Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Would you still vote for any of these guys?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • blade1969
    replied
    I feel OK voting for Bonds. I'm on the fence on the other three guys. The only one of them I did vote yes on is McGwire. I try to play the "if they hadn't taken PED's, do I think they'd be HOFers?" It's an easy yes for me on Bonds, not so much so for the other three.

    Leave a comment:


  • Second Base Coach
    replied
    I voted for Bonds and Raffy. I believe they added a little more to the mix than just their ability to hit home runs.

    I don't think any of them will ever make it however. Writers are stubborn when it comes time to protect the game, as if it is in their job description.

    Leave a comment:


  • csh19792001
    replied
    As much as I dislike Bonds' personality, character, and what he did to the game, IF I had a vote, I'd have a hard time not voting for Barry Bonds (eventually). You guys here who were watching the NL astutely years or even decades before I did knew Barry was a lock by the last 90's.

    He would have been a 500 steal-600 HR guy.
    Last edited by csh19792001; 09-06-2014, 01:34 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • gman5431
    replied
    I wouldnt vote for any of them but the poll didnt let me do that.

    G Rizzle

    Leave a comment:


  • Yankwood
    replied
    no, no, no and no

    Leave a comment:


  • Homestead Gray
    replied
    No way we should even be talking about these guys when Pete Rose is banned from baseball. The double standard that MLB and Selig maintains is ridiculous

    Leave a comment:


  • JohnnyO
    replied
    I voted for all of them. Based on the numbers these guys put up, they all deserve enshrinement. The Hall of Fame, IMHO, is about baseball achievement, which can be quantitatively measured. All these players meet that standard.

    Leave a comment:


  • Colorado Express
    replied
    Barry Bonds would be the only one of these guys that would get my vote.

    Leave a comment:


  • hairmetalfreek
    replied
    I wouldn't vote for any of them. There are too many greats from the past who have not gotten in to allow these guys to waltz through the door without buying a ticket.

    Leave a comment:


  • john1972
    replied

    Leave a comment:


  • jalbright
    replied
    Originally posted by Chisox
    I am puzzled. You first say that if only transgressions after 2004 count, that saves Palmeiro, and then say no to him?

    How does AFTER 2004 save Palmeiro when he tested positive in 2005? I have to assume you mean through 2004 is HOF worthy?
    What you're missing is the "if not, that saves Palmiero" I didn't answer all those questions. Different folks may answer them differently. I take the issue of fair play seriously enough to be willing to punish those who fail the following two questions by keeping them out. I also think that, absent PED issues, Palmiero had a HOF career in by 2004. I think the positive test, his body changes, his need for male impotence drugs plus Canseco's charges all indicate a pattern of usage for several years. He's not in by miles IMO, so you don't have to discount his performance all that much to keep him out. I'm willing to do that if he doesn't have some more good year(s).

    Jim Albright

    Leave a comment:


  • Chisox
    replied
    Originally posted by jalbright
    I think the only fair way to approach the question of how to deal with these players is through the following steps:

    1) Are you willing to punish players for acts which, while at least arguably against the spirit of the rules (like fair play), were not prohibited by MLB prior to 2005? If not, only transgressions after 2004 count. That would save Palmiero, for example.

    2) Is there enough evidence (more likely than not is the lowest fair standard to use, but you could choose a higher standard) that the player used performance enhancing drugs? I think that with the evidence developed by the Balco investigation, you could clearly argue Barry Bonds would run afoul of this standard. I wouldn't accept Jose Canseco's word without corroboration, though. Clearly, Palmiero's positive test should suffice for most people.

    3) Given your answer to question 1, is there enough evidence (again, at least more likely than not, but you could choose a higher standard) that the player's use of performance enhancing drugs made the difference between a HOF-quality career and missing the Hall? I think this question saves at least Barry Bonds, though arguably none of the others.


    Personally, I don't have enough evidence to penalize Sosa or McGwire, and I think Bonds would have been a HOFer without his "flaxseed oil". If Palmiero is done as I write this, I think I'd vote no on him. If he can come back and have two decent years, I'd probably change my mind. If he can manage one decent year, it's hard to say.

    Jim Albright
    I am puzzled. You first say that if only transgressions after 2004 count, that saves Palmeiro, and then say no to him?

    How does AFTER 2004 save Palmeiro when he tested positive in 2005? I have to assume you mean through 2004 is HOF worthy?

    Leave a comment:


  • jalbright
    replied
    I think the only fair way to approach the question of how to deal with these players is through the following steps:

    1) Are you willing to punish players for acts which, while at least arguably against the spirit of the rules (like fair play), were not prohibited by MLB prior to 2005? If not, only transgressions after 2004 count. That would save Palmiero, for example.

    2) Is there enough evidence (more likely than not is the lowest fair standard to use, but you could choose a higher standard) that the player used performance enhancing drugs? I think that with the evidence developed by the Balco investigation, you could clearly argue Barry Bonds would run afoul of this standard. I wouldn't accept Jose Canseco's word without corroboration, though. Clearly, Palmiero's positive test should suffice for most people.

    3) Given your answer to question 1, is there enough evidence (again, at least more likely than not, but you could choose a higher standard) that the player's use of performance enhancing drugs made the difference between a HOF-quality career and missing the Hall? I think this question saves at least Barry Bonds, though arguably none of the others.


    Personally, I don't have enough evidence to penalize Sosa or McGwire, and I think Bonds would have been a HOFer without his "flaxseed oil". If Palmiero is done as I write this, I think I'd vote no on him. If he can come back and have two decent years, I'd probably change my mind. If he can manage one decent year, it's hard to say.

    Jim Albright

    Leave a comment:


  • ADunn44
    replied
    anyone who votes for those cheaters should vote for Rose

    Leave a comment:


  • four tool
    replied
    Originally posted by digglahhh
    I don't hold the use of drugs against an individual personally. But I do hold hypocricy against an individuals character. Drug use may not taint these players as people, but in this case it certainly taints their accomplishments regardless of whether or not their legal or moral standing.
    Well articulated position. I didn't quote all of it because of sapce consideraqtions. I for one think this debate should be carried on but not in this forum. ANyone else want to find a place to do it? Or is there a thread somewhere--not necessarily on baseball forum, that already tackles it?

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X