Which clearly equates to "wrong" in your mind. It'd be nice if the world was that black and white.

Seems like you absolutely implied this:

So let me understand. I asked if you felt making mistakes in the past meant you were forced to continue making them going forward. You said no, that your reasoning for admitting Bonds was what is quoted above, that he was a "HOFer before he started using." But "cheating is cheating", right? Later you say this:

So which is it? Was Bonds a HOFer before he cheated, or are you in fact OK with repeating mistakes indefinitely because mistakes were made, by a completely different group of people, 25 years ago? For someone who references consistency so often you seem to have a hard time being consistent with your own reasoning.

I said I was finished with you. You reason like a two year old Yes, you're right and the majority is wrong. Happy now?

If this is the best you can do I'll be quite happy with my reasoning abilities. :rolleyes:

To think I started this thread asking for a simple YES or NO response...



Fat Chance!
-

Double NO

Ck the latest results, can`t get much closer and yes, enjoying the debate.

Jenrry Mejía is currently banned for life for using steroids and would be ineligible for the HOF if he had 10 years service. Steve Howe was banned in 1992 for life for violating MLB's drug policy. If it wasn't for the player's union blocking drug testing, Bonds and Clemens and others may have been banned too. The writers are just enforcing MLB's drug policy. These guys broke the rules and hid behind the player's union. Now they are getting what they deserve. Using a spit ball or corked bat gets you a few games. Your comparison is like saying shoplifting and murder deserve the same penalty. They don't.

Wow, with my votes, it's 50/50 split down the middle on Bonds and Clemens.

I voted yes on both. Don't get me wrong. I hate cheating in the game I love. And both men cheated. Steroids have no place in baseball.

But, not voting them in creates a maelstrom, of sorts. We know past generations of baseball players have used things that enhanced their play. Willie Mays spoke of "greenies". Are stimulants the same as steroids? No. But how do we draw the line? And, if we ban players from the Hall who used steroids, do we then have to go back and re-evaluate all the players before, and the evidence that they used things that gave them a competitive advantage? Because, that's what we're ultimately talking about, right? The sanctity of the game.

We don't know for sure when they started using, do we? I've heard people point to when Bonds joined the Giants. Well, he was already well on his way to the Hall of Fame before he went to San Francisco. He had 50 WAR in seven years, and at age 28. Two MVP Awards, an MVP runner up, three Silver Slugger Awards, three Gold Gloves. Bonds had a 147 OPS +, 176 home runs, 251 stolen bases. His 162 game average over those last three years in Pittsburgh are nothing short of spectacular: .301 AVG, 113 runs, 36 doubles, 34 home runs, 122 RBI, 49 stolen bases, 120 walks. His slash line was .424/.566/.990. A 177 OPS + over that span. 26.7 WAR in three seasons. He had a 1.080 OPS the year before he became a Giant. My way of looking at it: the steroids prolonged his career, absolutely. But the guy was already playing at a level of the immortals.

Clemens? By the start of his age 29 season, he'd won three Cy Young Awards, and an MVP. He'd led the league in FIP five of the last six seasons. Between 1986 and 1992 he had a 160 ERA +. Unless he started on the steroids early, which I don't think he did, Clemens was a sensational pitcher and Hall of Fame-worthy before he turned 30. Like Bonds, I think the drugs prolonged his career.

Steroids don't make Hall of Famers out of average baseball players. You can either hit a curve ball, or you can't. You can either hit the corners, or you can't. The whole "vote them in, don't vote them in" is more about the stigma that attaches itself to the sport, and has a hell of a lot less to do with these individuals. If they get voted in, it somehow sullies the sport. But the all-time hit king is already excluded. The all-time home run king is, essentially, excluded. A seven-time Cy Young Award winner is being kept out.

Five guys have hit sixty home runs in a season. Only Ruth is in Cooperstown.

Put them in. Mention on their plaques that they used steroids, and let the individual determine how that changes their perception. But Bonds and Clemens are both arguably among the ten best players ever for their positions.

No, that's how you're reading it and quit putting words in my mouth. Your example has the same consequences for two different crimes.

If you want to use a shoplifting comparison, then I would say it's like stealing a $.03 piece of bubble gum or a $1000 piece of jewelry. In my opinion, there's no difference. A thief is a thief. If you'll steal something little, you'll steal something big. The consequences may be different, but it's still stealing.

Bonds is now out. Now I'm in the majority.

There it is again. The consequences of using a corked bat are you sit a few games and pay a fine. The consequences of using PEDs is you don't get into the HOF. I can't think of a more simplistic way of saying it. Your own argument is basically explaining why there's a difference, and why most voters clearly think one offense deserves a stiffer penalty than the other.

It's a poor analogy. An appropriate analogy would be petty theft vs. armed robbery.

Wow, really?. :rolleyes:

I know the difference in the consequences, but I'm saying the consequences should not be different. You have guys, HOF pitchers like Perry and Ford, that pretty much admit to cheating their entire career. Do you really think it's fair that they get in the HOF and someone that used PEDs doesn't?

Well, again, Perry and Ford are in, so this would be rehashing the point of past mistakes allowing future mistakes. But with the understanding that the magnitude of their offenses is different, yes, I'm fine with their consequences being different. Would you think it was fair if someone received the same slap on the wrist for armed robbery that someone would receive for stealing a pack of gum? Of course not. So I guess it comes down to whether or not you believe PEDs is a more egregious offense than throwing a spitball. Personally, I do. Did Perry throw a spitter EVERY time he threw a pitch? PEDs affected every pitch Clemens threw during the duration of his usage. Did Brett or whomever have a doctored bat every time they stepped to the plate? Every at bat during Bonds' usage was impacted by PEDs. I absolutely feel that the benefits of steroids use are far greater than spitballs and corked bats. Apparently a large portion of voters feel that way too.

You're entitled to your opinion, I'm entitled to mine. The BBWAA will ultimately decide.

both should get. both were the best (among the best) of their era.