Posted: 1/11/2013 9:01 AM
http://www.baltimoresun.com/sp...0,2989311.storyGood article. What do all of you think?????
Posted: 1/11/2013 9:15 AM
Posted: 1/11/2013 2:13 PM
Posted: 1/11/2013 3:22 PM
I used to wait on Raffy & his family in college at a spot in Cockeysvile - always a nice guy, good tipper and friendly toward people who recognized him. Personally I think they should just let everyone in too
Posted: 1/11/2013 8:56 PM
dabuscuits wrote: I say let them all in. Instead of trying to pick and choose who did or didn't do what let them all in. Otherwise is no one a hall of famer from 20-30 years.
Posted: 1/11/2013 9:29 PM
Last edited 1/11/2013 9:30 PM by insagt1
Posted: 1/12/2013 1:58 AM
i agreed with palmerio for the longest time until i read a great piece by wallace matthews on espn new york a couple days ago, i would encourage everyone to read his write up and his justification for it
http://espn.go.com/new-york/st...eball-hall-famethe article starts out talking about what criteria a voter is supposed to analyze for HOF election... "Voting shall be based on the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played."i have to agree that it is indisputable these guys have the record, the abiltity, and contributions made to there team worthy of the hall of fameIt is just as indisputable that the methods which they attained those records are in clear violation of the integrity, sportsmanship and character portion of that sentence.to quite some of the article..."I've heard all the justifications and all the apologies: Everyone was doing it. It wasn't against the rules. They were all Hall of Fame players anyway. Steroids don't help you hit a baseball or throw strikes. And if you're going to punish juicers, what about guys who used greenies or scuffed the ball or threw a spitter? I laugh at (almost) all of them."1.They would have been Hall of Famers anyway: "This, to me, makes their decision to juice up sadder and all the more incriminating. Yeah, they probably would have been. But now, they never will be.
Bonds, for instance, was clearly a Hall of Famer pre-1998, when the most home runs he had ever hit in a season was 46, and that was five years earlier. His decision to 'roid up seems to have been solely motivated by ego and vanity: Reportedly, it was killing him that McGwire, a much lesser player, was now being hailed as baseball's home run king. So for that bit of self-indulgence, he threw away an entire legacy."2.It wasn't against the rules: "The rules of baseball, that is. Or, more accurately, it wasn't specifically prohibited in the CBA. Well, neither is murder. In the United States, steroids are classified as controlled substances, and possessing or using them without a prescription for a specific medical condition is a federal crime. And baseball had very compelling reasons to want to look the other way on steroids following the work stoppage of 1995. Believe me, if I could come up with an equivalent method of punishing Bud Selig for his role in allowing steroids to take over the game, I would certainly exercise it."EDIT: the only criticism i have is the guy who wrote this article on espn talks about how he takes hall of fame voting seriously, but then towards the end of the piece says he didnt vote for jack morris this year because he "wasnt feeling it"but all his points on steroids and the hall of fame are very valid
"Stay Thirsty My Friends"
Last edited 1/12/2013 2:08 AM by TheGuy9
Posted: 1/12/2013 11:41 AM
DrBNic wrote: dabuscuits wrote: I say let them all in. Instead of trying to pick and choose who did or didn't do what let them all in. Otherwise is no one a hall of famer from 20-30 years.I agree! Do you just keep out the ones that got caught or the ones the government went after or the ones that Jose Canseco named to help sell a book? I don't know much about exactly what steroids do except make you stronger. Does it make you hit a fast ball better,does it help you throw a curve ball better? I would guess NO being there were several players named that never had more than a cup of coffee in the bigs.
Posted: 1/12/2013 12:13 PM
Last edited 1/12/2013 12:23 PM by insagt1
Posted: 1/12/2013 12:22 PM
insagt1 wrote: I don't know what they do specifically either...but I submit they do something...because its pretty clear now that they did affect the stats. One poster feels that it truly is just a coincidence that HR's have suddenly dropped back to pre-steroid times. But don't think its a coincidence. They clearly made good players better...however it worked. And there were margainal players who suddenly bulked up and put up better numbers. So they do make a difference.But since the truth about who used will NEVER come out..that it is likely that the baseball fraternity looked after their own while virtually anyone was able to cheat if they wanted to....it seems foolish to use that as a criteria for the HOF. Its unmanageable at its worst. Bonds, Clemens, and Raffy all had numbers worthy of instant induction. And they were good players prior to juicing. I don't feel quite so charitable with Sosa and McGwire...whose careers were seemingly created by taking extra stuff.Bud needs to make a decision...since 1) he is gutless anyway and 2) he knew exactly what was going on and chose to ignore. As commissioner, he can basically make a call on the Steroid Era and how to deal with it.He won't. But eventually I believe most all will be in the Hall...and someday so will Rose and Shoeless Joe. (Rose might not be alive to enjoy it however)
Posted: 1/13/2013 2:50 PM
Last edited 1/13/2013 2:54 PM by oltrex
Posted: 1/13/2013 2:57 PM
oltrex wrote: It's all a crapshoot,anyway. How about the guys who wouldn't vote for Roberto Alomar the first year because of the spitting incident, but did so the second time around? Or how about one of last years inductees, Ron Santo? He couldn't even get 5% in his first year on the ballot, so it took the Veterans Committee to get him in (alas, too late for him to enjoy it as he'd died by then).I always feel like doing this, but I invite somebody to pull up the career numbers and awards for Dale Murphy, Jim Rice and Dwight Evans, then post them without names. Why Rice got in over the other two is a mystery to me!The character clause has always bothered me in the sense that a player who does not cooperate with the press can be punished for that. Read "My Turn At Bat" by Ted Williams and look at some of the stuff the Boston writers wrote about him! Yet in his 1941 season, Ted Williams lost the MVP despite hitting 406 and winning the triple crown when a Boston writer IIRC left him off the ballot. How about the year Moe Vaughan won the MVP over Albert Belle? Nothing but payback from the writers, IMHO.I saw Goose Gossage the other day saying that the first time the BBWAA elects a PED "cheater" will be the end of him going to Cooperstown. Big whoopie doopie. The game is bigger than any one player and so is the HOF.In the long run, I expect guys like Clemens, Bonds (neither one ever convicted of using PEDs, btw), Sosa and Palmeiro to go in the HOF because the numbers they put up can't, in the long run, be denied. They were the best of their era, and in as much as we don't know everybody who cheated, I think they will eventually gain entrance. That this is perhaps unfair to a very good player like Fred McGriff is unfortunate.And it's pretty much a joke that these individuals didn't make it to the HOF - Marvin Miller, for nobody made as many contributions to how baseball is run today than him; Curt Flood, whose lawsuit went to the Supreme Court and was turned away on the basis baseball is a sport, not interstate commerce; and Jose Canseco and Ken Caminiti, who exposed what PEDS were doing to baseball in a way that still has repercussions.There will always be cheaters in baseball. When I was catching in high school, batters would try to sneak a peak where I was set up to see where the pitch was. Runners on second would try and steal my signs. My coach bragged how in one game he had stolen the other teams third base coaches signs, so we knew when they were bunting or stealing as fast as they did. At the major league level, we don't know how many players were using anphetamines (greenies) from the sixties through the early nineties to get up for their games. I would imagine some of them are in the Hall of Fame today.I understand that others feel differently about the PED issue, and that's ok. I'm not trying to start a long argument about whether they should be in the Hall of Fame or not, just expressing my opinion that eventually they'll get in.
Posted: 1/13/2013 9:31 PM
Last edited 1/13/2013 9:32 PM by insagt1