MLB 2012 Season v. >Marlels

[Tick]

Most likely they won't because of the dinosaur voters. But I can't take the HoF seriously if they're gonna left out people like Barry Bonds.

We'll see next year when Bonds, Clemens, and Sosa all hit the ballot.  I find it really hard to leave off the first two.  At some point they need to stop punishing that era of baseball and accept the widespread usage of PEDs as a developmental part of the game.  It happened, they took measures to curb it, move on, and honor the players who were the elite of said era.  Bonds and Clemens would have put up HOF numbers with or without the drugs.

Bonds I would say has a chance. Clemens can forget about it. Sosa is clearly just a product of steroids and was average at best without them. Bonds on the other hand was a stud long before he ever took any steroid. I think that may be his saving grace.

[Dimitrius]

Most likely they won't because of the dinosaur voters. But I can't take the HoF seriously if they're gonna left out people like Barry Bonds.

We'll see next year when Bonds, Clemens, and Sosa all hit the ballot.  I find it really hard to leave off the first two.  At some point they need to stop punishing that era of baseball and accept the widespread usage of PEDs as a developmental part of the game.  It happened, they took measures to curb it, move on, and honor the players who were the elite of said era.  Bonds and Clemens would have put up HOF numbers with or without the drugs.

Exactly!

If anything just make sure that it's stated on their plaque that the played during the steroid era.

[snapple]

For a lot of people, the jury is still out for Clemens. I bet we see him in.

[Tick]

For a lot of people, the jury is still out for Clemens. I bet we see him in.

Nope, don't think we will. I think the arrogance he has shown in lying, and being unapologetic about it has put him out.
The jury is not out when his best friend and a man of great character imo, Andy Pettite says they did says they did steroids together. I can't think of one single reason he would lie about that considering how much he loves Roger. He wouldn't. So in my mind Clemens is a big fat liar, and 100% guilty.

[snapple]

For a lot of people, the jury is still out for Clemens. I bet we see him in.

Nope, don't think we will. I think the arrogance he has shown in lying, and being unapologetic about it has put him out.
The jury is not out when his best friend and a man of great character imo, Andy Pettite says they did says they did steroids together. I can't think of one single reason he would lie about that considering how much he loves Roger. He wouldn't. So in my mind Clemens is a big fat liar, and 100% guilty.

What did he lie about?

I'm not saying I don't think he did steroids, but in fact, it hasn't been proven.

[Tick]

For a lot of people, the jury is still out for Clemens. I bet we see him in.

Nope, don't think we will. I think the arrogance he has shown in lying, and being unapologetic about it has put him out.
The jury is not out when his best friend and a man of great character imo, Andy Pettite says they did says they did steroids together. I can't think of one single reason he would lie about that considering how much he loves Roger. He wouldn't. So in my mind Clemens is a big fat liar, and 100% guilty.

What did he lie about?

I'm not saying I don't think he did steroids, but in fact, it hasn't been proven.

He lied and said he never took steroids. He obviously did cause Pettite testified the two of them did them together.

[snapple]

Since when is Pettitte all knowing? Doesn't the fact he took steroids also call his integrity into question?

[Dimitrius]

Has Clemens been charged with that? Nope.

[Tick]

Since when is Pettitte all knowing? Doesn't the fact he took steroids also call his integrity into question?

I'll say it on more time. The two are best friends. Pettite worked out with Roger and testified in front of a grand jury they they did steroids together. I believe being his best friend Pettite has no reason whatsoever to lie to ruin the legacy of his best friend.
Why would he lie? Give me a reason?
I believe Clemens is a liar, period.

[Tick]

Has Clemens been charged with that? Nope.

So you don't think Clemens took steroids?

[snapple]

Since when is Pettitte all knowing? Doesn't the fact he took steroids also call his integrity into question?

I'll say it on more time. The two are best friends. Pettite worked out with Roger and testified in front of a grand jury they they did steroids together. I believe being his best friend Pettite has no reason whatsoever to lie to ruin the legacy of his best friend.
Why would he lie? Give me a reason?
I believe Clemens is a liar, period.

I'll say this one time. That doesn't hold up in a court of law.

[Dimitrius]

Has Clemens been charged with that? Nope.

So you don't think Clemens took steroids?

I can think whatever I want, but I'm not gonna crucify him based on speculation.

And IMO, whether he did steroids or not, he didn't break a rule and deserves to be on the HoF.

[lordxizor]

The HOF voting comittee isn't a court of law though. They don't need to have physical proof when they know it's 99% likely Clemens took steroids. It'll be very interesting to see how the votes go.

[Tick]

Has Clemens been charged with that? Nope.

So you don't think Clemens took steroids?

I can think whatever I want, but I'm not gonna crucify him based on speculation.

Of coarse you can think what you what. Who said you couldn't? I asked you what you did think and you didn't answer my question.

[snapple]

The HOF voting comittee isn't a court of law though. They don't need to have physical proof when they know it's 99% likely Clemens took steroids. It'll be very interesting to see how the votes go.

But until it's proved, it's irresponsible to vote "NO" with the assumption he did. That's not fair to Clemens and the persons who do that should not be allowed to vote.

[Dimitrius]

Has Clemens been charged with that? Nope.

So you don't think Clemens took steroids?

I can think whatever I want, but I'm not gonna crucify him based on speculation.

Of coarse you can think what you what. Who said you couldn't? I asked you what you did think and you didn't answer my question.

But it doesn't really matter if I think he did or not. I see it like this, there was no rule against it and he has all the numbers to be a HoF'er so he should, period.

[snapple]

I also agree with that sentiment. Rules were the rules then. Steroids weren't banned then.

They're banned now, so that's why I say "Fuck Braun" and not "Fuck Clemens"

[Tick]

The HOF voting comittee isn't a court of law though. They don't need to have physical proof when they know it's 99% likely Clemens took steroids. It'll be very interesting to see how the votes go.

The court of public opinion is just as strong and the voters are human and they belong to that group. I don't think he gets in. That's my opinion, if I'm wrong then I'm wrong.

The court system acquitted OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony. Think many people believe that they are innocent?
My point is whatever the voters believe will influence them and not what he has or has not been charged with legally.

[Dimitrius]

That is true, those assumptions will influence voters, particularly the old ones.

[snapple]

Though I understand what you're getting at, comparing baseball to murder... come on!

And it's not like ESPN would hype up a story that has no backing to it.

The whole Mitchell Report was bullshit to begin with. Why? Why did it even need to fucking happen? I'm glad the sport is getting clean, but the whole thing is total bullshit otherwise.

[Tick]

Though I understand what you're getting at, comparing baseball to murder... come on!

No. I'm saying voters are people and are influenced by what they believe is the truth. If they think he is guilty they won't for him.
IMO.
Sorry you don't approve of my analogy. It makes sense whether or not you think so.

[Dimitrius]

I understand what you're saying and the assumptions will influence a lot of voters. But these are the same voters that didn't vote for Alomar as a first ballot because of an incident 15 years or so earlier! The greatest second baseman of his generation, maybe of all time!

The voters need to change a bit too.

[Tick]

Though I understand what you're getting at, comparing baseball to murder... come on!

And it's not like ESPN would hype up a story that has no backing to it.

The whole Mitchell Report was bullshit to begin with. Why? Why did it even need to fucking happen? I'm glad the sport is getting clean, but the whole thing is total bullshit otherwise.

Make no mistake about one thing. ESPN protects star athletes. Its their bread and butter. Hell, they are the stars of their commercials.

[snapple]

I understand what you're saying and the assumptions will influence a lot of voters. But these are the same voters that didn't vote for Alomar as a first ballot because of an incident 15 years or so earlier! The greatest second baseman of his generation, maybe of all time!

The voters need to change a bit too.

And there are STILL some who say he should have never gotten in because of that.

edit: @tick. Oh, I said that with a huge layer of sarcasm. I was hoping the statement was ridiculous enough that I didn't need to put a cute smiley or anything 

[Tick]

I understand what you're saying and the assumptions will influence a lot of voters. But these are the same voters that didn't vote for Alomar as a first ballot because of an incident 15 years or so earlier! The greatest second baseman of his generation, maybe of all time!

The voters need to change a bit too.

So you totally agree with what I said but you keep arguing with me? I never said it was right, I said that's the way it is.

[Dimitrius]

I understand what you're saying and the assumptions will influence a lot of voters. But these are the same voters that didn't vote for Alomar as a first ballot because of an incident 15 years or so earlier! The greatest second baseman of his generation, maybe of all time!

The voters need to change a bit too.

So you totally agree with what I said but you keep arguing with me? I never said it was right, I said that's the way it is.

I just thought it wasn't the best analogy to use, that's all. I never said you were wrong either.

[wkiml]

Dimi has made some very good points

Steroids were not illegal in baseball when a majority of the players took them, did it give them an unfair advantage..Yes

Did they break the rules at the time NO

Its the players that continued to use steroids after Baseball banned them that should be penalized, not players who used them prior to the banned substance enforcement

Players in every sport always try to find an advantage to make them better than the next guy, whether it be training regiments or steroids..until the league banned the use they did not break any of the rules

[lordxizor]

MLB may not have specifically banned them, but they were illegal to use in the US without a prescription, right?

[Tick]

Dimi has made some very good points

Steroids were not illegal in baseball when a majority of the players took them, did it give them an unfair advantage..Yes

Did they break the rules at the time NO

Its the players that continued to use steroids after Baseball banned them that should be penalized, not players who used them prior to the banned substance enforcement

Players in every sport always try to find an advantage to make them better than the next guy, whether it be training regiments or steroids..until the league banned the use they did not break any of the rules

I understand all he said. I have been a diehard baseball fan for over 35 years.
My point was, and still is...
The voters are only human and vote based on there feelings. As I said before it does not matter if steroids were legal or not if the voters think it made the player what they were unnaturally.
As I also said. Bonds was a stud without roids. I think the voters will realize that and vote him in.
I think guys like Sosa, Palmeiro, and McGwire, will be seen as guys that steroids put over the top, and they won't vote for them.
That's what I think.

[wkiml]

MLB may not have specifically banned them, but they were illegal to use in the US without a prescription, right?

Use/possess?  NO   Purchase? YES

one of the wonderful loopholes in the US laws regarding steroids possesion prior to 1990

[lordxizor]

MLB may not have specifically banned them, but they were illegal to use in the US without a prescription, right?

Use/possess?  NO   Purchase? YES

one of the wonderful loopholes in the US laws regarding steroids possesion prior to 1990

If that's the case, then there's no reason why they shouldn't be in the HOF. It's a shameful time in the sport, but nothing illegal or against the rules was done.

[snapple]

The argument that can still be used against that, however, is that it makes the bar so much higher for clean players.

[yorost]

The argument that can still be used against that, however, is that it makes the bar so much higher for clean players.

...likewise that the steroids players only achieved the numbers presumably making them worthy because of the drugs.

[lelanddt]

Yeah, I realize changing the system would be hard to do, but I've never understood why a person isn't good enough to make the HOF for years, yet suddenly becomes worthy (see Bert Blyleven last year)? To me, you're either worthy or not on the first ballot. Perhaps you get a second chance 3 year or 5 years later or something. Sometimes the true value of your contributions take some time to appreciate, but it's still a crazy system.

Wasn't the advent of saber metrics what really helped Blyleven's case?

I just think that they need to change the voters, add more people who look at more than just AVG/HR/RBI/W/K.

And the steroid players, if they have the numbers to get in, they should be in. As ethically wrong as it may have been, they didn't break any rules.

but they won't get in, imo.

Thanks for Angel Pagan! You guys will love Torres and Ramirez, Torres because he's a fantastic guy and a hard worker and Ramirez because he is a stud in the bullpen.

As for the hall of fame, either you let everyone from that era in, or leave them all out. you can't pick and choose. i think because seemingly everybody used it, it wasnt banned at the time, and as lonestar said was a developmental part of the game. it helped baseball become more popular again, and that has to count for something

[wkiml]

Yeah, I realize changing the system would be hard to do, but I've never understood why a person isn't good enough to make the HOF for years, yet suddenly becomes worthy (see Bert Blyleven last year)? To me, you're either worthy or not on the first ballot. Perhaps you get a second chance 3 year or 5 years later or something. Sometimes the true value of your contributions take some time to appreciate, but it's still a crazy system.

Wasn't the advent of saber metrics what really helped Blyleven's case?

I just think that they need to change the voters, add more people who look at more than just AVG/HR/RBI/W/K.

And the steroid players, if they have the numbers to get in, they should be in. As ethically wrong as it may have been, they didn't break any rules.

but they won't get in, imo.

Thanks for Angel Pagan! You guys will love Torres and Ramirez, Torres because he's a fantastic guy and a hard worker and Ramirez because he is a stud in the bullpen.

As for the hall of fame, either you let everyone from that era in, or leave them all out. you can't pick and choose. i think because seemingly everybody used it, it wasnt banned at the time, and as lonestar said was a developmental part of the game. it helped baseball become more popular again, and that has to count for something

Exactly...anyone here remember the strike and how most fans said they never watch again..what brought us back to the game  Mac vs Sosa  chasing the record....Steroids changed the game, whether for the good or the bad, it was a part of baseball, just like the deadball era and the pitching dominance prior to the lowering of the mound