McGwire Admits Using Steroids (2 Viewers)

[Smack Tripper]

Add me to the put all of them in the Hall if their numbers fit the bill. My assumption that even if all players knowingly connected to steroids are kept out of the Hall, there will be multiple players that are voted in that simply were better at keeping their use a secret. In other words, we will never know for sure who did and didn't and attempting to keep users out will be a futile exercise and every player will be questioned.In regards to McGwire's use, there is no question that he had big time power long before using. There is also no question he would aid his OBP with a high walk rate from day one. So if we are trying to examine the affects of his use on his performance I think we need to look at three things.First, would he been able to recover after 1994 to become an everyday elite player once again without using? He had missed 250+ games in 93-94 at the age of 29-30. He played 104 games in 95 and then began playing nearly full seasons til 99.Second, would his batting average had been high enough to maintain the OBP that is his other significant HOF quality stat? From 87-92, he was a maybe a 240-245 hitter with a 350-355 OBP. From 95-00, he was 270+ hitter with 400+ OBP. Did steroids help him get the extra 15 or so hits a season to raise his average and therefore his OBP into to the elite category?Lastly, does he hit 70 homers in 98 and 583 homers overall? He was 35+ HR guy from 87-92 and then a 50+ HR guy from 95-00. Increasing your HR rate in your early 30's is actually pretty common but a jump from 30+ for multiple seasons to 50+ for multiple seasons is only matched by his steroid contemporaries.Again, I don't think we can pick and choose players we may think that are clean from this era with enough certainty to keep all of the users out. Accordingly, everyone should be allowed in IMO. Yet, I do think it is interesting to examine the possible effects of steroids on performance just the same and McGwire does give us an good case study.

The Hall of Fame is not a democracy and its not a right. And its not a place to condemn the innocent by condoning the guilty. These guys had their fame and fortune by using roids and the real unfortunate byproduct of their conduct to me is not the millions they personally generated for themselves, or the bad example they set to fellow players and aspiring ballplayers. Their biggest crime is the tipping of the playing field and skewing the perspective of clean players. MLB network last night brought up Wally Joyner, who looked similar to Mac back in the day, and was probably a better ballplayer, save for the home runs. Wally was and remained a relative noodle in his career while Mac reached gargantuan size. I'm not saying he's a Hall of Famer, but a purely fringe candidate like McGwire or Sosa, who's numbers spiked with size we saw, belong on the outside in my book.The Hall is an honor and these guys acted dishonorably. What would have been interesting and at least something to think about, is if when the noise and scuttlebutt on roids started in 2000-2002, someone stood up and said "Yeah I did them, whats the big deal, they weren't banned in baseball". To my knowledge there was no such internal advocate. They all kept it a secret and while I can't say I blame them, it tells you they knew they were doing something wrong. The logic of let them all in since we don't know who's guilty is roughly analogous to saying release every criminal from prison because there may be guilty men walking the streets. Just because you don't get them all doesn't mean you shouldn't get the ones you have. And further, if I were the writers, I'd work with the hall and work on drafting some sort of contingency to remove guys from the hall in case we find someone who is found out to have done roids after induction. And given that this is an optional club people are joining, I'd take it one step further and make it part of an entrance interview.PEDs are not an automatic strikeout, there will be and are guys who probably had the career to get in and then added to their tallies as a PED user, like Bonds, Clemens and Pudge Rodrigez. But PEDs should really make a voter think.Fred McGriff, based on size and looking pretty much the same in 1989 as he did in 1999 looks like a worse candidate because of these roid guys.

 

[whoknew]

The Hall of Fame is not a democracy and its not a right. And its not a place to condemn the innocent by condoning the guilty. These guys had their fame and fortune by using roids and the real unfortunate byproduct of their conduct to me is not the millions they personally generated for themselves, or the bad example they set to fellow players and aspiring ballplayers. Their biggest crime is the tipping of the playing field and skewing the perspective of clean players. MLB network last night brought up Wally Joyner, who looked similar to Mac back in the day, and was probably a better ballplayer, save for the home runs. Wally was and remained a relative noodle in his career while Mac reached gargantuan size. I'm not saying he's a Hall of Famer, but a purely fringe candidate like McGwire or Sosa, who's numbers spiked with size we saw, belong on the outside in my book.The Hall is an honor and these guys acted dishonorably. What would have been interesting and at least something to think about, is if when the noise and scuttlebutt on roids started in 2000-2002, someone stood up and said "Yeah I did them, whats the big deal, they weren't banned in baseball". To my knowledge there was no such internal advocate. They all kept it a secret and while I can't say I blame them, it tells you they knew they were doing something wrong. The logic of let them all in since we don't know who's guilty is roughly analogous to saying release every criminal from prison because there may be guilty men walking the streets. Just because you don't get them all doesn't mean you shouldn't get the ones you have. And further, if I were the writers, I'd work with the hall and work on drafting some sort of contingency to remove guys from the hall in case we find someone who is found out to have done roids after induction. And given that this is an optional club people are joining, I'd take it one step further and make it part of an entrance interview.PEDs are not an automatic strikeout, there will be and are guys who probably had the career to get in and then added to their tallies as a PED user, like Bonds, Clemens and Pudge Rodrigez. But PEDs should really make a voter think.Fred McGriff, based on size and looking pretty much the same in 1989 as he did in 1999 looks like a worse candidate because of these roid guys.

I couldn't agree more. We need to clean up the Hall and get rid of everyone who used PEDs. Let's start with Willie Mays.

 

[Smack Tripper]

The Hall of Fame is not a democracy and its not a right. And its not a place to condemn the innocent by condoning the guilty. These guys had their fame and fortune by using roids and the real unfortunate byproduct of their conduct to me is not the millions they personally generated for themselves, or the bad example they set to fellow players and aspiring ballplayers. Their biggest crime is the tipping of the playing field and skewing the perspective of clean players. MLB network last night brought up Wally Joyner, who looked similar to Mac back in the day, and was probably a better ballplayer, save for the home runs. Wally was and remained a relative noodle in his career while Mac reached gargantuan size. I'm not saying he's a Hall of Famer, but a purely fringe candidate like McGwire or Sosa, who's numbers spiked with size we saw, belong on the outside in my book.The Hall is an honor and these guys acted dishonorably. What would have been interesting and at least something to think about, is if when the noise and scuttlebutt on roids started in 2000-2002, someone stood up and said "Yeah I did them, whats the big deal, they weren't banned in baseball". To my knowledge there was no such internal advocate. They all kept it a secret and while I can't say I blame them, it tells you they knew they were doing something wrong. The logic of let them all in since we don't know who's guilty is roughly analogous to saying release every criminal from prison because there may be guilty men walking the streets. Just because you don't get them all doesn't mean you shouldn't get the ones you have. And further, if I were the writers, I'd work with the hall and work on drafting some sort of contingency to remove guys from the hall in case we find someone who is found out to have done roids after induction. And given that this is an optional club people are joining, I'd take it one step further and make it part of an entrance interview.PEDs are not an automatic strikeout, there will be and are guys who probably had the career to get in and then added to their tallies as a PED user, like Bonds, Clemens and Pudge Rodrigez. But PEDs should really make a voter think.Fred McGriff, based on size and looking pretty much the same in 1989 as he did in 1999 looks like a worse candidate because of these roid guys.

I couldn't agree more. We need to clean up the Hall and get rid of everyone who used PEDs. Let's start with Willie Mays.

Do you believe Greenies turn from an all star to an immortal in an offseason?And again, greenies were done in the relative light of day across several eras of baseball, which would at least lend balance to numbers in baseball. But if you can't separate the difference, what can I tell you?

 

[boubucarow]

Add me to the put all of them in the Hall if their numbers fit the bill. My assumption that even if all players knowingly connected to steroids are kept out of the Hall, there will be multiple players that are voted in that simply were better at keeping their use a secret. In other words, we will never know for sure who did and didn't and attempting to keep users out will be a futile exercise and every player will be questioned.In regards to McGwire's use, there is no question that he had big time power long before using. There is also no question he would aid his OBP with a high walk rate from day one. So if we are trying to examine the affects of his use on his performance I think we need to look at three things.First, would he been able to recover after 1994 to become an everyday elite player once again without using? He had missed 250+ games in 93-94 at the age of 29-30. He played 104 games in 95 and then began playing nearly full seasons til 99.Second, would his batting average had been high enough to maintain the OBP that is his other significant HOF quality stat? From 87-92, he was a maybe a 240-245 hitter with a 350-355 OBP. From 95-00, he was 270+ hitter with 400+ OBP. Did steroids help him get the extra 15 or so hits a season to raise his average and therefore his OBP into to the elite category?Lastly, does he hit 70 homers in 98 and 583 homers overall? He was 35+ HR guy from 87-92 and then a 50+ HR guy from 95-00. Increasing your HR rate in your early 30's is actually pretty common but a jump from 30+ for multiple seasons to 50+ for multiple seasons is only matched by his steroid contemporaries.Again, I don't think we can pick and choose players we may think that are clean from this era with enough certainty to keep all of the users out. Accordingly, everyone should be allowed in IMO. Yet, I do think it is interesting to examine the possible effects of steroids on performance just the same and McGwire does give us an good case study.

The Hall of Fame is not a democracy and its not a right. And its not a place to condemn the innocent by condoning the guilty. These guys had their fame and fortune by using roids and the real unfortunate byproduct of their conduct to me is not the millions they personally generated for themselves, or the bad example they set to fellow players and aspiring ballplayers. Their biggest crime is the tipping of the playing field and skewing the perspective of clean players. MLB network last night brought up Wally Joyner, who looked similar to Mac back in the day, and was probably a better ballplayer, save for the home runs. Wally was and remained a relative noodle in his career while Mac reached gargantuan size. I'm not saying he's a Hall of Famer, but a purely fringe candidate like McGwire or Sosa, who's numbers spiked with size we saw, belong on the outside in my book.The Hall is an honor and these guys acted dishonorably. What would have been interesting and at least something to think about, is if when the noise and scuttlebutt on roids started in 2000-2002, someone stood up and said "Yeah I did them, whats the big deal, they weren't banned in baseball". To my knowledge there was no such internal advocate. They all kept it a secret and while I can't say I blame them, it tells you they knew they were doing something wrong. The logic of let them all in since we don't know who's guilty is roughly analogous to saying release every criminal from prison because there may be guilty men walking the streets. Just because you don't get them all doesn't mean you shouldn't get the ones you have. And further, if I were the writers, I'd work with the hall and work on drafting some sort of contingency to remove guys from the hall in case we find someone who is found out to have done roids after induction. And given that this is an optional club people are joining, I'd take it one step further and make it part of an entrance interview.PEDs are not an automatic strikeout, there will be and are guys who probably had the career to get in and then added to their tallies as a PED user, like Bonds, Clemens and Pudge Rodrigez. But PEDs should really make a voter think.Fred McGriff, based on size and looking pretty much the same in 1989 as he did in 1999 looks like a worse candidate because of these roid guys.

I don't necessarily disagree with you on your thinking. I just fall on the other side since we have no idea who else took PEDs or when they took them and I don't want to reward those players either. Since the Hall will take players from the era, I don't think a line can be drawn since we don't really know for any specific player if they really were clean. All or nothing even though I don't like it.

 

[whoknew]

The Hall of Fame is not a democracy and its not a right. And its not a place to condemn the innocent by condoning the guilty. These guys had their fame and fortune by using roids and the real unfortunate byproduct of their conduct to me is not the millions they personally generated for themselves, or the bad example they set to fellow players and aspiring ballplayers. Their biggest crime is the tipping of the playing field and skewing the perspective of clean players. MLB network last night brought up Wally Joyner, who looked similar to Mac back in the day, and was probably a better ballplayer, save for the home runs. Wally was and remained a relative noodle in his career while Mac reached gargantuan size. I'm not saying he's a Hall of Famer, but a purely fringe candidate like McGwire or Sosa, who's numbers spiked with size we saw, belong on the outside in my book.The Hall is an honor and these guys acted dishonorably. What would have been interesting and at least something to think about, is if when the noise and scuttlebutt on roids started in 2000-2002, someone stood up and said "Yeah I did them, whats the big deal, they weren't banned in baseball". To my knowledge there was no such internal advocate. They all kept it a secret and while I can't say I blame them, it tells you they knew they were doing something wrong. The logic of let them all in since we don't know who's guilty is roughly analogous to saying release every criminal from prison because there may be guilty men walking the streets. Just because you don't get them all doesn't mean you shouldn't get the ones you have. And further, if I were the writers, I'd work with the hall and work on drafting some sort of contingency to remove guys from the hall in case we find someone who is found out to have done roids after induction. And given that this is an optional club people are joining, I'd take it one step further and make it part of an entrance interview.PEDs are not an automatic strikeout, there will be and are guys who probably had the career to get in and then added to their tallies as a PED user, like Bonds, Clemens and Pudge Rodrigez. But PEDs should really make a voter think.Fred McGriff, based on size and looking pretty much the same in 1989 as he did in 1999 looks like a worse candidate because of these roid guys.

I couldn't agree more. We need to clean up the Hall and get rid of everyone who used PEDs. Let's start with Willie Mays.

Do you believe Greenies turn from an all star to an immortal in an offseason?And again, greenies were done in the relative light of day across several eras of baseball, which would at least lend balance to numbers in baseball. But if you can't separate the difference, what can I tell you?

That's funny. You make an arbitrary cutoff between drugs because one was more widely used than another. Of course, we don't know how widely used either was really. And the amphetamines taken by the players were specifically used to rejuvenate their body against the grind of the baseball season. So that they could perform better when they were exhausted and push their bodies further. Hmmm...kinda sounds like HGH eh?I've never understood why people get all up in arms about steroids.1) Why do you care? 2) Why do you differentiate between all other technological advances?3) Why do you really only care about some players and sports and not others? It's all a joke. Bonds was the greatest player of the steroid era. Willie Mays was the greatest player of the amphetamine era. What's the difference?

 

[shadyridr]

So, basically..."I took roids because of injuries and I really regret it. But it had nothing to do with me hitting 70 and ultimately 580 home runs, it was my hand eye coordination, roids had nothing to do with my success"I give him credit for admitting roids, but I wish ONE of these guys, other than David Segui, would say, I did this because it made me better. I don't even know if he believes that, I think these guys can warp their lies in their own mind and believe their story. I think Bonds, A-Rod and Clemens are all in the same boat, they did roids ,but really don't believe it helped them. Massive ego play here.

Yea that's what kills me. Sure I could hit a baseball 700ft without steroids. Yea right. Christ, his 62nd hr that year got out because of the steroids. If he wasn't juicing that ball would've come short of the wall, but because of his mammoth biceps he muscled it out for the record breaker.

In fairness, he did admit to using them all during 1998, if I read the press release correctly.The people who understand the science of it all aren't even 100% sure if it helps you play baseball better. Kinda hard to hold McGwire personally responsible for not clearly stating it made him better. He said he had up and down years, both on and off the juice.All things considered, I think it was one of the most honest and forthright admissions to date. It will be interesting to see how things unfold in the coming weeks as he speaks about it more.

Oh it's wonderful he finally admitted to it but to think he could've hit 70 home runs without the help of any supplements is silly. He flat out said in the interview with Costas that he didn't need the steroids to hit 70, he would've done that without the help. Well I don't believe that at all. He probably hit 10-12 home runs that year because of the juice, and the 62nd was one of them. Steroids may not make you a better ballplayer, but they certainly help you hit the ball harder, and farther. That's kind of obvious, Mr. McGwire.

10-12? It was rare for a player to hit 40 HRs before the steroid era and even now. Just look at the HR leaderboards the last few years. Meanwhile during the steroid era, Roger Maris' HR record was broken 5 or 6 times and guys hit 50 HRs all the time. Id say steroids gave McGwire 20-30 HRs that year.

 

[Smack Tripper]

The Hall of Fame is not a democracy and its not a right. And its not a place to condemn the innocent by condoning the guilty. These guys had their fame and fortune by using roids and the real unfortunate byproduct of their conduct to me is not the millions they personally generated for themselves, or the bad example they set to fellow players and aspiring ballplayers. Their biggest crime is the tipping of the playing field and skewing the perspective of clean players. MLB network last night brought up Wally Joyner, who looked similar to Mac back in the day, and was probably a better ballplayer, save for the home runs. Wally was and remained a relative noodle in his career while Mac reached gargantuan size. I'm not saying he's a Hall of Famer, but a purely fringe candidate like McGwire or Sosa, who's numbers spiked with size we saw, belong on the outside in my book.The Hall is an honor and these guys acted dishonorably. What would have been interesting and at least something to think about, is if when the noise and scuttlebutt on roids started in 2000-2002, someone stood up and said "Yeah I did them, whats the big deal, they weren't banned in baseball". To my knowledge there was no such internal advocate. They all kept it a secret and while I can't say I blame them, it tells you they knew they were doing something wrong. The logic of let them all in since we don't know who's guilty is roughly analogous to saying release every criminal from prison because there may be guilty men walking the streets. Just because you don't get them all doesn't mean you shouldn't get the ones you have. And further, if I were the writers, I'd work with the hall and work on drafting some sort of contingency to remove guys from the hall in case we find someone who is found out to have done roids after induction. And given that this is an optional club people are joining, I'd take it one step further and make it part of an entrance interview.PEDs are not an automatic strikeout, there will be and are guys who probably had the career to get in and then added to their tallies as a PED user, like Bonds, Clemens and Pudge Rodrigez. But PEDs should really make a voter think.Fred McGriff, based on size and looking pretty much the same in 1989 as he did in 1999 looks like a worse candidate because of these roid guys.

I couldn't agree more. We need to clean up the Hall and get rid of everyone who used PEDs. Let's start with Willie Mays.

Do you believe Greenies turn from an all star to an immortal in an offseason?And again, greenies were done in the relative light of day across several eras of baseball, which would at least lend balance to numbers in baseball. But if you can't separate the difference, what can I tell you?

That's funny. You make an arbitrary cutoff between drugs because one was more widely used than another. Of course, we don't know how widely used either was really. And the amphetamines taken by the players were specifically used to rejuvenate their body against the grind of the baseball season. So that they could perform better when they were exhausted and push their bodies further. Hmmm...kinda sounds like HGH eh?I've never understood why people get all up in arms about steroids.1) Why do you care? 2) Why do you differentiate between all other technological advances?3) Why do you really only care about some players and sports and not others? It's all a joke. Bonds was the greatest player of the steroid era. Willie Mays was the greatest player of the amphetamine era. What's the difference?

Greenies were not a banned substance. Steroids have been since 1992 or so. If you can't see the difference between drinking from the green pot of coffee, in view of press and all teammates and officials and the manner of denials that have accompanied roids, then we disagree. You could fire down three red bulls and replicate the amphetimine effect. This argument is not going to elevate or change roid use. To address your points...1. I care because there was value as a fan and in the sport of maintaining a competitive lineage to statistics. Baseball has of course undergone evolutions that make true comparison impossible, be it segregation, surgical advancements, expansion, but that said, more than any other sport, there is a lineage to the past. Not so in the NFL, the NBA or even by and large the NHL. The selfish actions of these guys put their individual interests over that of the sport. Its value is rather indisputable, as evidenced by the hype, attention and interest in the inital run at the record in 1998. McGwire is not the lone culprit in this scheme, but he's the topic now. McGwire and Sosa enjoyed lots of glory, but a guy, who all visual evidence suggests is clean, and had maintained a rather consistent profile, like Ken Griffey Jr, was denied proper attention and perspective.I will ask you the same question, why do you care if these guys are attacked or don't go in the hall of fame?2. What technological advancement exists that was hidden from view? Arthroscopic surgery, Tommy John, corisone shots, magnet therapy, suppliments, video evaluation, these were all done in the light of day. Why was this great advancement done in the dark of night? 3. I do care about other sports, and as a baseball fan find this national hand wrenching to be a joke and somewhat sickening. How the NFL freakshow, between the concussions and the roids and life expectancy far less than the national average gets a pass while baseball goes on the carpet, with a more stringent, albeit imperfect testing program, is literally mindboggling. I don't know how they skate but its wrong too. I guess MLB should take pride its on a rarified plane and the expectation is higher. The difference is, Bonds didn't make the All-Century team in his prime. He broke the rules to earn the hollow crown you've given him. If all things were equal, I would say Griffey Jr., who did make that team, was the greatest player of this generation. Others abdicated that honor by their choices so we'll never know.

 

[oso diablo]

The difference is, Bonds didn't make the All-Century team in his prime. He broke the rules to earn the hollow crown you've given him. If all things were equal, I would say Griffey Jr., who did make that team, was the greatest player of this generation. Others abdicated that honor by their choices so we'll never know.

that's pretty arbitrary. I can make a solid argument that Bonds was the best player in the 90s. Let's not forget that the All-Century team was chosen by fan voting, a process where luminaries like Stan Musial, Honus Wagner, and Christy Mathewson were not selected (they - plus Warren Spahn and Lefty Grove - were added later by a select panel). I might also note that one of the two 1B selected was Mark McGwire.

 

[Wrigley]

The difference is, Bonds didn't make the All-Century team in his prime. He broke the rules to earn the hollow crown you've given him. If all things were equal, I would say Griffey Jr., who did make that team, was the greatest player of this generation. Others abdicated that honor by their choices so we'll never know.

that's pretty arbitrary. I can make a solid argument that Bonds was the best player in the 90s. Let's not forget that the All-Century team was chosen by fan voting, a process where luminaries like Stan Musial, Honus Wagner, and Christy Mathewson were not selected (they - plus Warren Spahn and Lefty Grove - were added later by a select panel).

I might also note that one of the two 1B selected was Mark McGwire.

I'm sure that really pissed Bonds off

 

[whoknew]

1. I care because there was value as a fan and in the sport of maintaining a competitive lineage to statistics. Baseball has of course undergone evolutions that make true comparison impossible, be it segregation, surgical advancements, expansion, but that said, more than any other sport, there is a lineage to the past. Not so in the NFL, the NBA or even by and large the NHL. The selfish actions of these guys put their individual interests over that of the sport. Its value is rather indisputable, as evidenced by the hype, attention and interest in the inital run at the record in 1998. McGwire is not the lone culprit in this scheme, but he's the topic now. McGwire and Sosa enjoyed lots of glory, but a guy, who all visual evidence suggests is clean, and had maintained a rather consistent profile, like Ken Griffey Jr, was denied proper attention and perspective.I will ask you the same question, why do you care if these guys are attacked or don't go in the hall of fame?2. What technological advancement exists that was hidden from view? Arthroscopic surgery, Tommy John, corisone shots, magnet therapy, suppliments, video evaluation, these were all done in the light of day. Why was this great advancement done in the dark of night? 3. I do care about other sports, and as a baseball fan find this national hand wrenching to be a joke and somewhat sickening. How the NFL freakshow, between the concussions and the roids and life expectancy far less than the national average gets a pass while baseball goes on the carpet, with a more stringent, albeit imperfect testing program, is literally mindboggling. I don't know how they skate but its wrong too. I guess MLB should take pride its on a rarified plane and the expectation is higher. The difference is, Bonds didn't make the All-Century team in his prime. He broke the rules to earn the hollow crown you've given him. If all things were equal, I would say Griffey Jr., who did make that team, was the greatest player of this generation. Others abdicated that honor by their choices so we'll never know.

1) I think this is a weird argument. I'm pretty sure every single player in the history of baseball put their own interests over those of the sport. It's not their responsibility to look out for the sport. And even the ones running baseball didn't care about steroids - hell the owners and commissioner practically endorsed them. Baseball has a long history of cheating. It's part of the game. I'm not sure why we should make a moral judgment on these "cheaters" and let all the others pass. It makes no sense.And to answer your question - I really don't care. I think a lot of HOF voters are stupid anyway and it's quite possibly unethical for them to even be voting on it. It's just that I've never understood the outrage towards steroids. I obviously think it's silly. I love baseball and LOVED watching McGwire and Bonds hit. I will never forget that baseball that McGwire launched about 100000 feet into the Kingdome upper deck off of Randy Johnson. Was he on steroids when he did it? Don't care. It was awesome.2) That's a very strange line to draw. Whether something was hidden from view? Then what about greenies? The average fan didn't know about it. Reporters did but they never talked about it - not until recently when steroids came up. I just really don't understand this reasoning at all. Steroids were known just as much as Mickey Mantle's drinking or Willie Mays'* greenies or whatever. I reckon this is just another way for you to backup your moral outrage about steroids. For whatever reason, you (and many others) consider steroids inherently worse than other drugs/advances. * I keep singling out Willie Mays on the amphetamines. I've obviously nothing against Willie Mays or the greenies he took. I don't care at all and would gladly have vote for him for the HOF.3) Ok. Glad to see you care about it in other sports. At least that's consistent. I obviously consistently don't care who uses what.I don't know why we should be too worried about Griffey. Like you said - he was on the all-century team and is regarded as an all-time great. What's he missing out on? That he's not regarded as better than Bonds? He wasn't. That's no knock on him. He was amazing.I reckon we are on opposite ends of the spectrum on this and will never agree. I just don't care about steroids and think it's silly that others do.

 

[Smack Tripper]

The difference is, Bonds didn't make the All-Century team in his prime. He broke the rules to earn the hollow crown you've given him. If all things were equal, I would say Griffey Jr., who did make that team, was the greatest player of this generation. Others abdicated that honor by their choices so we'll never know.

that's pretty arbitrary. I can make a solid argument that Bonds was the best player in the 90s. Let's not forget that the All-Century team was chosen by fan voting, a process where luminaries like Stan Musial, Honus Wagner, and Christy Mathewson were not selected (they - plus Warren Spahn and Lefty Grove - were added later by a select panel). I might also note that one of the two 1B selected was Mark McGwire.

I agree on the relatively arbitrary nature of it, but by the same token, it's a milemarker in perspective on a player. As I recall there was no outrage or umbrige with that choice at the time. Bonds entered in the new milenium an age which for A hundred years had been a period of decline, getting past age 33. It was entirely unprecedented his revival and surpassing of all he had done historically. To not see rouds as the cause is insane

 

[Twilight]

Greenies were not a banned substance. Steroids have been since 1992 or so. If you can't see the difference between drinking from the green pot of coffee, in view of press and all teammates and officials and the manner of denials that have accompanied roids, then we disagree. You could fire down three red bulls and replicate the amphetimine effect. This argument is not going to elevate or change roid use. To address your points...

So you are OK with McGwire's use of them in 89-90?

 

[Snotbubbles]

I kinda get what you are saying here. But it' not nearly a cut and dried a that.My personal gut feeling is pretty much in line with you. My gut tells me that roids make you stronger. Being stronger probably means you can hit the ball harder without having to sacrifice contact. My gut tell me that roids probably turn lazy line outs into singles, tracked down fly balls into doubles into the gap and warning track outs into HRs.However, even if all that is true (and it's far from true, it's all my best guess), we still don't know what that means for a players numbers. How many warning track shots become HRs over a career? When we look at McGwire specifically, he hit 583 HRs over his career. You could take away at least 10% of them and he still has HOF numbers. You could probably take 15-20% away and he would till be in the discussion, at worst. Did roids give him an extra 90 HRs over the course of his career? Seriously, who can answer that? No one can.

McGwires HR/AB prior to 1989: 13.8McGwires HR/AB after 1989: 10.7So if you take his total ABs and use his pre-1989 HRs per AB you get: 448 HRsThat would be just my guess at where he would have finished had he not taken roids.

 

[Snotbubbles]

Greenies were not a banned substance. Steroids have been since 1992 or so. If you can't see the difference between drinking from the green pot of coffee, in view of press and all teammates and officials and the manner of denials that have accompanied roids, then we disagree. You could fire down three red bulls and replicate the amphetimine effect. This argument is not going to elevate or change roid use. To address your points...

So you are OK with McGwire's use of them in 89-90?

I would be, unless specifically prohibited by MLB.

 

[boubucarow]

I kinda get what you are saying here. But it' not nearly a cut and dried a that.My personal gut feeling is pretty much in line with you. My gut tells me that roids make you stronger. Being stronger probably means you can hit the ball harder without having to sacrifice contact. My gut tell me that roids probably turn lazy line outs into singles, tracked down fly balls into doubles into the gap and warning track outs into HRs.However, even if all that is true (and it's far from true, it's all my best guess), we still don't know what that means for a players numbers. How many warning track shots become HRs over a career? When we look at McGwire specifically, he hit 583 HRs over his career. You could take away at least 10% of them and he still has HOF numbers. You could probably take 15-20% away and he would till be in the discussion, at worst. Did roids give him an extra 90 HRs over the course of his career? Seriously, who can answer that? No one can.

McGwires HR/AB prior to 1989: 13.8McGwires HR/AB after 1989: 10.7So if you take his total ABs and use his pre-1989 HRs per AB you get: 448 HRsThat would be just my guess at where he would have finished had he not taken roids.

If healthy, which is a big if, his HR/AB probably would have bumped up a bit as is common with batters in their early 30's. It would have been possible for him to get to 500, but I really do question if he could have played any where near as many games in order to do so.

 

[Daywalker]

Add me to the put all of them in the Hall if their numbers fit the bill. My assumption that even if all players knowingly connected to steroids are kept out of the Hall, there will be multiple players that are voted in that simply were better at keeping their use a secret. In other words, we will never know for sure who did and didn't and attempting to keep users out will be a futile exercise and every player will be questioned.In regards to McGwire's use, there is no question that he had big time power long before using. There is also no question he would aid his OBP with a high walk rate from day one. So if we are trying to examine the affects of his use on his performance I think we need to look at three things.First, would he been able to recover after 1994 to become an everyday elite player once again without using? He had missed 250+ games in 93-94 at the age of 29-30. He played 104 games in 95 and then began playing nearly full seasons til 99.Second, would his batting average had been high enough to maintain the OBP that is his other significant HOF quality stat? From 87-92, he was a maybe a 240-245 hitter with a 350-355 OBP. From 95-00, he was 270+ hitter with 400+ OBP. Did steroids help him get the extra 15 or so hits a season to raise his average and therefore his OBP into to the elite category?Lastly, does he hit 70 homers in 98 and 583 homers overall? He was 35+ HR guy from 87-92 and then a 50+ HR guy from 95-00. Increasing your HR rate in your early 30's is actually pretty common but a jump from 30+ for multiple seasons to 50+ for multiple seasons is only matched by his steroid contemporaries.Again, I don't think we can pick and choose players we may think that are clean from this era with enough certainty to keep all of the users out. Accordingly, everyone should be allowed in IMO. Yet, I do think it is interesting to examine the possible effects of steroids on performance just the same and McGwire does give us an good case study.

The Hall of Fame is not a democracy and its not a right. And its not a place to condemn the innocent by condoning the guilty. These guys had their fame and fortune by using roids and the real unfortunate byproduct of their conduct to me is not the millions they personally generated for themselves, or the bad example they set to fellow players and aspiring ballplayers. Their biggest crime is the tipping of the playing field and skewing the perspective of clean players. MLB network last night brought up Wally Joyner, who looked similar to Mac back in the day, and was probably a better ballplayer, save for the home runs. Wally was and remained a relative noodle in his career while Mac reached gargantuan size. I'm not saying he's a Hall of Famer, but a purely fringe candidate like McGwire or Sosa, who's numbers spiked with size we saw, belong on the outside in my book.The Hall is an honor and these guys acted dishonorably. What would have been interesting and at least something to think about, is if when the noise and scuttlebutt on roids started in 2000-2002, someone stood up and said "Yeah I did them, whats the big deal, they weren't banned in baseball". To my knowledge there was no such internal advocate. They all kept it a secret and while I can't say I blame them, it tells you they knew they were doing something wrong. The logic of let them all in since we don't know who's guilty is roughly analogous to saying release every criminal from prison because there may be guilty men walking the streets. Just because you don't get them all doesn't mean you shouldn't get the ones you have. And further, if I were the writers, I'd work with the hall and work on drafting some sort of contingency to remove guys from the hall in case we find someone who is found out to have done roids after induction. And given that this is an optional club people are joining, I'd take it one step further and make it part of an entrance interview.PEDs are not an automatic strikeout, there will be and are guys who probably had the career to get in and then added to their tallies as a PED user, like Bonds, Clemens and Pudge Rodrigez. But PEDs should really make a voter think.Fred McGriff, based on size and looking pretty much the same in 1989 as he did in 1999 looks like a worse candidate because of these roid guys.

I don't necessarily disagree with you on your thinking. I just fall on the other side since we have no idea who else took PEDs or when they took them and I don't want to reward those players either. Since the Hall will take players from the era, I don't think a line can be drawn since we don't really know for any specific player if they really were clean. All or nothing even though I don't like it.

So you are saying it's not fair to people like McGwire if other steroid users sneak into the HOF? Give me a break. In McGwire's case we are not drawing a line in the sand. He admitted to it.

 

[shadyridr]

I kinda get what you are saying here. But it' not nearly a cut and dried a that.My personal gut feeling is pretty much in line with you. My gut tells me that roids make you stronger. Being stronger probably means you can hit the ball harder without having to sacrifice contact. My gut tell me that roids probably turn lazy line outs into singles, tracked down fly balls into doubles into the gap and warning track outs into HRs.However, even if all that is true (and it's far from true, it's all my best guess), we still don't know what that means for a players numbers. How many warning track shots become HRs over a career? When we look at McGwire specifically, he hit 583 HRs over his career. You could take away at least 10% of them and he still has HOF numbers. You could probably take 15-20% away and he would till be in the discussion, at worst. Did roids give him an extra 90 HRs over the course of his career? Seriously, who can answer that? No one can.

McGwires HR/AB prior to 1989: 13.8McGwires HR/AB after 1989: 10.7So if you take his total ABs and use his pre-1989 HRs per AB you get: 448 HRsThat would be just my guess at where he would have finished had he not taken roids.

If healthy, which is a big if, his HR/AB probably would have bumped up a bit as is common with batters in their early 30's. It would have been possible for him to get to 500, but I really do question if he could have played any where near as many games in order to do so.

People forget that McGwire started sucking towards the end of his A's career mostly due to injuries. He looked like a player on his decline

 

[Smack Tripper]

Greenies were not a banned substance. Steroids have been since 1992 or so. If you can't see the difference between drinking from the green pot of coffee, in view of press and all teammates and officials and the manner of denials that have accompanied roids, then we disagree. You could fire down three red bulls and replicate the amphetimine effect. This argument is not going to elevate or change roid use. To address your points...

So you are OK with McGwire's use of them in 89-90?

I'm not OK, but I'm more ok with it than post 1992 when there was a clearcut ban on them across baseball. My biggest issue, overall, frankly, is probably the irreparable damage to a near centuries worth of history. Had McGwire broken the home run record in 1990, it would be a different case.

 

[Limp Ditka]

Greenies were not a banned substance. Steroids have been since 1992 or so. If you can't see the difference between drinking from the green pot of coffee, in view of press and all teammates and officials and the manner of denials that have accompanied roids, then we disagree. You could fire down three red bulls and replicate the amphetimine effect. This argument is not going to elevate or change roid use. To address your points...

So you are OK with McGwire's use of them in 89-90?

I'm not OK, but I'm more ok with it than post 1992 when there was a clearcut ban on them across baseball. My biggest issue, overall, frankly, is probably the irreparable damage to a near centuries worth of history. Had McGwire broken the home run record in 1990, it would be a different case.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/art...51761/index.htmWhile not singled out by name, illegal use of steroids has been banned in Baseball since 1971 as the policy put in place at that time stated that all Federal and Local Drug Laws needed to be adhered to.

 

[Your Mom]

So, basically..."I took roids because of injuries and I really regret it. But it had nothing to do with me hitting 70 and ultimately 580 home runs, it was my hand eye coordination, roids had nothing to do with my success"I give him credit for admitting roids, but I wish ONE of these guys, other than David Segui, would say, I did this because it made me better. I don't even know if he believes that, I think these guys can warp their lies in their own mind and believe their story. I think Bonds, A-Rod and Clemens are all in the same boat, they did roids ,but really don't believe it helped them. Massive ego play here.

I'm gonna puke if I hear the hand/eye coordination excuse again. We know these guys had God given skills but the extra strength, bat speed, recovery, etc. is a huge boost. Who knows to what extent growth hormones and other designer drugs were in the mix too... If they didn't help, why did you lie about it for so long?

Couldn't agree more. I am so tired of hearing about steriods that I don't even listen to sports radio or any other sports station for a couple days after someone else admits it. It's a joke. Damn cheaters.

 

[Smack Tripper]

1. I care because there was value as a fan and in the sport of maintaining a competitive lineage to statistics. Baseball has of course undergone evolutions that make true comparison impossible, be it segregation, surgical advancements, expansion, but that said, more than any other sport, there is a lineage to the past. Not so in the NFL, the NBA or even by and large the NHL. The selfish actions of these guys put their individual interests over that of the sport. Its value is rather indisputable, as evidenced by the hype, attention and interest in the inital run at the record in 1998. McGwire is not the lone culprit in this scheme, but he's the topic now. McGwire and Sosa enjoyed lots of glory, but a guy, who all visual evidence suggests is clean, and had maintained a rather consistent profile, like Ken Griffey Jr, was denied proper attention and perspective.I will ask you the same question, why do you care if these guys are attacked or don't go in the hall of fame?2. What technological advancement exists that was hidden from view? Arthroscopic surgery, Tommy John, corisone shots, magnet therapy, suppliments, video evaluation, these were all done in the light of day. Why was this great advancement done in the dark of night? 3. I do care about other sports, and as a baseball fan find this national hand wrenching to be a joke and somewhat sickening. How the NFL freakshow, between the concussions and the roids and life expectancy far less than the national average gets a pass while baseball goes on the carpet, with a more stringent, albeit imperfect testing program, is literally mindboggling. I don't know how they skate but its wrong too. I guess MLB should take pride its on a rarified plane and the expectation is higher. The difference is, Bonds didn't make the All-Century team in his prime. He broke the rules to earn the hollow crown you've given him. If all things were equal, I would say Griffey Jr., who did make that team, was the greatest player of this generation. Others abdicated that honor by their choices so we'll never know.

1) I think this is a weird argument. I'm pretty sure every single player in the history of baseball put their own interests over those of the sport. It's not their responsibility to look out for the sport. And even the ones running baseball didn't care about steroids - hell the owners and commissioner practically endorsed them. Baseball has a long history of cheating. It's part of the game. I'm not sure why we should make a moral judgment on these "cheaters" and let all the others pass. It makes no sense.And to answer your question - I really don't care. I think a lot of HOF voters are stupid anyway and it's quite possibly unethical for them to even be voting on it. It's just that I've never understood the outrage towards steroids. I obviously think it's silly. I love baseball and LOVED watching McGwire and Bonds hit. I will never forget that baseball that McGwire launched about 100000 feet into the Kingdome upper deck off of Randy Johnson. Was he on steroids when he did it? Don't care. It was awesome.2) That's a very strange line to draw. Whether something was hidden from view? Then what about greenies? The average fan didn't know about it. Reporters did but they never talked about it - not until recently when steroids came up. I just really don't understand this reasoning at all. Steroids were known just as much as Mickey Mantle's drinking or Willie Mays'* greenies or whatever. I reckon this is just another way for you to backup your moral outrage about steroids. For whatever reason, you (and many others) consider steroids inherently worse than other drugs/advances. * I keep singling out Willie Mays on the amphetamines. I've obviously nothing against Willie Mays or the greenies he took. I don't care at all and would gladly have vote for him for the HOF.3) Ok. Glad to see you care about it in other sports. At least that's consistent. I obviously consistently don't care who uses what.I don't know why we should be too worried about Griffey. Like you said - he was on the all-century team and is regarded as an all-time great. What's he missing out on? That he's not regarded as better than Bonds? He wasn't. That's no knock on him. He was amazing.I reckon we are on opposite ends of the spectrum on this and will never agree. I just don't care about steroids and think it's silly that others do.

1. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not condoning MLB. I understand players doing this, they look for an edge, but the hierachy, from teams to trainers to owners to the ol Milwaukee Used Car Salesman himself, deserve as much if not more of the blame. For Bud to continually pat himself on the back for putting out the house he set on fire is utterly sickening. Even McGwire apologizing to Bud made me sick yesterday, that guy has never hung like all these idiot players have.I will say this though, yeah, Mac Crushing RJ was great, but at some point, don't you really connect with the competitive nature of these matchups? I mean, I'm sure Big Mac hitting a super ball with an aluminum bat could hit a ball further than we've seen but knowing that the scales were tipped in that matchup frankly takes the appeal away to me.2. Call it a strange line if you want, but I find it hard to believe that you don't see the difference. Look at it this way, they came to light post WWII and went away in 2006. Did numbers really increase or decrease in the post amphetimine age? I think your premise is thus debatable, where as, numbers and players both got demonstratively bigger in the roid era. Its very much apples to oranges in my mind, sort of like throwing a spitter versus putting a bug in the dugout. Both are "cheating" but I think we can delinate which is worse.3. Griffey is the least of my concern, but he was a guy on my mind today. But every step of the way, for every player that cheated, another one did two. His numbers were less, meaning less playing time, accolades, awards, etc. Jose Canseco beats out Mike Greenwell for MVP in 88. Thats not a stolen legacy.I am with you that we will simply disagree on this. But I don't see what we're arguing about either, you got to enjoy these guys and those people that want to punish through HOF exclusion are getting their way.

 

[Night Hawks]

It's funny, we essentially make McGwire "give back" all of his HRs that he hit. Not literally, but that's exactly what we do. In the hearts and minds of baseball fans, those HRs don't exist.

However, no one seems interested in having MLB give back any of the extra money they made over the 12 years because of McGuire and Sosa. Sure, McGuire/Sosa did well financially, but that's nothing compared to what they gave MLB. They probably got underpaid for what they did.

History will look at McGwire and these others as villains. Bad guys. Personally, I see them as martyrs.

It may not be a popular thing to say, but MLB is better off because some guys risked their legacy to get ahead (Adam Smith would've been so proud of the Steroid Era).

Is this a thank you to Jose Canseco? His admission started it all.

 

[oso diablo]

Bonds entered in the new milenium an age which for A hundred years had been a period of decline, getting past age 33. It was entirely unprecedented his revival and surpassing of all he had done historically. To not see rouds as the cause is insane

i thought i posted in here, but maybe it was another thread. Hank Aaron set career best marks in HR, OPS, and OPS+ at age 37.

 

[oso diablo]

McGwires HR/AB prior to 1989: 13.8McGwires HR/AB after 1989: 10.7So if you take his total ABs and use his pre-1989 HRs per AB you get: 448 HRsThat would be just my guess at where he would have finished had he not taken roids.

you'd first need to set a baseline for the average player, or perhaps the typical star player. How does that metric (prefer to see it as HR/PA anyway) look in general? And then compare it to McGwire.

 

[boubucarow]

Add me to the put all of them in the Hall if their numbers fit the bill. My assumption that even if all players knowingly connected to steroids are kept out of the Hall, there will be multiple players that are voted in that simply were better at keeping their use a secret. In other words, we will never know for sure who did and didn't and attempting to keep users out will be a futile exercise and every player will be questioned.In regards to McGwire's use, there is no question that he had big time power long before using. There is also no question he would aid his OBP with a high walk rate from day one. So if we are trying to examine the affects of his use on his performance I think we need to look at three things.First, would he been able to recover after 1994 to become an everyday elite player once again without using? He had missed 250+ games in 93-94 at the age of 29-30. He played 104 games in 95 and then began playing nearly full seasons til 99.Second, would his batting average had been high enough to maintain the OBP that is his other significant HOF quality stat? From 87-92, he was a maybe a 240-245 hitter with a 350-355 OBP. From 95-00, he was 270+ hitter with 400+ OBP. Did steroids help him get the extra 15 or so hits a season to raise his average and therefore his OBP into to the elite category?Lastly, does he hit 70 homers in 98 and 583 homers overall? He was 35+ HR guy from 87-92 and then a 50+ HR guy from 95-00. Increasing your HR rate in your early 30's is actually pretty common but a jump from 30+ for multiple seasons to 50+ for multiple seasons is only matched by his steroid contemporaries.Again, I don't think we can pick and choose players we may think that are clean from this era with enough certainty to keep all of the users out. Accordingly, everyone should be allowed in IMO. Yet, I do think it is interesting to examine the possible effects of steroids on performance just the same and McGwire does give us an good case study.

The Hall of Fame is not a democracy and its not a right. And its not a place to condemn the innocent by condoning the guilty. These guys had their fame and fortune by using roids and the real unfortunate byproduct of their conduct to me is not the millions they personally generated for themselves, or the bad example they set to fellow players and aspiring ballplayers. Their biggest crime is the tipping of the playing field and skewing the perspective of clean players. MLB network last night brought up Wally Joyner, who looked similar to Mac back in the day, and was probably a better ballplayer, save for the home runs. Wally was and remained a relative noodle in his career while Mac reached gargantuan size. I'm not saying he's a Hall of Famer, but a purely fringe candidate like McGwire or Sosa, who's numbers spiked with size we saw, belong on the outside in my book.The Hall is an honor and these guys acted dishonorably. What would have been interesting and at least something to think about, is if when the noise and scuttlebutt on roids started in 2000-2002, someone stood up and said "Yeah I did them, whats the big deal, they weren't banned in baseball". To my knowledge there was no such internal advocate. They all kept it a secret and while I can't say I blame them, it tells you they knew they were doing something wrong. The logic of let them all in since we don't know who's guilty is roughly analogous to saying release every criminal from prison because there may be guilty men walking the streets. Just because you don't get them all doesn't mean you shouldn't get the ones you have. And further, if I were the writers, I'd work with the hall and work on drafting some sort of contingency to remove guys from the hall in case we find someone who is found out to have done roids after induction. And given that this is an optional club people are joining, I'd take it one step further and make it part of an entrance interview.PEDs are not an automatic strikeout, there will be and are guys who probably had the career to get in and then added to their tallies as a PED user, like Bonds, Clemens and Pudge Rodrigez. But PEDs should really make a voter think.Fred McGriff, based on size and looking pretty much the same in 1989 as he did in 1999 looks like a worse candidate because of these roid guys.

I don't necessarily disagree with you on your thinking. I just fall on the other side since we have no idea who else took PEDs or when they took them and I don't want to reward those players either. Since the Hall will take players from the era, I don't think a line can be drawn since we don't really know for any specific player if they really were clean. All or nothing even though I don't like it.

So you are saying it's not fair to people like McGwire if other steroid users sneak into the HOF? Give me a break. In McGwire's case we are not drawing a line in the sand. He admitted to it.

That isn't even close to what I am saying. If the writers continue to not vote for players they think took steroids, not only will they eventually vote players in that did took PEDs but they will also eventually keep out a player who didn't take PEDs and belongs in the Hall. So, the writers will be making moral judgments on each and every player and if 25%+ of the voters think he took PEDs, the player will never get in the Hall of Fame whether or not they took anything. I see the need for fans and even other players to want to punish the McGwires and Bonds of the world who cheated to be better and may have cost other players chances at awards, more wins, more stats, etc.... However, the problem wasn't just the players taking the PEDs. It was the entire establishment around them that knew what was happening and turned a blind eye. Do any of you seriously thing that LaRussa had no clue until this week, for example? I think scapegoating the few who got caught begins to lessen the blame on everyone else. The MLB wants the bad guys to blame this on.This is how I think the situation could be handled in order for baseball to do its best to put this behind them and to clean up the game for the near future. Set a date this year. That date will be the last time that any player or former player can come clean and admit their use of PEDs with no ramifications. If you admit to use before that date, you will be eligible for the Hall of Fame. (I do realize the problem in this plan is to somehow force the writers to vote with a blind eye to PEDs). If elected, your plaque will read simply that you took PEDs even if you took them once or took them your whole career. There will be a place in the Hall devoted to steroids and the steroids era including a clear explanation of the damaged effects of PEDs.If a player doesn't admit to PED use and at some point there is factual evidence of some sort that implicates his use at any point in future, he is banned from the Hall of Fame and more so I wouldn't mind a complete ban from baseball for life. No it isn't perfect and it is still possible for a player to sneak in the Hall without a confession. But what is currently happening where writers decide who did and didn't take steroids will cost a deserving player of the highest honor and also will ignore this period of time as if a few bad guys did something wrong and it was not a system wide epidemic.

 

[Snotbubbles]

Bonds entered in the new milenium an age which for A hundred years had been a period of decline, getting past age 33. It was entirely unprecedented his revival and surpassing of all he had done historically. To not see rouds as the cause is insane

i thought i posted in here, but maybe it was another thread. Hank Aaron set career best marks in HR, OPS, and OPS+ at age 37.

I just looked at Bonds numbers. He had 120 IBB one year. That's nuts.

 

[Snotbubbles]

That isn't even close to what I am saying. If the writers continue to not vote for players they think took steroids, not only will they eventually vote players in that did took PEDs but they will also eventually keep out a player who didn't take PEDs and belongs in the Hall. So, the writers will be making moral judgments on each and every player and if 25%+ of the voters think he took PEDs, the player will never get in the Hall of Fame whether or not they took anything. I see the need for fans and even other players to want to punish the McGwires and Bonds of the world who cheated to be better and may have cost other players chances at awards, more wins, more stats, etc.... However, the problem wasn't just the players taking the PEDs. It was the entire establishment around them that knew what was happening and turned a blind eye. Do any of you seriously thing that LaRussa had no clue until this week, for example? I think scapegoating the few who got caught begins to lessen the blame on everyone else. The MLB wants the bad guys to blame this on.This is how I think the situation could be handled in order for baseball to do its best to put this behind them and to clean up the game for the near future. Set a date this year. That date will be the last time that any player or former player can come clean and admit their use of PEDs with no ramifications. If you admit to use before that date, you will be eligible for the Hall of Fame. (I do realize the problem in this plan is to somehow force the writers to vote with a blind eye to PEDs). If elected, your plaque will read simply that you took PEDs even if you took them once or took them your whole career. There will be a place in the Hall devoted to steroids and the steroids era including a clear explanation of the damaged effects of PEDs.If a player doesn't admit to PED use and at some point there is factual evidence of some sort that implicates his use at any point in future, he is banned from the Hall of Fame and more so I wouldn't mind a complete ban from baseball for life. No it isn't perfect and it is still possible for a player to sneak in the Hall without a confession. But what is currently happening where writers decide who did and didn't take steroids will cost a deserving player of the highest honor and also will ignore this period of time as if a few bad guys did something wrong and it was not a system wide epidemic.

Couple things.1. MLB has nothing to do with who gets into the HOF. 2. How do you determine if a player got in due to PED use or not. The simple solution is to just create a wing in the HOF called the "steriod era" players. And call them "steriod era" HOFers. Just turn a blind eye to PED use altogether.

 

[Snotbubbles]

McGwires HR/AB prior to 1989: 13.8McGwires HR/AB after 1989: 10.7So if you take his total ABs and use his pre-1989 HRs per AB you get: 448 HRsThat would be just my guess at where he would have finished had he not taken roids.

you'd first need to set a baseline for the average player, or perhaps the typical star player. How does that metric (prefer to see it as HR/PA anyway) look in general? And then compare it to McGwire.

Are you talking about players in the steriod era, or non steriod era.For instance,Hank Aaron HR per AB under age 29: 16.8Hank Aaron HR per AB over age 29: 15.9Mike Schmidt HR per AB under age 29: 15.8Mike Schmidt HR per AB over age 29: 14.8Willie Mays HR per AB under age 29: 16.7Willie Mays HR per AB over age 29: 16.3Not a huge difference for those players.Here goes some steriod era players:Rafeal Palmiero HR per AB under age 29: 27.7Rafeal Palmiero HR per AB over age 29: 14.9Barry Bonds HR per AB under age 29: 17.4Barry Bonds HR per AB over age 29: 10.6

 

[boubucarow]

That isn't even close to what I am saying. If the writers continue to not vote for players they think took steroids, not only will they eventually vote players in that did took PEDs but they will also eventually keep out a player who didn't take PEDs and belongs in the Hall. So, the writers will be making moral judgments on each and every player and if 25%+ of the voters think he took PEDs, the player will never get in the Hall of Fame whether or not they took anything. I see the need for fans and even other players to want to punish the McGwires and Bonds of the world who cheated to be better and may have cost other players chances at awards, more wins, more stats, etc.... However, the problem wasn't just the players taking the PEDs. It was the entire establishment around them that knew what was happening and turned a blind eye. Do any of you seriously thing that LaRussa had no clue until this week, for example? I think scapegoating the few who got caught begins to lessen the blame on everyone else. The MLB wants the bad guys to blame this on.This is how I think the situation could be handled in order for baseball to do its best to put this behind them and to clean up the game for the near future. Set a date this year. That date will be the last time that any player or former player can come clean and admit their use of PEDs with no ramifications. If you admit to use before that date, you will be eligible for the Hall of Fame. (I do realize the problem in this plan is to somehow force the writers to vote with a blind eye to PEDs). If elected, your plaque will read simply that you took PEDs even if you took them once or took them your whole career. There will be a place in the Hall devoted to steroids and the steroids era including a clear explanation of the damaged effects of PEDs.If a player doesn't admit to PED use and at some point there is factual evidence of some sort that implicates his use at any point in future, he is banned from the Hall of Fame and more so I wouldn't mind a complete ban from baseball for life. No it isn't perfect and it is still possible for a player to sneak in the Hall without a confession. But what is currently happening where writers decide who did and didn't take steroids will cost a deserving player of the highest honor and also will ignore this period of time as if a few bad guys did something wrong and it was not a system wide epidemic.

Couple things.1. MLB has nothing to do with who gets into the HOF. 2. How do you determine if a player got in due to PED use or not. The simple solution is to just create a wing in the HOF called the "steriod era" players. And call them "steriod era" HOFers. Just turn a blind eye to PED use altogether.

I am aware of the first point and I highlighted the difficulty of that to a degree. Even if MLB enacted such guidelines, the voters are under no obligation to follow. To the second point, you never truly will know but if you can "force" the voter to allow in worthy players no matter their PED use, you can then make it a simple admit now and you can be in the Hall of Fame with an * or if you are ever factually tied to using PEDs (even investigations that prove you bought PEDs), you will be banned. Hopefully, the scare of never being part of baseball history is enough to cleanse out the dirty pass of the MLB as much as possible. It doesn't matter if PED is the reason for their HOF worthy performance or not. All users should be in the same boat.If that could happen, then the players who are clean can be in the Hall of Fame with significantly less worry of being tied to the "Steriod Era" in a damning manner.

 

[oso diablo]

McGwires HR/AB prior to 1989: 13.8McGwires HR/AB after 1989: 10.7So if you take his total ABs and use his pre-1989 HRs per AB you get: 448 HRsThat would be just my guess at where he would have finished had he not taken roids.

you'd first need to set a baseline for the average player, or perhaps the typical star player. How does that metric (prefer to see it as HR/PA anyway) look in general? And then compare it to McGwire.

Are you talking about players in the steriod era, or non steriod era.

all of baseball history is what i'd prefer to consider (not asking you to do this).

 

[Chairshot]

Bonds entered in the new milenium an age which for A hundred years had been a period of decline, getting past age 33. It was entirely unprecedented his revival and surpassing of all he had done historically. To not see rouds as the cause is insane

i thought i posted in here, but maybe it was another thread. Hank Aaron set career best marks in HR, OPS, and OPS+ at age 37.

You have said bolded a couple of times recently. What do you feel this fact proves?

 

[Daywalker]

We all know that steroids has boosted the stats of many of players. HR rates etc..

Even the steroid users admit that the drugs helped them stay healthy and get on the field. At the very least that is a major advantage. Ask Mickey Mantle.

McGwire was batting .220 prior to the steroid use. I guess shooting the roids furthered his knowledge of pitchers because the firt 5-6 years didn't.

 

[Smack Tripper]

Bonds entered in the new milenium an age which for A hundred years had been a period of decline, getting past age 33. It was entirely unprecedented his revival and surpassing of all he had done historically. To not see rouds as the cause is insane

i thought i posted in here, but maybe it was another thread. Hank Aaron set career best marks in HR, OPS, and OPS+ at age 37.

He hit 3 more home runs than he had ever hit, Bonds his 23 home runs more than he ever hit at age 36. There are players that have had the occasional great year post 35, from Hank to Ted Williams to Winfield to Molitor, but the point is, they didn't suddenly totally outstrip what they'd ever done. Ted Williams tied his second highest career home run total at 38, he didn't totally blow past what he had ever previously done.

 

[whoknew]

Bonds entered in the new milenium an age which for A hundred years had been a period of decline, getting past age 33. It was entirely unprecedented his revival and surpassing of all he had done historically. To not see rouds as the cause is insane

i thought i posted in here, but maybe it was another thread. Hank Aaron set career best marks in HR, OPS, and OPS+ at age 37.

He hit 3 more home runs than he had ever hit, Bonds his 23 home runs more than he ever hit at age 36. There are players that have had the occasional great year post 35, from Hank to Ted Williams to Winfield to Molitor, but the point is, they didn't suddenly totally outstrip what they'd ever done. Ted Williams tied his second highest career home run total at 38, he didn't totally blow past what he had ever previously done.

We obviously disagree on this issue entirely, but let's take your premise - that players should be punished for using steroids. Ok. How much? How many of Bonds's home runs should we take away because of his steroid use?

 

[boubucarow]

Bonds entered in the new milenium an age which for A hundred years had been a period of decline, getting past age 33. It was entirely unprecedented his revival and surpassing of all he had done historically. To not see rouds as the cause is insane

i thought i posted in here, but maybe it was another thread. Hank Aaron set career best marks in HR, OPS, and OPS+ at age 37.

He hit 3 more home runs than he had ever hit, Bonds his 23 home runs more than he ever hit at age 36. There are players that have had the occasional great year post 35, from Hank to Ted Williams to Winfield to Molitor, but the point is, they didn't suddenly totally outstrip what they'd ever done. Ted Williams tied his second highest career home run total at 38, he didn't totally blow past what he had ever previously done.

We obviously disagree on this issue entirely, but let's take your premise - that players should be punished for using steroids. Ok. How much? How many of Bonds's home runs should we take away because of his steroid use?

If you choose to punish in that manner, you take away all the homers. You take away their career entirely. It would feel empty though like vacating wins in the NCAA.

 

[comfortably numb]

I have always been surprised that no player ever blew the whistle.

I mean, if you are clean and a good majority you suspect or know, are juicing.

This is potentially keeping you out of a job or keeping millions out of your pocket.

No one loves a rat, but man, just suprised we didn't hear bitter comments about people getting beat by a visibly juiced player.

 

[Wrigley]

Standing ovation for Big Mac

You've got to be ####### kidding me.

 

[Limp Ditka]

Standing ovation for Big MacYou've got to be ####### kidding me.

Where?

 

[Chairshot]

Standing ovation for Big Mac

You've got to be ####### kidding me.

Where?

Here

 

[curta269]

I think its time we revisit the "accomplishments" of one Tony LaRussa. Its obvious his record as a manager should be tainted due to the inflated production of guys like McGwire and Canseco, while he looked the other way. To hear his comments today, its evident he doesn't believe there was much wrong doing.

If you do that, then you are going to have to do the same for every other manager who had players on steroids. Francona, Torre, Baker. I could go on and on.

 

[curta269]

Here is my stance:

1. I just wish these guys that got caught would just say, "I took steroids to get better." Whether it be to hit HRs or strike more guys out. Ever since Pettitte said he did it to get back to the team faster, they all use that excuse, except Canseco. Just quit lying.

2. As far as the HOF, I think the writers shouldn't be voting them in any more. They should let the people in the Hall vote on who gets in.

3. McGwire confessed because Tony and the Cardinals made that part of the deal of him being the hitting coach. If he hadn't, there would be a circus following him around all season. The team doesn't need that.

 

[the moops]

2. As far as the HOF, I think the writers shouldn't be voting them in any more. They should let the people in the Hall vote on who gets in.

Pretty sure this a terrible idea.

 

[Genghis Khan]

2. As far as the HOF, I think the writers shouldn't be voting them in any more. They should let the people in the Hall vote on who gets in.

Pretty sure this a terrible idea.

Actually, it is as American as apple pie. Dead people vote in Chicago, too.

 

[Smack Tripper]

Bonds entered in the new milenium an age which for A hundred years had been a period of decline, getting past age 33. It was entirely unprecedented his revival and surpassing of all he had done historically. To not see rouds as the cause is insane

i thought i posted in here, but maybe it was another thread. Hank Aaron set career best marks in HR, OPS, and OPS+ at age 37.

He hit 3 more home runs than he had ever hit, Bonds his 23 home runs more than he ever hit at age 36. There are players that have had the occasional great year post 35, from Hank to Ted Williams to Winfield to Molitor, but the point is, they didn't suddenly totally outstrip what they'd ever done. Ted Williams tied his second highest career home run total at 38, he didn't totally blow past what he had ever previously done.

We obviously disagree on this issue entirely, but let's take your premise - that players should be punished for using steroids. Ok. How much? How many of Bonds's home runs should we take away because of his steroid use?

I missed this question and didn't get to answer earlier.The numbers are what the numbers are. I find it grossly ironic and disturbing that the MARIS family is actually PUSHING for an asterisk. The time to act was before these records were broken, and the most egregious one was letting Bonds break the all-time record. We had quite a build to 756 and occasional incidents of just cause to suspend Bonds. So the numbers are just that, numbers, and they stay. I think the current penalties are reasonable for a failed test, and the biggest hope I'd have is a uniformity to some management of HGH. I've seen the merits and feasbility of such tests debated, is it possible, is it not, but that is still the big elephant in the room in terms of current usage. And personally, I think the FDA needs to look long and hard about legalizing it, given the many benefits it affords people and the potential quality of life benefits for people across a wide spectrum. But given that its something still in the shadows, I think it deserves to be banned in MLB, probably forever, but I think its a more debatable substance than the other PEDs. The defacto penalty, the only one left to enforce, is the one I've discussed. Keep known users out of the hall of fame, and establish a contingency to potentially remove players found out after induction. And basically, find a consensus on the debate. Guys like Bonds and Clemens were HOFers before they got involved with this stuff whereas guys like McGwire and Sosa and likely Palmiero built their entire candidacy on PED's. I come back to this analogy because its the one most on the brain, but on a level, clean playing field for their career, Fred McGriff was much more the player than any of these guys. Frank Thomas was probably a top 2 hitter of his generation without PEDs who is probably a questionable first ballot guy. These players should be rewarded for their performance and not the skill of their enhancement. Keeping the roid guys out:1. Places value on playing clean2. Punishes those that pursued numbers with roids3. Serves as a deterent to players playing concerned with their legacy. Every guy dreams of the hall, and to know that a shortcut will keep you out rather than get you in, will make those players think twice.And the most important person to keep out of the hall in this era, is Bud Selig. That man should NEVER go in.

 

[boubucarow]

Bonds entered in the new milenium an age which for A hundred years had been a period of decline, getting past age 33. It was entirely unprecedented his revival and surpassing of all he had done historically. To not see rouds as the cause is insane

i thought i posted in here, but maybe it was another thread. Hank Aaron set career best marks in HR, OPS, and OPS+ at age 37.

He hit 3 more home runs than he had ever hit, Bonds his 23 home runs more than he ever hit at age 36. There are players that have had the occasional great year post 35, from Hank to Ted Williams to Winfield to Molitor, but the point is, they didn't suddenly totally outstrip what they'd ever done. Ted Williams tied his second highest career home run total at 38, he didn't totally blow past what he had ever previously done.

We obviously disagree on this issue entirely, but let's take your premise - that players should be punished for using steroids. Ok. How much? How many of Bonds's home runs should we take away because of his steroid use?

I missed this question and didn't get to answer earlier.The numbers are what the numbers are. I find it grossly ironic and disturbing that the MARIS family is actually PUSHING for an asterisk. The time to act was before these records were broken, and the most egregious one was letting Bonds break the all-time record. We had quite a build to 756 and occasional incidents of just cause to suspend Bonds. So the numbers are just that, numbers, and they stay. I think the current penalties are reasonable for a failed test, and the biggest hope I'd have is a uniformity to some management of HGH. I've seen the merits and feasbility of such tests debated, is it possible, is it not, but that is still the big elephant in the room in terms of current usage. And personally, I think the FDA needs to look long and hard about legalizing it, given the many benefits it affords people and the potential quality of life benefits for people across a wide spectrum. But given that its something still in the shadows, I think it deserves to be banned in MLB, probably forever, but I think its a more debatable substance than the other PEDs. The defacto penalty, the only one left to enforce, is the one I've discussed. Keep known users out of the hall of fame, and establish a contingency to potentially remove players found out after induction. And basically, find a consensus on the debate. Guys like Bonds and Clemens were HOFers before they got involved with this stuff whereas guys like McGwire and Sosa and likely Palmiero built their entire candidacy on PED's. I come back to this analogy because its the one most on the brain, but on a level, clean playing field for their career, Fred McGriff was much more the player than any of these guys. Frank Thomas was probably a top 2 hitter of his generation without PEDs who is probably a questionable first ballot guy. These players should be rewarded for their performance and not the skill of their enhancement. Keeping the roid guys out:1. Places value on playing clean2. Punishes those that pursued numbers with roids3. Serves as a deterent to players playing concerned with their legacy. Every guy dreams of the hall, and to know that a shortcut will keep you out rather than get you in, will make those players think twice.And the most important person to keep out of the hall in this era, is Bud Selig. That man should NEVER go in.

How do you know anyone was clean though? And how do we know when Bonds or Clemens began using performance enhancers? If it happens, it has to be an all in or if you used even one, you can't get elected? But also we can't elevate players to Hall of Fame status because they were clean. Of course, Big Hurt has HOF numbers. But not so sure about McGriff (without looking). He shouldn't get a bump because we think he is clean.

 

[Smack Tripper]

i thought i posted in here, but maybe it was another thread. Hank Aaron set career best marks in HR, OPS, and OPS+ at age 37.

He hit 3 more home runs than he had ever hit, Bonds his 23 home runs more than he ever hit at age 36. There are players that have had the occasional great year post 35, from Hank to Ted Williams to Winfield to Molitor, but the point is, they didn't suddenly totally outstrip what they'd ever done. Ted Williams tied his second highest career home run total at 38, he didn't totally blow past what he had ever previously done.

We obviously disagree on this issue entirely, but let's take your premise - that players should be punished for using steroids. Ok. How much? How many of Bonds's home runs should we take away because of his steroid use?

I missed this question and didn't get to answer earlier.The numbers are what the numbers are. I find it grossly ironic and disturbing that the MARIS family is actually PUSHING for an asterisk. The time to act was before these records were broken, and the most egregious one was letting Bonds break the all-time record. We had quite a build to 756 and occasional incidents of just cause to suspend Bonds. So the numbers are just that, numbers, and they stay. I think the current penalties are reasonable for a failed test, and the biggest hope I'd have is a uniformity to some management of HGH. I've seen the merits and feasbility of such tests debated, is it possible, is it not, but that is still the big elephant in the room in terms of current usage. And personally, I think the FDA needs to look long and hard about legalizing it, given the many benefits it affords people and the potential quality of life benefits for people across a wide spectrum. But given that its something still in the shadows, I think it deserves to be banned in MLB, probably forever, but I think its a more debatable substance than the other PEDs. The defacto penalty, the only one left to enforce, is the one I've discussed. Keep known users out of the hall of fame, and establish a contingency to potentially remove players found out after induction. And basically, find a consensus on the debate. Guys like Bonds and Clemens were HOFers before they got involved with this stuff whereas guys like McGwire and Sosa and likely Palmiero built their entire candidacy on PED's. I come back to this analogy because its the one most on the brain, but on a level, clean playing field for their career, Fred McGriff was much more the player than any of these guys. Frank Thomas was probably a top 2 hitter of his generation without PEDs who is probably a questionable first ballot guy. These players should be rewarded for their performance and not the skill of their enhancement. Keeping the roid guys out:1. Places value on playing clean2. Punishes those that pursued numbers with roids3. Serves as a deterent to players playing concerned with their legacy. Every guy dreams of the hall, and to know that a shortcut will keep you out rather than get you in, will make those players think twice.And the most important person to keep out of the hall in this era, is Bud Selig. That man should NEVER go in.

How do you know anyone was clean though? And how do we know when Bonds or Clemens began using performance enhancers? If it happens, it has to be an all in or if you used even one, you can't get elected? But also we can't elevate players to Hall of Fame status because they were clean. Of course, Big Hurt has HOF numbers. But not so sure about McGriff (without looking). He shouldn't get a bump because we think he is clean.

I've been thinking about this. The best thing I've got so far is an under oath "entrance exam" to be considered. Thats why I"d like an avenue for disclosure. If in doubt, I'd favor the all or nothing blackout on users, but it would be nice some how deliniate them from abusers. McGriff doesn't get a bump because he was clean per se, but I think it affords you to recontextualize someone's numbers. If we say oh 500 home runs is nothing these days, I think the PEDs could be part of that perception, but if McGriff can hit 493 home runs that to this point we have to believe are clean, I think it merits a reexamination of his case.

 

[curta269]

2. As far as the HOF, I think the writers shouldn't be voting them in any more. They should let the people in the Hall vote on who gets in.

Pretty sure this a terrible idea.

Why is this a terrible idea? You would rather have a guy that played RF and batted 9th when he was 8 years old as his only baseball experience decide who gets in the Hall instead of someone who knows what it takes to get in?

 

[Eephus]

2. As far as the HOF, I think the writers shouldn't be voting them in any more. They should let the people in the Hall vote on who gets in.

Pretty sure this a terrible idea.

Why is this a terrible idea? You would rather have a guy that played RF and batted 9th when he was 8 years old as his only baseball experience decide who gets in the Hall instead of someone who knows what it takes to get in?

That's how the Veterans Committee currently operates. There's a meeting to get down to a ten man ballot for post-1943 players and then living HoF members get to vote for four of them. 75% is still the standard for induction.It's not a perfect system either. There's an element of cronyism inherent in having the players vote on their peers. There are also guys like Bob Feller, bless his heart bad-a** to the end, who think nobody today could hit his stuff. I guess I'd rather have Jim Bunning voting for HoF members than on health care reform.

 

[Wrigley]

2. As far as the HOF, I think the writers shouldn't be voting them in any more. They should let the people in the Hall vote on who gets in.

Pretty sure this a terrible idea.

Why is this a terrible idea? You would rather have a guy that played RF and batted 9th when he was 8 years old as his only baseball experience decide who gets in the Hall instead of someone who knows what it takes to get in?

I believe moops is trying to say that NO ONE ELSE would ever get in if only HOFers got to voteThey like the club just how it is, small

 

[the moops]

2. As far as the HOF, I think the writers shouldn't be voting them in any more. They should let the people in the Hall vote on who gets in.

Pretty sure this a terrible idea.

Why is this a terrible idea? You would rather have a guy that played RF and batted 9th when he was 8 years old as his only baseball experience decide who gets in the Hall instead of someone who knows what it takes to get in?

I believe moops is trying to say that NO ONE ELSE would ever get in if only HOFers got to voteThey like the club just how it is, small

Pretty much. Although I'm not sure if nobody would get in, but it sure as hell would be much more difficult.Players can be just as obtuse and arrogant as writers when it comes to awards.