The Brewster

You know what I kind of hope happens? I hope that in say 5-10 years, 20 or so of the guys elected or who will be elected in the past decade/next decade admit to use. According to rumors of how widespread it was, that probably is the case. Maybe it isn't, but I look at all the guys who were monsters into their late 30's, or the players whose careers STARTED when they were 30 (and went to the Giants *cough* Jeff Kent, *cough* probably a bunch of my Cardinals, *cough* and everyone else) and you really do have to be skeptical. Especially when you see guys just falling apart around 30 now, and that's with better conditioning, workouts, and nutrition. To be sure, Barry Bonds was an all time jackass, and Roger Clemens really doesn't seem like that nice of a dude (he did throw at his own kid) and I don't LIKE them. I also waffle on whether or not they should be in the hall. But lets say 20 of these guys come forward and admit to PED use, that would pretty much end the debate, which would be nice.

I say put them all in. Bonds was so far and away the best got off his time (all time?) that i don't care if he used. Not to mentioned he faced pitchers who also used.

Let's not pretend that there's not already guys in that used other types of performance enhancing drugs.

bigmike13 wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 23, 2019 3:22 pm

FREE PETE ROSE

Cosign

As I said in the other thread, I've come to the view that in the earliest days of the PED era, the league itself was largely at fault for looking the other way while actively encouraging their use. Once you get into the later 2000s, and the league made a firmer statement by aggressively policing the rule, then I'd leave them off my ballots.

Can't free Pete, though. Sorry as I am to say it.

On the other hand, I don't view the Hall of Fame as purely "the best players no matter what," so what do I know?

if you are going to free pete, then you need to free joe Jackson as well (and if you want to stretch it, eddie cicotte).

Using my logic on PEDs, I'd be fine saying Shoeless Joe, et al, could be freed because there was no baseball rule against gambling back in the day, but Pete could not be freed, because there was.

RonCo wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:09 pm

Using my logic on PEDs, I'd be fine saying Shoeless Joe, et al, could be freed because there was no baseball rule against gambling back in the day, but Pete could not be freed, because there was.

This is a thing I go back and forth on. The "was there a rule at the time" argument. To play devil's advocate, yes baseball didn't have a rule against using steroids during the 80's and 90's, because it didn't really need to. The possession and distribution of anabolic steroids without a prescription was illegal. And physicians found to be prescribing drugs for illegitimate non medical reasons can have their licenses revoked. So yes, maybe you had a shady doc writing BS prescriptions people didn't need for medical reasons to technically circumvent that, but we still all recognize it as wrong. On the other hand, many substances that are easily metabolized to anabolic steroids were in fact legal over the counter and some now aren't. So it's murky. But I tend to not buy the, "there wasn't a rule at the time argument." There isn't a rule that says you can't hire someone to poison the other team prior to a playoff round either. Does that mean that teams that do this rampantly few a decade before we make a rule should get a pass? Do we need rules saying something that is already illegal under national and local laws is not allowed because the sport doesn't specifically have a rule about it?

On the other hand, I do find guys like Manny Ramirez, Ryan Braun and A Rod much less forgivable, because they were caught AFTER baseball, both the league and the players, said, "Enough, no more of this."

So it's tough. Morally, I think there is little difference. Legally, I think there is little difference. Similarly for Shoeless Joe vs Pete Rose. I'm pretty sure that the absence of a specific rule was not the deciding factor in people throwing games for gambling reasons. They did it, knew it was wrong, and thought they could get away with it.

Maybe my difference in perception of the two groups of players is that the later ones really couldn't get away with it and thought they could? Whereas the early abusers knew they were going to get away with it and were encouraged tacitly to do so? Am I judging people differently only because some are bad criminals and others clever ones? I don't think I like that thought.

I’ll go you one better

All the Black Sox that we’re good enough, should be in the Hall

1) players were treated abysmally back then

And

2) throwing games seems to have been very widespread in the early days of Pro Ball


I also think Curt Flood should be in the Hall - for many obvious reasons

(Which is weird at first glance - why do I consider Flood a hero and Kapernick a disgrace?)

RonCo wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 23, 2019 3:42 pm

As I said in the other thread, I've come to the view that in the earliest days of the PED era, the league itself was largely at fault for looking the other way while actively encouraging their use. Once you get into the later 2000s, and the league made a firmer statement by aggressively policing the rule, then I'd leave them off my ballots.

Can't free Pete, though. Sorry as I am to say it.

Baseball happily turned the other way while Sosa and McGwire were having their run.

I mean... There was a bottle of Andro sitting in McGwire's locker.... on Camera

felipe wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:29 pm

I’ll go you one better

All the Black Sox that we’re good enough, should be in the Hall

1) players were treated abysmally back then

And

2) throwing games seems to have been very widespread in the early days of Pro Ball


I also think Curt Flood should be in the Hall - for many obvious reasons

(Which is weird at first glance - why do I consider Flood a hero and Kapernick a disgrace?)

I can get behind these reasons about the Black Sox and Curt Flood.

*edited - I had a longer response regarding Colin Kapernick and that travesty that is the NFL, but decided I couldn't adequately express myself in text and did not want to start a debate or give the wrong impression.

Spiccoli wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 23, 2019 5:05 pm

RonCo wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 23, 2019 3:42 pm

As I said in the other thread, I've come to the view that in the earliest days of the PED era, the league itself was largely at fault for looking the other way while actively encouraging their use. Once you get into the later 2000s, and the league made a firmer statement by aggressively policing the rule, then I'd leave them off my ballots.

Can't free Pete, though. Sorry as I am to say it.

Baseball happily turned the other way while Sosa and McGwire were having their run.

I mean... There was a bottle of Andro sitting in McGwire's locker.... on Camera

Andro's actually what I was referring to about which substances were okay. Andro was actually legal and over the counter at the time. This entire incident has been remembered incorrectly I think now that Andro is a banned substance.

More likely, McGwire purposely had the bottle in view, so that people would think that it was the ONLY substance he was using, because it was legal and over the counter.

the only black sox players who were good enough to be in the hall are Jackson and maybe cicotte.

For me, Bonds/Clemons and Steroid Company destroyed MLB for me and many others and it will never recover from that. They were selfish little bitches IMHO. But again, I don't watch it at all anymore. It has gone from a passion to complete ignoring (other than 1 Reds game per year and maybe watching the Reds on opening day). So, put in non-baseball players and the users and just continue to make a mockery of what the HOF should stand for. The hypocrisy of letting these guys in and then pretending to have some personal affront to Pete Rose being rightfully put into the HOF as a player is a complete joke. MLB is now just a 2nd rate sport where fans need the jumbo-tron to tell them when to cheer and when to wipe their buttocks; going to baseball games is comical just watching the fans being tied to what the jumbo-tron tells them to do instead of what used be a beautiful game on the field.

I will jump off my soapbox (yeah, losing MLB was painful for me and still grinds me). I will never visit the hof anyway. You see, I don't care anymore. OOTP now fills that gap for me.

If I really had my choice, I'd prefer to remove the whole HoF in the way we talk about it, and leave it as a "pure" monument to baseball. Pete Rose and his story is in the Hall, after all. You go there and you can learn all about him--the good and the bad. He's just not enshrined as someone baseball honors.

RonCo wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 24, 2019 9:14 am

If I really had my choice, I'd prefer to remove the whole HoF in the way we talk about it, and leave it as a "pure" monument to baseball. Pete Rose and his story is in the Hall, after all. You go there and you can learn all about him--the good and the bad. He's just not enshrined as someone baseball honors.

That's nice and all, but we both know that it's not the same thing as being inducted into the HOF. It's just baseball history/lore currently....

Bumstead wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 24, 2019 8:24 am

OOTP now fills that gap for me.

I definitely agree with you there. Playing OOTP made me aware of the MLB, not the other way around. I still don't watch nor attend games, but I buy some Phillies shirsies sometimes.

Bumstead wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 24, 2019 10:48 am

RonCo wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 24, 2019 9:14 am

If I really had my choice, I'd prefer to remove the whole HoF in the way we talk about it, and leave it as a "pure" monument to baseball. Pete Rose and his story is in the Hall, after all. You go there and you can learn all about him--the good and the bad. He's just not enshrined as someone baseball honors.

That's nice and all, but we both know that it's not the same thing as being inducted into the HOF. It's just baseball history/lore currently....

That's true. And my point--which I assume you got, but isn't in your reply--was I'd be fine with getting rid of the silly debates about who is in and who isn't. Pete Rose a major part of baseball history, his story is there. That's good.

Put them all in(steroids guys). There is a big black mark on the entire era. That story needs to be told in the hall too. But one of these days we are going to find out someone already in the hall was as big a user as bonds/McGwire/Clemens and then what?

Put them in. Address the era. Move on