Home
News Post



In case you were hiding under a rock this morning (and some of you might've been like me) another year has passed with known steroid users from the height of the steroid era being denied entry into the Baseball Hall of Fame.

The 2014 Inductees included Gregg Maddux, Tom Glavine, and Frank Thomas. Craig Biggio missed the cut by just two votes, and will likely have a real shot at making it in next season.

In what will be the biggest living HOF class since 1941, the three players above will be joined by managers Tony LaRussa, Joe Torre and Bobby Cox.

However, missing from the HOF at this stage are still Barry Bonds and Roger Clemons, each receiving approximately 35% of the votes. Both players should be shoe-ins for the Hall, but thanks to their ties to PEDs both have been shut out by the Baseball Writers Association of America thus far.

Another PED-linked player, Rafael Palmero, will be dropped off of the ballot after receiving less than 5% of the vote needed to keep a player on.

Should PED players get to be in the Hall of Fame? Let us know your thoughts!

Member Comments
# 1 elgreazy1 @ 01/08/14 06:00 PM
One word: Hell no.
 
# 2 braves_94 @ 01/08/14 06:24 PM
I must be in the minority. But there is no way we can determine, with certainty, who used and who didn't. Just like we don't know if anyone else over the course of the game's history did. And as far as the "character clause" Sean Casey one of the greatest baseball ambassadors, didn't get one vote. You can't just use the clause to penialize somebody, then completely ignore it as a positive. Biggio spent his whole career in Houston and was great to the community. Despite that and the automatic 3,000 hits is supposed to be, he didn't get in in his SECOND ballot. I understand the luster of a first balloter, but come on. How can you justify someone with 3,000, 15th all time in runs, not get in. Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens should get in, because you can't use one qualification just for reason not to elect someone. The positive has to count for something. And Sean Casey not getting a single vote is proof positive. Bonds and Clemens were HOF'ers before, and they should get in. And so should Jeff Bagwell and Mike Piazza. Frank Thomas was a first balloter, on what? The strength of his 2 MVPS? Bagwell just had one, but the numbers are insanely similar. So since because Thomas was taller by the good graces of God he gets in?
 
# 3 DrJones @ 01/08/14 06:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lhslancers
I think it's BS. And while they are at the writers should let Rose and Shoeless Joe in the sanctimonious creeps.
The writers (and the Veterans Committee) have no say in the matter. Both have been banned by MLB.
 
# 4 Chip Douglass @ 01/08/14 06:28 PM
I hate the puritanicals on both sides on the debate: on the one hand, the writers who refuse to vote for the prominent (and obviously statistically qualified) steroid users purely because of their PED use; on the other, the writers who ignore steroid use altogether and vote for candidates based solely on the statistics.

I don't think steroids should be a disqualifier, nor do I think they should be totally ignored. In the case of Bonds, Clemens, and A-Rod in the future, they deserve admission for the simple reason that all 3 are among the greatest players in the history of the game and arguably North American sports as a whole. For that reason alone, they deserve admission and recognition in baseball's premier shrine.
 
# 5 DrJones @ 01/08/14 06:28 PM
Yes. Anyone on the ballot should be judged on their on-field accomplishments only. At some point, somebody will get elected to Cooperstown who will later be found to have used PEDs, and the whole thing will come crashing down (the hypocrisy, not the Hall).
 
# 6 DamnYanks2 @ 01/08/14 06:52 PM
Yes, Iím damn tired of these holier then thou, elitist sports writers. Gurnick is everything wrong with this process, the hall is for the fans not these egostistical hypocrites. The Steroid Era happened whether they like it or not. It's now part of the history of baseball, and to just tell the public to forget about that Era is stupid.

These guys played, and they starred, and guess what, they weren't terrible people like the media would like you to think. They made some grave mistakes, but steroids did not make Barry Bonds into the star athlete he was, he was a five tool player before and an easy hof'er, Roger Clemens was not dominant just because of his fastball. Those two were two of the greatest to play the game with or without steroids.

What's even worse is players like Bagwell and Piazza are getting unfairly treated because they played in that era, even though no evidence has been found, they are getting thrown under the bus too, this is all just so wrong.
 
# 7 Brandon13 @ 01/08/14 07:02 PM
In my opinion you either need to vote in every player who is HOF worthy - regardless of their known/suspected PED use - or keep them all out of the HOF. The risk with the latter is in arbitrarily deeming players clean or dirty based upon little more than, in many instances, a gut feeling. In all likelihood, there either already is a juicer or two in the HOF, or there will be very soon because we just didn't peg those particular guys as PED users. It's also quite possible that a clean and deserving player will be kept out of the HOF (at least for a little while) because of unfounded suspicions by the voters.

I'm not really big on the, "well this guy was a HOFer before he started using PEDs" argument that is sometimes used to differentiate between the HOF worthiness of players like Bonds and Clemens and Palmeiro and Sosa. It's just impossible to play that game and know for certain that you're right. I'm OK with some sort of self-imposed moratorium on voting in known/suspected users, but that doesn't work with the 5% of the vote requirement necessary to remain on the ballot.

So with all that said I guess I'm of the opinion that we need to place votes for players based solely upon their on the field play, and regardless of their status as a PED user.
 
# 8 DrJones @ 01/08/14 07:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DamnYanks2
These guys played, and they starred, and guess what, they weren't terrible people like the media would like you to think. They made some grave mistakes, but steroids did not make Barry Bonds into the star athlete he was, he was a five tool player before and an easy hof'er, Roger Clemens was not dominant just because of his fastball. Those two were two of the greatest to play the game with or without steroids.
See, to me that misses the point. It doesn't matter whether Bonds et al are terrible people or not. Professional sports are full of terrible people.
 
# 9 OSUFan_88 @ 01/08/14 07:24 PM
Ty Cobb is in the HoF, yes? So let's not start the standard of terrible people being in the HoF.

The problem with this whole argument is that some people are too lazy to factor in when steroid use began. In the case of Bonds and Rocket, they were both obviously well established players in the game of baseball and likely HoF players before they took steroids.

Then you have guys like Sammy Sosa and Rafael Palmeiro who quite clearly were great players because they took steroids.

The BBWAA is just too lazy to look deeper and instead just want to give these guys a scarlet letter rather than look past a sin for true greatness. It's stupid, arbitrary and wholly unfair, but then again, that's the HOF selection process.
 
# 10 DamnYanks2 @ 01/08/14 07:42 PM
Ok no, that's not at all where I was going with the" terrible people" comment. I have no idea how you arrived at that. My point was, baseball writers, the commish, and some fans have this notion that McGwire, Sosa, Bonds, Clemens etc, any steroid user was just a horrible human being.

The media treated these individuals like they were real criminals, and a lot of the public bought it.
 
# 11 Perfect Zero @ 01/08/14 08:00 PM
I personally think the Hall has outlived its useful life. So many people want the Hall to be so many different things that it will never live up to anybody's expectations. We all have the stats in front of us so we know who was good and who wasn't. The Hall isn't really meant to be about stats anyways or else there would be thresholds to meet. I think it's a non issue.
 
# 12 DrJones @ 01/08/14 08:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DamnYanks2
Ok no, that's not at all where I was going with the" terrible people" comment. I have no idea how you arrived at that. My point was, baseball writers, the commish, and some fans have this notion that McGwire, Sosa, Bonds, Clemens etc, any steroid user was just a horrible human being.

The media treated these individuals like they were real criminals, and a lot of the public bought it.
Ah, I see. I'm just saying that I have no problem saying that:

A. Roger Clemens is a cheater and a liar
B. Roger Clemens is a horrible human being (see McCreary, Mindy)
C. Roger Clemens is a Hall of Fame pitcher

Many fans and media have difficulty with that. They want to think on-field accomplishment goes hand in hand with character. "Jameis Winston loses to Auburn: karmic payback!" "Jameis Winston beats Auburn: redemption!" Whereas Winston is either a victim or a scumbag regardless of how good he is.

I think it's fine for journalists to expose steroid users. I think it's fine for journalists to call users (or Albert Belle, or Kevin Brown) awful human beings. I don't think it's fine for journalists to use that as a reason not to vote for them. A big reason Kirby Puckett sailed easily into Cooperstown (not saying he shouldn't be there, but he was far, far from being a lock based on merit) was because of how gosh-darn likable he was. Oops.
 
# 13 speels @ 01/08/14 08:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perfect Zero
I personally think the Hall has outlived its useful life. So many people want the Hall to be so many different things that it will never live up to anybody's expectations. We all have the stats in front of us so we know who was good and who wasn't. The Hall isn't really meant to be about stats anyways or else there would be thresholds to meet. I think it's a non issue.
I agree, the baseball Hall of Fame is a joke. I mean there is no way that non-playing people should be voting on who is the best and deserves to be in the hall. These people are writers and in no way are they experts at the game. I think for the Hall to gain any sort of momentum they need to go to a selection committee made up of former players, Hall of Famers, owners, umpires, etc to come up with people that deserve to be honoured as HoF.
It is the biggest joke in sports........................next to my Leafs!!
 
# 14 speels @ 01/08/14 08:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrJones
Ah, I see. I'm just saying that I have no problem saying that:

A. Roger Clemens is a cheater and a liar
B. Roger Clemens is a horrible human being (see McCreary, Mindy)
C. Roger Clemens is a Hall of Fame pitcher

I think it's fine for journalists to expose steroid users. I think it's fine for journalists to call users (or Albert Belle, or Kevin Brown) awful human beings. I don't think it's fine for journalists to use that as a reason not to vote for them. A big reason Kirby Puckett sailed easily into Cooperstown (not saying he shouldn't be there, but he was far, far from being a lock based on merit) was because of how gosh-darn likable he was. Oops.
How many writers have lied in an article or stretched the truth. They are all worthy of their vote I am sure.
 
# 15 DrJones @ 01/08/14 08:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by speels
I agree, the baseball Hall of Fame is a joke. I mean there is no way that non-playing people should be voting on who is the best and deserves to be in the hall. These people are writers and in no way are they experts at the game. I think for the Hall to gain any sort of momentum they need to go to a selection committee made up of former players, Hall of Famers, owners, umpires, etc to come up with people that deserve to be honoured as HoF.
That way leads to Gold Glove voting and the Veterans Committee ("Let's put my old drinking buddy who hit .237 in the Hall!"). Pass.
 
# 16 DamnYanks2 @ 01/08/14 08:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrJones
Ah, I see. I'm just saying that I have no problem saying that:

A. Roger Clemens is a cheater and a liar
B. Roger Clemens is a horrible human being (see McCreary, Mindy)
C. Roger Clemens is a Hall of Fame pitcher

Many fans and media have difficulty with that. They want to think on-field accomplishment goes hand in hand with character. "Jameis Winston loses to Auburn: karmic payback!" "Jameis Winston beats Auburn: redemption!" Whereas Winston is either a victim or a scumbag regardless of how good he is.

I think it's fine for journalists to expose steroid users. I think it's fine for journalists to call users (or Albert Belle, or Kevin Brown) awful human beings. I don't think it's fine for journalists to use that as a reason not to vote for them. A big reason Kirby Puckett sailed easily into Cooperstown (not saying he shouldn't be there, but he was far, far from being a lock based on merit) was because of how gosh-darn likable he was. Oops.
That's the issue, for every Roger Clemens there's a Jay Mariotti. For every Albert Belle. There's a Steve Phillips. It goes hand and hand. Sportswriters aren't moral angels either. I'm sick of the holier then thou bs.
 
# 17 Sheamazin @ 01/08/14 08:18 PM
What about managers that clearly benefitted from the steroid use of their players?

Torre and LaRussa had a bunch of players(Canseco, McGuire, Giambi, Pettite and more) on their teams when they winning Championships.

The players aren't the only ones who benefitted and had major success from the use of steroids.
 
# 18 DamnYanks2 @ 01/08/14 08:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheamazin
What about managers that clearly benefitted from the steroid use of their players?

Torre and LaRussa had a bunch of players(Canseco, McGuire, Giambi, Pettite and more) on their teams when they winning Championships.

The players aren't the only ones who benefitted and had major success from the use of steroids.
Just as Bud Selig benefitted from the players. The hypocrisy is outstanding.
 
# 19 worstsportsgamer1977 @ 01/08/14 08:22 PM
yes they should. especially if they were great players. just tell there story truthfully. mac and bonds, without a doubt deserve to be in the hof. even though they were on steroids they were both extremely talented. the steroids just kept them around a little longer. put them in, mabey just dont do a ceremony for them.
 
# 20 juicer420 @ 01/08/14 09:38 PM
The writers wrote the stories that turned these players into immortals.
The owners, tv networks, Bud Selig and MLB as a whole cashed in on the use of PEDs.
They created the culture that promoted massive home runs numbers and in essence promoted the use of PEDs.
There was no testing in baseball and although federally illegal, PEDs were not officially illegal in the MLB.
It took 15-20 years before they cracked down on it and only after the federal government got involved.
Much of the blame must fall on the players. They broke the moral code at there own risk of reputation. But the incentives to take that risk were created by the writers, the owners, MLB and the fans.

Now, some writers take part in vilifying the users. The owners and MLB turned their backs on the players to save their own skins. The fans became huge hypocrites when they call out other users and continue to idolize the players from their favorite teams that were users. And the PED users are hung out to dry and take all the blame.

This entire messed was created by everyone. With all this said, the Hall of Fame, which is a collection of the game's best, is not a complete set.

I personally believe that when a season comes around that there is no sure fire clean first ballot player, the writers, MLB, and the Hall of Fame take the chance to induct all these players at once, mark the induction with an asterisk, and move on from the entire mess for good. This yearly story does nothing to solve the problem or promote the game of baseball in a positive light. It just diminishes the entire induction.
 

« Previous123Next »

Post A Comment
Only OS members can post comments
Please login or register to post a comment.