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

[George H Ruth]

I know we've discussed about this in the past, but I'd like to bring it up again.

Let's pretend you had a vote - how would you deal with guys like McGwire, Bonds, Palmeiro, Sosa, Clemens, ect. Guys who are speculated of taken steroids at one point during their career.

Would you make an adjustment like you would for a guy that played at Coors Field for most of his career?

I'd really like to hear from the top Hall of Fame posters at BBF like Jailbright, DJC, MatthewC, ect.

I think this has a chance to be an All-Star topic here if people contribute like I know they can.

[Nerdlinger]

I know we've discussed about this in the past, but I'd like to bring it up again.

Let's pretend you had a vote - how would you deal with guys like McGwire, Bonds, Palmeiro, Sosa, Clemens, ect. Guys who are speculated of taken steroids at one point during their career.

Would you make an adjustment like you would for a guy that played at Coors Field for most of his career?

I'd really like to hear from the top Hall of Fame posters at BBF like Jailbright, DJC, MatthewC, ect.

I think this has a chance to be an All-Star topic here if people contribute like I know they can.

Bear in mind that I consider myself more of a baseball data compiler than any sort of baseball expert, but my stance on it is to take the numbers at face value. Yes, the roiders cheated to get those numbers, but cheating is historically part of the game. Anything players could get away with, they would try. Pitchers throwing spitballs or headhunting, runners spiking the second baseman, catchers clipping bats with their gloves or pulling the ball in to fool the ump, etc. Of course, that doesn't excuse any flagrantly unsportsmanlike conduct like that, especially since the roiders made such a mockery of the game, but it does put it in perspective. Since, unlike with park factors, we cannot calculate how much of a cheating player's on-the-field contributions were specifically due to his cheating, it's either reject all their numbers, cut them down by some arbitrary percentage, or accept them all. I choose the last. So I would vote for all five of the roiders you mention, although I wouldn't exactly relish doing so.

[JR Hart]

I'm nowhere near a top poster, and I've stated my position on this many times. I think that here are just too many factors involved to single out the known users and punish them. I'm not happy about any of it, but I think that the only remedy is to let the stats ride and vote on players based on their performance on the field. I think that the steroid era is just that-another era just like the dead ball era or the 60's. I also believe that the steroid era started really going about 1986 and goes to about 2005. That's 30 years and volumes of info that we don't know about. You used a key word in the OP- "speculated."

As far as ballparks, I'll stay the same course. We didn't penalize players for playing in Fenway, 296 Rf Yankee Stadium, or the Baker Bowl; why should we penalize players for playing at Coors. The stats must ride.

[Steven Gallanter]

I'm nowhere near a top poster, and I've stated my position on this many times. I think that here are just too many factors involved to single out the known users and punish them. I'm not happy about any of it, but I think that the only remedy is to let the stats ride and vote on players based on their performance on the field. I think that the steroid era is just that-another era just like the dead ball era or the 60's. I also believe that the steroid era started really going about 1986 and goes to about 2005. That's 30 years and volumes of info that we don't know about. You used a key word in the OP- "speculated."

As far as ballparks, I'll stay the same course. We didn't penalize players for playing in Fenway, 296 Rf Yankee Stadium, or the Baker Bowl; why should we penalize players for playing at Coors. The stats must ride.

I've expressed myself at length on the "Let's Deal with Barry Bonds" thread. Is Sandy Koufax penalized for using horse anti-inflammatory? Is playing drunk OK? I have always been of the opinion that knowingly doing something to disadvantage one's ability is a higher crime than cheating to get an advantage.

Yes, I would vote for Bonds, Sosa and McGwire. Of course Bonds is the greatest of these players. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I think that the age of BBWAA writers may have some effect as they are probably more judgmental about so-called PEDS. Additionally, the #'s that Bonds, Sosa and McGwire posted overtook the numbers of the players that the writers grew up with.

http://stevegallanter.wordpress.com

[drstrangelove]

I heard an actual voter express this on the radio today, and despite of course not being able to perfectly quote him, I'll express as best I can what he said.

"There's a character clause in the Hall of Fame vote. {for the sake of clarity, I'll post it here: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.} The players that used PEDs damaged the game, their reputation and in both cases possibly irreparably. This era will forever been known as the steroid era and we are still in that era due to decisions they made. Despite their achievements on the field they failed miserably regarding integrity and character. They will not get my vote."

So this is a thought out point of view that many argue is irrelevant or moralistic. But there it is: INTEGRITY-CHARACTER.

IMO, yes there have been marginal things players have done in the game to win....between the lines. You took a chance on the field. And many players Rose, Allen, Jackson have been left out of the Hall for character issues. Not for what they did ON the field. But OFF the field. It's not new. It's not related to steroids. It's how the hall has worked for 90 years. Those who want to know why Rose, Allen and Jackson aren't there can ask and they'll find out.

How does drinking alcohol relate to this? Most people in the 20's thought prohibition was wrong. Most people don't think banning steroids is wrong. Not even close.

People doing PEDs knew what they were doing. If 50% did it, or only 10% did it, then they need to be excluded from the Hall. They are adults. Treat them like adults. Stop treating them like 10 year olds who broke the glass because Johnny down the street 'did it too' or like 11 year olds who took the cookies because he was 'afraid his sister would.'


Every young athlete at the age of 7 (I was one once) knows the difference between cheating and not cheating. At 20 or 30 or 34, you'd think that a person would have it more under control than a pre-teen. But I guess not. They did it for money, they did it for fame, they did if for whatever reason. Like a burglar, who is not accidentally in your house, they chose with complete wisdom of the consequences. The crocodile tears aside, they deserve no consideration.

[JR Hart]

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

[JR Hart]

I've never said that the PED users did the right thing or that we should cuddle them. My point that I make over and over is that if we knew more than about 10% of what happened in the steroid era, maybe we could do something to remedy things. But to say "we THINK these people used, and we don't THINK that these people used, and we aren't SURE if these people used, and we DON'T KNOW if these people used; and then make decisions, is just ridiculous. I can't see believe how you all can't see that!

I understand the anger and frustration over the record book and the ethics of it all, but I believe that the steroid era lasted about 30 years. So, we're just going to pick a few players and hammer them!? My goodness, the law was broken to rat out AROD. And that's OK, because we caught him.

[willshad]

I think there's more grey area here than some other posters are implying. There's varying levels of suspicion when it comes to steroids. Sure, if you think all the numbers should be accepted at face value, then you will vote for even the obvious juicers..the Bonds, Clemens, Palmiero, Sosa, Mcgwire, etc. These are the players with glaring spikes in their numbers at an advanced age, and there really is no doubt they juiced. But you can also feel that, even though these guys should be kept out, then less 'obvious' juicers should be allowed in. Bagwell certainly falls into this category, as does I-rod, Piazza, Sheffield, and really any power hitter of the last 20 years to some degree. For these players, some voters will choose to keep them all out no matter how legit is the proof that hey cheated.

For me, there are 3 things that would make me not vote for a player:

1) A failed test.

2) Admitting to juicing

3) Circumstantial evidence (mainly an unnatural spike in numbers at an advanced age)

[toomanyhatz]

I say we know, or at least have some idea, how to adjust for things like Coors Field, or how someone might have performed if not juiced. So if you vote, you should take those things into consideration. Not knowing or being certain shouldn't stop voters from voting based on their strong suspicions. There's degrees to this stuff- I mean, Bagwell may have juiced, but we don't know for sure, and I think keeping him out based on the era and his size is ridiculous- it's pretty thin grounds to punish someone on. Someone like Sosa, though, we have a pretty strong grounds for suspicion, and reason to believe that he wouldn't have had a HoF career otherwise. Personally I'd put people into one of these categories:

strong suspicion (or outright certainty), but good enough to override (could've gotten in anyway) - Clemens, Bonds
strong suspicion (or outright certainty), ruins case that might be strong otherwise - Sosa, McGwire, Palmeiro
slight suspicion, not enough to keep them out - Bagwell, Piazza
slight suspicion, but borderline case to begin with - can't think of who fits right now, but I'm sure there's somebody

Just my opinion, but that's how I'd handle it if I were voting.

As for Coors, the best hitters who played there a lot are borderline to me for other reasons as well. Helton I might vote for when all's said and done, but Larry Walker I'm not sure about- Coors advantage plus he was pretty fragile- though he was a great all-around player so I'd have to think about it.

[PVNICK]

What bothers me, to the extent that such things do, is there may have been guys using PEDs from HS on that will not have the obvious spikes of a Palmeiro or Sosa. In some ways I look at these guys like those who got hold of with a copy of a test beforehand. Yes they had to sit and take the test and got the results they did but I'm not going to give them a medal.

[NJYankeeFan]

Not pretending to be a top poster but I would treat this era no different from any others.

Compare players against those from the same era. How much better were they than their peers?

Too many players used to try and point fingers at a few. And baseball has a long history of at beat turning a blind eye to "performance enhancers".

As for the stadium it should be factored in, but it should have been factored in for Ruth as well. I would still have voted for him.

If anything stadium today are more fair.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

[jjpm74]

I know we've discussed about this in the past, but I'd like to bring it up again.

Let's pretend you had a vote - how would you deal with guys like McGwire, Bonds, Palmeiro, Sosa, Clemens, ect. Guys who are speculated of taken steroids at one point during their career.

Would you make an adjustment like you would for a guy that played at Coors Field for most of his career?

I'd really like to hear from the top Hall of Fame posters at BBF like Jailbright, DJC, MatthewC, ect.

I think this has a chance to be an All-Star topic here if people contribute like I know they can.

I'll just cover the ones on this year's ballot:

Mark McGwire--Didn't actually break any rules and did not deny using steroids. IN.

Barry Bonds--PEDS or not, one of the best to ever play the game. IN

Rafael Palmeiro--a compiler who used steroids to boost his career totals and someone who was outspoken against PEDs use until he was busted. OUT.

Sammy Sosa--Didn't break any rules. I am not convinced that he would have been a HOFer without the aid of PEDs. OUT

Roger Clemens--One of the best pitchers ever to play the game. IN.

Jeff Bagwell--Suspicions, but never proven. HOF career either way. IN.

Mike Piazza--Suspicions, but never proven. Horrible catcher, but terrific offensively. IN.

Fred McGriff--Late career surge, but nothing proven. Not enough of a resume either way. OUT.

Craig Biggio--Some recent rumors/allegations. HOF resume either way. IN.

[jjpm74]

slight suspicion, but borderline case to begin with - can't think of who fits right now, but I'm sure there's somebody

Fred McGriff?

[Los Bravos]

Fred McGriff had a late career surge? I thought the (absurd) gripe against him was that he trailed off and came up short of 500 HRs.

Also, I am continutally amazed by the people who just do not seem to know that McGwire has admitted use and that Palmeiro failed a test, rather spectacularly. In spite of those on the record facts, some posters still insist on putting those two under the rubric of "suspicion" or a similar term.

[StanTheMan]

I would not vote to enshrine any of the players mentioned in the OP... exaclty like the voters have been doing so far. A few points.....


Choosing to use PED's has zero to do with being able to play in Coors Field. Not sure why it was even suggested.

It takes more than a late career surge to peak suspicion for me.

The HOF is not a court of law and does not need "beyond a reasonable doubt". The implied vote on a ballot is a "no"... the voter must change it to a "yes" to enshrine. The burden is on the PLAYER to provide information/statistics/etc which cause the voter to change the implied no to a yes. Those that are suspected of using but do nothing to change that no to a yes are taking a risk. Again... burden on THE PLAYER here.

The HOF celebrates Bonds, McGwire, etc. right NOW. Their names are on the wall celebrating their accomplishments on the museum side. But a plaque on the wall in the most hallowed room in all of American Sports? That's a different level for me, and I would never vote for them if I had a ballot. Bonds, McGwire, Palmiero, et al... enjoy the game celebrating your accomplishments on the museum side of things. But the plaques? Should never get one in my opinion.

Players enshrined previously with horrific traits (racists, etc) have zero to do with PED users. The writers of the time grew up in segregated cities, in secgregated schools, rode segregated buses to the park, ate in segregated restaurants, and had racist tendencies of their own to various degrees... which has #^%$ all to do with how I should see a PED user or how today's voter's should perceive PED.

Currently, the voters are doing fine. McGwire got about the right % last year. I don't expect Bonds, Clemens, Palmiero to get in this year. In fact, I'll state that they won't get in. If I'm wrong, feel free to call me out on it.

The HOF celebrates Rose's career on the museum side as well, and that is all he should ever get. The man walked by the HUGE sign stating no gambling in baseball 40,000 times in his life, yet still gambled on baseball? Idiot. I've seen the sign in 1 MLB park and one Umpires locker room at a AAA park. It's E N O R M O U S. Sorry Pete, you've made your own bed and now you are lying in it.