If you had a vote, how would you deal with guys like McGwire, Sosa, Bonds, ect.

[StanTheMan]

PEDs? Weren't they legal and encouraged by MLB for fan-gathering purposes? Players put their careers on the line, and even their health behind because...they were masochists? Or maybe because the powers-that-be made them use it?
.

No. Illegal in the USA without a Rx

Encouraged by MLB? One could take that approac as they were not in the collective bargaining agreement, but it's clearer now that is a Union issue more than a MLB issue. Regardless, beating a player with a bat during BP so he can't play against you that night is not in the Collective Bargaining Agreement, but the laws of the country surround assault and battery would supercede that of the CBA. Illegal steroids in the USA suddenly did not become "ok" because it was not part of a CBA... and Fay Vincent outlawed them anyway. I beleive Kuhn has some language about them as well.

With no testing allowed by the CBA due the union, it was up to the players to follow the rules and laws. If they didn't then that is on them.

[yankillaz]

No. Illegal in the USA without a Rx

Encouraged by MLB? One could take that approac as they were not in the collective bargaining agreement, but it's clearer now that is a Union issue more than a MLB issue. Regardless, beating a player with a bat during BP so he can't play against you that night is not in the Collective Bargaining Agreement, but the laws of the country surround assault and battery would supercede that of the CBA. Illegal steroids in the USA suddenly did not become "ok" because it was not part of a CBA... and Fay Vincent outlawed them anyway. I beleive Kuhn has some language about them as well.

With no testing allowed by the CBA due the union, it was up to the players to follow the rules and laws. If they didn't then that is on them.

Stan, who in his right mind will use something as harmful? And in the words of Jose Canseco, a vast majority used them. It's on them because they used them without a gun pointing in their heads...but is it really all on them?

Sammy's case is the most dumbfounding. Chi-Town revered him even more than Sandberg, and 6 years later he was treated like a Judas. Why? Nobody thought he was in Roids in 1998? Heck, even "Celebrity Deathmatch" made a match between him and McGwire where they made Roid-related comments. And now everybody is washing their own hands. I think that's being hypocrit.

[Los Bravos]

Regardless, beating a player with a bat during BP so he can't play against you that night is not in the Collective Bargaining Agreement, but the laws of the country surround assault and battery would supercede that of the CBA.

You have to play in the NHL if you want to do that.

[jalbright]

I start by saying anyone who hasn't:
1) been charged criminally relating to PED use (Bonds and Clemens);
2) hasn't admitted it;
3) wasn't hauled before Congress to testify about PED use;
4) wasn't in the Mitchell report; or
5) hasn't tested positive

is treated as clean and judged solely on their records.

Those that fell into one or more category are subject to a test like this:

was his record HOF worthy, and, if it was, am I convinced he would have been HOF worthy without the PEDs? I have no doubt Bonds and Clemens would have had HOF careers without the pharmaceuticals, so they're in. I have strong doubts Kevin Brown or Rafael Palmiero would have had such a career, so they're out.

[willshad]

What about if a personal trainer or teammate accuses them of using steroids? (Irod falls under this category)

Also, Sheffield admitted to using steroids.

I tend to cut players some slack if they used, but there was no real spike in their numbers. Sheffield had great years at age 23 and great years at age 34. he was as good a hitter as Bonds was pre -roids, but did not suddenly turn into Babe Ruth at age 35..he declined as a normal person would. He also missed a lot of time with injuries. If he was indeed juicing, there is nothing in the numbers to show it.

[KHenry14]

FWIW, here's a recent interview with Barry about the HOF. He says that if you don't vote for him because of something you think he did, he's OK with that. He also goes on to say that he'd love to make the HOF someday.

http://www.sfgate.com/sports/article...ld-4075550.php

[fenrir]

I tend to cut players some slack if they used, but there was no real spike in their numbers. Sheffield had great years at age 23 and great years at age 34. he was as good a hitter as Bonds was pre -roids, but did not suddenly turn into Babe Ruth at age 35..he declined as a normal person would. He also missed a lot of time with injuries. If he was indeed juicing, there is nothing in the numbers to show it.

The problem with Sheffield was injuries. Notice that he became less injury prone when he started working out with Bonds, and started using some BALCO products.

I actually like Sheffield as a player, but he certainly falls under the "admitted steroid user" category.

[jjpm74]

And a player you feel should NOT be in the HOF because of the pitching he faced is?????

Doc Cramer, Marty Marion, Kiki Cuyler

Or a player who you feel SHOULD be in the HOF because he faced tougher pitching than the average player is????

Jimmy Wynn

[willshad]

The problem with Sheffield was injuries. Notice that he became less injury prone when he started working out with Bonds, and started using some BALCO products.

I actually like Sheffield as a player, but he certainly falls under the "admitted steroid user" category.

Lxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[willshad]

The problem with Sheffield was injuries. Notice that he became less injury prone when he started working out with Bonds, and started using some BALCO products.

I actually like Sheffield as a player, but he certainly falls under the "admitted steroid user" category.

Less injury prone maybe, but he did not suddenly bat .370 or hit 70 home runs, or slug .850 or have a 250 OPS+. Considering that the two were actually nearly identical quality hitters up until age 34 or so, then that means he must not have been doing something that Bonds was.

Through age 34:


Bonds .288 .409 .559 total: 1.256
Sheffield .302 .407 .540 total: 1.249

After age 34:

Bonds .322 .517 .724 total: 1.563
Sheffield .273 .371 .478 total: 1.122

Sheffield's decline was at least kind of normal. In fact, Sheffield's final numbers are probably a pretty good indicator of what Bonds' final numbers would have looked like if he never juiced.

[fenrir]

Less injury prone maybe, but he did not suddenly bat .370 or hit 70 home runs, or slug .850 or have a 250 OPS+. Considering that the two were actually nearly identical quality hitters up until age 34 or so, then that means he must not have been doing something that Bonds was.

Through age 34:


Bonds .288 .409 .559 total: 1.256
Sheffield .302 .407 .540 total: 1.249

After age 34:

Bonds .322 .517 .724 total: 1.563
Sheffield .273 .371 .478 total: 1.122

Sheffield's decline was at least kind of normal. In fact, Sheffield's final numbers are probably a pretty good indicator of what Bonds' final numbers would have looked like if he never juiced.

Why do you keep making comparisons to Bonds. By doing that, you are making assumptions both were using the same amounts of steroids, and for the same reasons. It's clear Bonds was hitting the roids hard, it's not so much with Sheffield.

What is clear with Sheffield though is he became more durable later in his career, especially when he started working out with Bonds.

Being more durable = Enhanced performance.

[StanTheMan]

Stan, who in his right mind will use something as harmful? And in the words of Jose Canseco, a vast majority used them. It's on them because they used them without a gun pointing in their heads...but is it really all on them?

Sammy's case is the most dumbfounding. Chi-Town revered him even more than Sandberg, and 6 years later he was treated like a Judas. Why? Nobody thought he was in Roids in 1998? Heck, even "Celebrity Deathmatch" made a match between him and McGwire where they made Roid-related comments. And now everybody is washing their own hands. I think that's being hypocrit.

The "harm" factor has no relevance for me, although cocaine isn't exaclty recommended by the FDA yet players used it. Same with PED's. If you are not sure about PED or other stimulants being harmful or not, there is always Ken Caminiti although I suspect I've misinterpreted your statement. If its PED use that you're deeming not physically harmful or less harmful, then why are they banned? Why test for them? Why do athletes get booted from the Olympics, World Cup, MLB, NFL, European Soccer Leagues, Cycling etc for using them?

Easy. It severely destroys the sanctity of the competition. Citing Celebrity Deathmatch and Jose Canseco?






Good Lord you can do better than that Sir! Thankfully, you did... The hypocritical/Judas angle is an interesting one and worth discussion. Are there fans who were McGwire/Sosa crazy during the moment who now bash them? Absolutely. Were they turning a blind eye deliberately? Hoping they were clean? Being dishonest with themselves? Some of them, surely. But there are those on this board who to this day cling to no definitive evidence on Bonds using either. Personally, I get a laugh out of that, and if asked I help them clean sand out various openings in the head once it is removed from the sand.

I won't bash fans who came late to the party/realizations that the game was not clean. Hindsight is indeed 20/20, and one's actions/opinion during moments of clarity or further understanding is more important than what they were thinking in the fall of 1998. Even the participants don't want us to talk too much about the last, remember?

You have to play in the NHL if you want to do that.

Clever!

Doc Cramer, Marty Marion, Kiki Cuyler, Jimmy Wynn

Thanks for answering. I don't think a thread on those four would get much attention, nor would the HOF be affected or viewed differently at all - one way or the other - were any of them in or out. Just saying, and there are several other factors in play for them beyond "park factor" style competition level adjustments in my opinion.

[drstrangelove]

FWIW, here's a recent interview with Barry about the HOF. He says that if you don't vote for him because of something you think he did, he's OK with that. He also goes on to say that he'd love to make the HOF someday.

http://www.sfgate.com/sports/article...ld-4075550.php

Here's some quotes from the interview. The other link is not an interview with Bonds. (Maybe linked the wrong page or they changed the page, idk.)


Below is an actual interview with Bonds.
http://blog.sfgate.com/giants/2012/1...ving-about-it/


“I do really care. I may say I don’t, but I do really care. I’ve been through a lot in my life so not too many things bother me. Making the Hall of Fame, would it be something that’s gratifying because of what I’ve sacrificed? Sure. Baseball has been a big part of our lives. We’ve sacrificed our bodies. It’s the way we made our living.”

On wishing he’d done things differently: “But I can’t turn back the clock now. Time has passed. Wounds for me have healed.”

On Hall of Fame voters: “I don’t even know how to explain it. The world has become so negative. One day, I’ll be able to say things the right way. But it’s tough when you have so many people out there who don’t want to turn the page and want to be angry at you forever. I don’t understand why it continues on. What am I doing wrong?"

“I can sit here and say, ‘You know what? Baseball is great. I love it.’ I can sit here and say in a very kind way that I’m sorry about the way things ended. I can sit here and say that I respect the Hall of Fame, which I do. But I don’t understand all the controversy we’re having about it. For what reason? What’s there to be gained by all of this? What’s the point?”


On returning to the game as a hitting instructor: “I’m an expert in baseball and I don’t even have a job. I’m an expert, more so than a lot of people out there. It should be my career until I’m dead. I should be one of the instructors. I think I’ve earned it."

On the Hall of Fame election process: “And I’m trying to say this in the most diplomatic way because I’m not the most diplomatic person. It doesn’t belong to us. It’s like a neighborhood that doesn’t accept anyone under the age of 20 because they’re worried that they’re going to tear the place down. It’s supposed to be a town for everyone. I want to be part of Major League Baseball’s Hall of Fame, but I don’t want to be part of the kind of Hall of Fame that’s based on voters’ beliefs and assumptions."

[drstrangelove]

Rose and Jackson are poor examples, because they are not elligible for enshrinement.

I think maybe this is true if one thought Jackson or Rose would have gone into the Hall anyway. I think being ineligible simply avoided the obvious fact that they would not have gotten in.

Unfortunately, we have a commissioner who is unwilling to rule players ineligible for the Hall that have tested positive or admitted steroid use.

We should not confuse that fact. If a commissioner in 1991 ruled steroid use illegal in baseball, a commissioner in 2012 has every right to rule players ineligible AFTER they are active (and no longer part of the active players union.) That was the same issue with gambling. Rose did not break a law by gambling. He still had to voluntarily agree to being ineligible (since as a manager he was part of a labor agreement.)

Steroid use falls under a commissioner decree like gambling.

[willshad]

Why do you keep making comparisons to Bonds. By doing that, you are making assumptions both were using the same amounts of steroids, and for the same reasons. It's clear Bonds was hitting the roids hard, it's not so much with Sheffield.

B
What is clear with Sheffield though is he became more durable later in his career, especially when he started working out with Bonds.

Being more durable = Enhanced performance.

Because how much the steroids actually helped the player makes a big difference to me. It's not so much the 'crime' of cheating, but making a mockery of the stats and records performed by clean, superior players. I really won;t hold it against Sheffield if all he managed to gain from roids was a few extra games played. I would keep him out, however, if he suddenly was hitting 60 home runs every year after age 30.

It's similar to two people caught stealing, and one stealing a few dollars, and the other stealing millions. it's the same crime, but the punishment should not be equal.

[fenrir]

Because how much the steroids actually helped the player makes a big difference to me. It's not so much the 'crime' of cheating, but making a mockery of the stats and records performed by clean, superior players. I really won;t hold it against Sheffield if all he managed to gain from roids was a few extra games played. I would keep him out, however, if he suddenly was hitting 60 home runs every year after age 30.

It's similar to two people caught stealing, and one stealing a few dollars, and the other stealing millions. it's the same crime, but the punishment should not be equal.

Fair enough. Still, my point still stands. Using illegal drugs to improve your durability = Performance enhancement and cheating.

[jjpm74]

Thanks for answering. I don't think a thread on those four would get much attention, nor would the HOF be affected or viewed differently at all - one way or the other - were any of them in or out. Just saying, and there are several other factors in play for them beyond "park factor" style competition level adjustments in my opinion.

Those 4 players have gotten a great deal of attention on threads posted on this site which is why I brought them up.

[JR Hart]

Unfortunately, we have a commissioner who is unwilling to rule players ineligible for the Hall that have tested positive or admitted steroid use.
.

This is just ludicious. Let's look at some scearios: Mark McGwire, " yes I used PEDS". Commisioner, " Now that's you've admitted that, I'm going to ban from the HOF, even though you didn't know that would be the result, when you said it. You should have never said that."

AROD failed a confidential drug SCREENING, used to survey the PED problem. This was a NON-PUNITIVE screening. The samples were supposed to be destroyed. They weren't and the results were illegally leaked. AROD knowing that the heat is on, even though all of his rights have been violated, admits PED use. The commisioner then years later, bans him from the hall.

You steroid crusaders just spin more and more of a web of insanity. Just let it ride. Hundreds of players roided and we don't know most of them.

[drstrangelove]

This is just ludicious. Let's look at some scearios: Mark McGwire, " yes I used PEDS". Commisioner, " Now that's you've admitted that, I'm going to ban from the HOF, even though you didn't know that would be the result, when you said it. You should have never said that."

AROD failed a confidential drug SCREENING, used to survey the PED problem. This was a NON-PUNITIVE screening. The samples were supposed to be destroyed. They weren't and the results were illegally leaked. AROD knowing that the heat is on, even though all of his rights have been violated, admits PED use. The commisioner then years later, bans him from the hall.

You steroid crusaders just spin more and more of a web of insanity. Just let it ride. Hundreds of players roided and we don't know most of them.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vau...61/1/index.htm


Selig reissued Vincent's statement on baseball's drug policy and also reiterated Vincent's assertion that any players violating the policy "risk permanent expulsion from the game," in addition to any penalty imposed by the player's club.

"Many have asserted that steroids and other performance enhancing substances were not banned in Major League Baseball before the 2002 Basic Agreement. This is not accurate. Beginning in 1971 and continuing today, Major League Baseball's drug policy has prohibited the use of any prescription medication without a valid prescription. By implication, this prohibition applied to steroids even before 1991, when Commissioner Fay Vincent first expressly included steroids in baseball's drug policy. Steroids have been listed as a prohibited substance under the Major League Baseball drug policy since then, although no player was disciplined for steroid use before the prohibition was added to the collective bargaining agreement in 2002.

"It is also inaccurate to assert, as some have, that baseball's drug policy was not binding on players before it was added to the collective bargaining agreement. Many players were suspended for drug offenses before 2002, even though none of those suspensions related to the use of steroids or other performance enhancing substances. Some suspensions were reduced in grievance arbitrations brought by the Players Association, but no arbitrator ever has questioned the authority of the Commissioner to discipline players for 'just cause' based on their possession, use, or distribution of prohibited drugs."

Bolded for emphasis. Nuff said. Please discontinue name calling and insults when I quote what the Commissioners have stated. The argument is with them.

[TomBodet]

Am for Bonds, Clemens, Sheffield to go in. They were Hof roids or no. Sosa, Big Mac, Kevin Brown, Maybe. Bags, Piazza, Larry Walker, yes. Raffy I have my doubts on.

[TomBodet]

Arod yes, Belle maybe, Louis Gonzalez, Caminiti, Igor, Canseco, Finley, Anderson, Gagne, Big Cat, Mo nooooooo.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I start by saying anyone who hasn't:
1) been charged criminally relating to PED use (Bonds and Clemens);
2) hasn't admitted it;
3) wasn't hauled before Congress to testify about PED use;
4) wasn't in the Mitchell report; or
5) hasn't tested positive

is treated as clean and judged solely on their records.

Those that fell into one or more category are subject to a test like this:

was his record HOF worthy, and, if it was, am I convinced he would have been HOF worthy without the PEDs? I have no doubt Bonds and Clemens would have had HOF careers without the pharmaceuticals, so they're in. I have strong doubts Kevin Brown or Rafael Palmiero would have had such a career, so they're out.

This is an amazingly rational post, and a breath of fresh air!

[StanTheMan]

Those 4 players have gotten a great deal of attention on threads posted on this site which is why I brought them up.

Relative to the total number of posts here, posts on the HOF in general, historic players etc...I stand by my statement that they have not and would not generate much, even here. You'll find posts with photos of one specific ball park (just about any park at that) outnumbering posts explaining why player X should get in because the pitching he faced was tougher in his league/division.

[StanTheMan]

EDIT... Don't know why my phone went nuts there. Replaced the post with some thought provoking whimsy...

[StanTheMan]

Double posted. That darn Steve Jobs...