I must have missed the 50-game first-time offense suspensions for scuffing the baseball. You are right, MLB sees it as the exact same thing.

 

[elmalo]

So, is Harmon Killebrew being in the Hall of Fame laughable as well?

Is this the game we're going to play?

Hits
McGwire- 1,626
Killebrew- 2,086

Runs
McGwire- 1,167
Killebrew- 1,283

Doubles
McGwire- 252
Killebrew- 290

Triples
McGwire- 6
Killebrew- 24

Home Runs
McGwire- 583
Killebrew- 573

RBI
McGwire- 1,414
Killebrew- 1,584

Stolen Bases
McGwire- 12
Killebrew- 19

Walks
McGwire- 1,317
Killebrew- 1,559

Strike Outs
McGwire- 1,596
Killebrew- 1,699

Slash
McGwire- .263/.394/.588
Killebrew- .256/.376/.509

MVPs
McGwire- 0; 5 Top 10 finishes
Killebrew- 1; 7 Top 10 finishes

I'm sure someone will mention that Killebrew had a longer career. Does not matter. Their numbers are their numbers. If you want to go further into sabremetrics, black ink, gray ink, and so on, I can. If you take away Killbrew's home runs, he still almost has as many hits as McGwire does with his home runs.

Neither was a hitting giant, but I have no problem with Killebrew being in.

Killebrew had almost 2000 more at bats, that is a huge difference.

 

[elmalo]

Yes, because scuffing a baseball is the same as injecting chemicals into your body.

It is against the rules and it gives you a competitive advantage, so, in a way, yes, it is.

I must have missed the 50-game first-time offense suspensions for scuffing the baseball. You are right, MLB sees it as the exact same thing.

Thats not the point.

 

[sportscardtheory]

Yes, because scuffing a baseball is the same as injecting chemicals into your body.

It is against the rules and it gives you a competitive advantage, so, in a way, yes, it is.

I must have missed the 50-game first-time offense suspensions for scuffing the baseball. You are right, MLB sees it as the exact same thing.

Thats not the point.

Trust me, I understand completely that it's an apples to oranges comparison.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

Yes, because scuffing a baseball is the same as injecting chemicals into your body.

It is against the rules and it gives you a competitive advantage, so, in a way, yes, it is.

I must have missed the 50-game first-time offense suspensions for scuffing the baseball. You are right, MLB sees it as the exact same thing.

Thats not the point.

Trust me, I understand completely that it's an apples to oranges comparison.

Not every offense is equal, everything isn't black & white.

 

[muskiesfan]

Killebrew had almost 2000 more at bats, that is a huge difference.

I can't say anything to that. Yes, Killebrew had a longer career. That should be held against him? It's Killebrew's fault that McGwire's body broke down due to steroid use?

Killebrew is in the Hall of Fame. McGwire does not deserve it. That is my opinion.

 

[sportscardtheory]

[quote="sportscardtheory":22uq6vum]Yes, because scuffing a baseball is the same as injecting chemicals into your body.

It is against the rules and it gives you a competitive advantage, so, in a way, yes, it is.

I must have missed the 50-game first-time offense suspensions for scuffing the baseball. You are right, MLB sees it as the exact same thing.

Thats not the point.

Trust me, I understand completely that it's an apples to oranges comparison.

Not every offense is equal, everything isn't black & white.[/quote:22uq6vum]

That's my point. Obviously MLB doesn't see issues like scuffing baseballs, corking bats and spitballs in the same light as PED abuse. The proof is in the penalties for getting caught. If they don't care about those issues very much, why should we.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

[quote="elmalo":3o5fxqf8][quote="sportscardtheory":3o5fxqf8]Yes, because scuffing a baseball is the same as injecting chemicals into your body.

It is against the rules and it gives you a competitive advantage, so, in a way, yes, it is.

I must have missed the 50-game first-time offense suspensions for scuffing the baseball. You are right, MLB sees it as the exact same thing.

Thats not the point.

Trust me, I understand completely that it's an apples to oranges comparison.

Not every offense is equal, everything isn't black & white.[/quote:3o5fxqf8]

That's my point. Obviously MLB doesn't see issues like scuffing baseballs, corking bats and spitballs in the same light as PED abuse. The proof is in the penalties for getting caught. If they don't care about those issues very much, why should we.[/quote:3o5fxqf8]

Yeah, I was agreeing with you. I'd add though that what MLB sees important and what HOF voters see as important are not necessarily the same thing, after all HOFers are supposed to be better than ordinary MLB players!

 

[elmalo]

Killebrew had almost 2000 more at bats, that is a huge difference.

I can't say anything to that. Yes, Killebrew had a longer career. That should be held against him? It's Killebrew's fault that McGwire's body broke down due to steroid use?

Killebrew is in the Hall of Fame. McGwire does not deserve it. That is my opinion.

Ok, I still dont understand how it is laughable to consider McGwire to be Hall of Fame worthy. And what proof do you have that McGwires injuries were due to steroid use?

 

[Mighty Bombjack]

[quote="Mighty Bombjack":1v44puoh]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.

Bonds' PED use weighs much too negatively with regard to the HOF voting criteria...the evidence is so, very, very damning here.[/quote:1v44puoh]
Hmmm. Evidence of what? That he used? That they improved him as a player? That they turned him from a non-HOFer into a HOFer?

Are there any PED users that you believe belong in the Hall of Fame?

 

[muskiesfan]

Killebrew had almost 2000 more at bats, that is a huge difference.

I can't say anything to that. Yes, Killebrew had a longer career. That should be held against him? It's Killebrew's fault that McGwire's body broke down due to steroid use?

Killebrew is in the Hall of Fame. McGwire does not deserve it. That is my opinion.

Ok, I still dont understand how it is laughable to consider McGwire to be Hall of Fame worthy. And what proof do you have that McGwires injuries were due to steroid use?

Okay, I still don't understand how a subpar player like McGwire is heralded as a Hall of Famer by so many. And what proof do you that McGwire's injuries were not due to steroid use?

 

[RL24]

Great discussion. I love when people bring up that steroids were illegal and against the rules. I don't get that. Everybody in the world knew McGwire and Sosa were on steroids. And when Barry Bonds showed up to spring training with 50 extra pounds of muscle, everybody knew exactly how the transformation took place.

If that stuff was against the rules, why didn't anything happen to them? There was a rule, but no consequence for breaking it? That's not much of a rule, more of a guideline... and if it was so illegal... where were the cops?

That's my point. Obviously MLB doesn't see issues like scuffing baseballs, corking bats and spitballs in the same light as PED abuse. The proof is in the penalties for getting caught. If they don't care about those issues very much, why should we.

Let's overlook the fact that penalties for breaking the rules have changed quite a bit since the 70's. Can you imagine an owner getting fined for half a million in 1978? Anyway... reasons why the punishment might be more severe for steroids. If you scuff a baseball, it's really easy for the umpire to bust you. They are constantly handling your balls and will notice scuffing. You don't really need a stiff penalty because nobody does it. Same with spitballs. And corked bats... as I understand it, they worked back in the day. Now if you try to take one into a MLB game and swing at an MLB speed pitch with your MLB caliber strength, you're going to break the bat. They don't work these days, people don't use them (on purpose (in games)). The penalty for using a corked bat is 8 games, not exactly a slap on the wrist. You can kick somebody in the head with your metal spikes and give them a career ending concussion and still walk away with less games off...


With steroids, even when there is ample visual evidence that somebody is taking them, you need more proof. They are easy to get away with taking. elmalo is talking about it all the time, it's a simple and basic truth. There will always be steroids. You can use them to make millions. They are valuable, so people are going to keep making them. They make new kinds that can't be tested for. The people who test for them are always (necessarily) one step behind. Even if they have a guy who can get the latest and greatest thing and pee for them in a cup, it takes time to figure out what you're looking at, and even more time to develop a test to detect it. By then, the really savvy guys are on to the next new thing.


It's tricky to get a dirty test for this stuff. The best motivator to keep the players off of it is to strike fear into them with the consequences of what would happen should they get caught. You need a good 50 game suspension to do that.

 

[elmalo]

Killebrew had almost 2000 more at bats, that is a huge difference.

I can't say anything to that. Yes, Killebrew had a longer career. That should be held against him? It's Killebrew's fault that McGwire's body broke down due to steroid use?

Killebrew is in the Hall of Fame. McGwire does not deserve it. That is my opinion.

Ok, I still dont understand how it is laughable to consider McGwire to be Hall of Fame worthy. And what proof do you have that McGwires injuries were due to steroid use?

Okay, I still don't understand how a subpar player like McGwire is heralded as a Hall of Famer by so many. And what proof do you that McGwire's injuries were not due to steroid use?

Well, you say that Killebrew by his numbers is a worthy Hall of Famer and McGwire being considered a Hall of Famer is laughable bc he was 1 dimensional, yet McGwire accomplished almost the same and in some cases better numbers in 2000 less at bats. If you were to say McGwire shouldnt be in bc of the steroids, than that is fine, however, you are saying that going by his numbers he isnt worthy, yet Killibrew is. It just doesnt make any sense. I dont have any proof that his injuries werent due to steroid use, however I didnt make the statement that his injuries werent due to steroids. You claim that McGwires body broke down bc of steroids, do you know what his injuries were? If so do you know that they were a result of him using steroids?

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

[quote="Mighty Bombjack":3oqymxso]

[quote="Mighty Bombjack":3oqymxso]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.

Bonds' PED use weighs much too negatively with regard to the HOF voting criteria...the evidence is so, very, very damning here.[/quote:3oqymxso]
Hmmm. Evidence of what? That he used? That they improved him as a player? That they turned him from a non-HOFer into a HOFer?

Are there any PED users that you believe belong in the Hall of Fame?[/quote:3oqymxso]

It seems readily apparent that Bonds doesn't meet the mark in subjective HOF voting criteria (sportsmanship, integrity, character) compared to others. If Bonds never had HOF sportsmanship, HOF integrity, or HOF character to begin with, his steroid use with regard to HOF voting wouldn't have mattered in the first place... so its not proper to have called him a HOF-caliber player at any point during his career - only that he had HOF caliber stats...which alone isn't enough to get him elected.

While I'm not an ARod fan, he in particular doesn't seem to fall short to the same extent as Bonds does above.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

Great discussion. I love when people bring up that steroids were illegal and against the rules. I don't get that. Everybody in the world knew McGwire and Sosa were on steroids. And when Barry Bonds showed up to spring training with 50 extra pounds of muscle, everybody knew exactly how the transformation took place.

If that stuff was against the rules, why didn't anything happen to them? There was a rule, but no consequence for breaking it? That's not much of a rule, more of a guideline... and if it was so illegal... where were the cops?

The HOF and the MLB are two different organizations, not the same organization. The HOF expects MORE of its members of course.

Just because a player didn't get flagged in the MLB doesn't mean he wouldn't get flagged during HOF voting.

 

[muskiesfan]

Well, you say that Killebrew by his numbers is a worthy Hall of Famer and McGwire being considered a Hall of Famer is laughable bc he was 1 dimensional, yet McGwire accomplished almost the same and in some cases better numbers in 2000 less at bats. If you were to say McGwire shouldnt be in bc of the steroids, than that is fine, however, you are saying that going by his numbers he isnt worthy, yet Killibrew is. It just doesnt make any sense. I dont have any proof that his injuries werent due to steroid use, however I didnt make the statement that his injuries werent due to steroids. You claim that McGwires body broke down bc of steroids, do you know what his injuries were? If so do you know that they were a result of him using steroids?

Killebrew being in the Hall of Fame doesn't bother me. That doesn't mean I agree with it, that doesn't mean I think he belongs, or any of that. He IS a Hall of Famer. He was inducted. I cannot change that. No matter what I say or do, Harmon Killebrew will always be in the Hall of Fame. I never said that his numbers made him belong, I said that his numbers were better and that I did not have a problem with it. I cannot control it and I cannot change it.

I feel that McGwire can buy a ticket to the Hall of Fame, just like me. If he were already in the Hall, it would be the same as Killebrew, I can't change it. I can't control whether McGwire goes in or not, but I certainly don't understand how people feel that he belongs. Are there people in the Hall who probably don't belong there? I'm sure there are and plenty of people on this board love to make their cases about it. McGwire is not in. I do not feel he belongs in. Yes, it is laughable to ME. I have made my point. I don't know how many more times I can repeat my point. He wasn't a great baseball player, period. That is my thought on the matter. Comparing him to Killebrew doesn't change that. Killebrew's numbers are what they are. Yes, he had more at bats. I don't think he should be penalized because of it. He put up better career numbers than McGwire. Yes, they are close in a lot of place, but his numbers are better.

I have absolutely ZERO PROOF that any of McGwire's injuries were steroid related. You're right in that I shouldn't have just thrown that out there. At the end of the day, I think it's laughable, yes laughable, for anyone to say that McGwire belongs. Again, my opinion. I have stated why in this thread and many others in the past. I don't care who you compare McGwire to, whether it's someone in the Hall of Fame, someone playing now, or your neighbor, his numbers do not equal Hall of Fame worthy.