POLL: IN or OUT: YES or NO
 

Just a simple YES or NO answer, please. Try not to expand on you answer. I'm just trying to gauge exactly how 'we' stand on this.

Q: Should Barry Bonds and/or Roger Clemens be Inducted into the HOF?

No and no.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Who is this Cemens of whom you speak?

Cemens in, Clemens out.

Clemens - YES
Bonds - YES

Ditto. Yes on both counts!

Both NO (Out).

I said yes and yes.

Yes and yes. It's absurd that these guys -- easily in the top 5 of all time pitchers and batters, respectively -- are out and a ton of far far lesser lights are in.

+1

Too many marginal players in, and Bonds and Clemens were among the greatest players ever. They've already been punished by having to wait at least ten years. Lifetime ban is too harsh.

Sarie - my tipeng has nevurr bin the besst

Joe Jackson has been waiting 82 years. They haven't waited long enough in my opinion.

2 No's for me

They chose their fate

Joe Jackson's transgression was much worse. He participated in a plot to throw the World Series to gamblers. No comparison...although I would probably vote for Joe to get in.

Bonds-yes
Clemens-YES

Neither cheater more than whoever your favorite player is.:D

That's the easiest way to excuse lying and cheating, assume or assert that everyone did it.

no

no

Well, aren't you assuming that Clemens did it? As far as I know (and correct me if I'm wrong), he never failed a test.

Neither did Lance Armstrong.....Or at least he never failed any after the Nike people talked to the UCI people.

It's the same old tired debate, but the same people who get all sanctimonious about roids still revere guys who popped amphetamines like Aaron and Mays.

Armstrong admits it, Clemens denies it.

Ruth ate hot dogs. That's my kind of guy.

I think it's interesting that the "yes" votes are tracking in tandem with the BBWAA.

Clemens-NO, Bonds-NO

Strongly disagree. .375/.394/.563/.956 5 runs 1 HR 6 RBIs 0 errors in 8 games. If that is "throwing" the World Series, then Bonds "threw" 3 NLCS with his .191 BA and 3 RBIs in 20 games.

I know Jackson had the great stats which leads one to believe he changed his mind along the way. But he did take money from the gamblers, didn't he? The first installment was split among the eight players.

Look, I don't condone cheating and personally hate it. But I also hate the incredibly mediocre players that are getting into the Hall in the place of the tainted superstars. Trammell and Morris were fine players but debatable for entry. I guess it's just my general disdain for the HOF.

Hi Barry,

Then Jackson should be punished for stealing money but let's assume he did participate in throwing the series, despite his stats saying otherwise, we are comparing a player's indiscretion over 8 games compared to those who cheated over several hundred games.

Maybe it is time for us to accept that there are really very few superstars in the game who are not cheating but that should not mean we look the other way for the guys who did cheat to become superstars. Bonds was HOF material before he used. I don't think we should be acknowledging his (or anyone else's) accomplishments knowing he broke the rules to achieve them.

Greg

I'm not understanding the greenies argument at all. You can still take the modern equivalent of greenies and play right now so long as you have a prescription. You can't take HGH or anabolic steroids at all, prescription or not. It's not an apt comparison.

Maybe after a four year stretch in Boston where he was 40-39 with an ERA around 4 he discovered the Canadian Fountain of Youth. Just as plausible I guess.

At the end of the day these guys decided to do what they did, they were already greats. Those of us who think no didn't make them do it. They have already enjoyed all of the good things that flowed from it, the adulation, the fame, the contracts and the mockery of the record books. Now they are left to deal with the baggage.

I am certain they will get in.

Using amphetamines without a prescription became a federal crime in about 1970. Do you think the pile of greenies in the clubhouse until baseball banned them in 2006 (I think that's the right date) was all by prescription? So we're cool with players who committed a federal crime repeatedly, but not with players who used HGH?

No on both.

Are you saying Mantle, Mays and Aaron were using greenies in the twilight of their careers post-1970? Mantle had already retired. Mays and Aaron were on their last legs.

You're missing the point, but in any case Aaron was very productive in the early 70s, unless you want to sneer at seasons of 47 and 40 HR and two others in the 30s. The larger point is that according to many sources, greenie use in baseball was rampant, and it's a very safe assumption that many of our heroes used them, even after they became illegal from a federal law perspective.

Why is it safe to assume that? If Mantle used them, he used them before he wasn't allowed to. If Aaron and Mays used them, what do you point to in support of them using greenies at the end of their careers?

no evidence that greenies improved statistics. But there is a ton of evidence that roids and HGH improved stats. No players had their best seasons after 35 until the roid era ad then suddenly 30 players did.

both out
 

It isn't so much the fact that they were using steroids, but what bothers me more is that they continued to lie about it and never admitted to what they were doing. If they had just told the truth I would be more inclined to give them a yes vote.

That's their way of telling you the rules don't apply to them.

Aaron 1971 at age 37 had his highest marks for HR, OBP, SLG, OPS and OPS+.

For this particular instance, I really believe you can believe in the MAN more than the STATS.

Isn't that refreshing?


.

Holding nose, yes.

Their stats are beyond question and they represented an era of baseball that was a part of the story.

one year is not an argument.

Lots of players have an outlying big year later in their careers and Hank had a pair of flukey high ISO years, (surrounded by years that were normal, so that seems unlikely that he only did greenies every other year?)

Plus using only one player is also fallacious. Bonds, Mac, Sosa, Palmeiro ...etc all posted long runs of their best numbers wayy late, they had double peaks.

Since baseball mandated testing did you know thee is no longer a peak at 28 like before? Now , on average so of course individuals may differ, players are peaking right away and declining by 28.

I was only responding to this:

No players had their best seasons after 35 until the roid era

I wasn't making a point about the effect of greenies.

nice card, glws..

No and No.

The problem is how much of their light stems from the juiced bodies they gave themselves. Everyone looks to try to gain an edge; that's human nature and natural competitiveness. These two, and several other late bloomer boomers did so by illegal performance-enhancing drugs. They cheated. They cheated the integrity of the game. They do not belong in the BBHOF---ever.

Sure, there are lesser lights in the BBHOF. That fact has nothing to do with Barry Bonds or Roger Clemons. Pete Rose outshines all those lesser lights. For how little of Pete's HOF career did he actually bet on MLB? Whatever little space of time it was, it was enough for the powers that be to throw him out of the game forever. The Black Sox were involved in throwing a best of nine World Series. Just one lousy World Series.

Just---and it cost them their careers---the rest of their lives. I think that was much, much, much harsher. Barry and Roger made among the biggest boo coo during their careers. They got to keep all that. They got to play MLB as long as they wanted, pretty much.

And you've got the nerve to cry the blues, and carry their torch, and demand their enshrinement. A final thought. Not often mentioned about Barry and Roger, and all "the others", were the many, many, many young guys who thought long and hard about whether they should start taking performance-enhancing drugs to increase their own power, and increase their own chances of making it into the major leagues. For a few of those wannabes, the drugs did more for them than they'd bargained for, and they died young.

'Nuf said. ----Brian Powell

Brian how do you feel about Gaylord Perry?

Or Whitey Ford who was notorious for scuffing baseballs?

Suppose Aaron and Mays and Schmidt took greenies after taking them without a script became a federal crime? Your thoughts on that?

Another issue I have with the steroid /HGH disqualification is that it is inevitable guys who used are going to be voted in because they were more discreet, or perhaps better liked so trainers and such didn't rat them out. I would bet anything it's happened several times already if not more.

The highest paid players, or rather the players who are willing to spend the most on them, have the best masking agents.

Even then, 16.5 inch forearms or a size 9 head are blatantly obvious.

Hell no on both. And never ever too.

In

In

PETER, SORRY FOR THE DELAYED REPLY. I WANTED TIME TO THINK.

A BIG PART OF BASEBALL IS SHEER ENTERTAINMENT, AND I SUPPOSE FOR THAT REASON, GAYLORD PERRY AND HIS WET ANTICS NEVER BOTHERED ME. THE FANS JUST SEEMED TO HAVE A BIG KICK OUT OF PERRY MAKING MOST OF THE BATTERS LOOK BAD.

TO ME AT LEAST, IT WAS LIKE "4 AGAINST ONE IN DODGEBALL"; GAYLORD HAD FOUR UMPIRES WITH THE UP CLOSE AND PERSONAL CHANCE TO NAIL 'EM, AND THEY NEVER DID. THE MAN HAD A WHOLE LOT MORE IN HIS REPERTOIRE GOING FOR HIM, THAN JUST THE GOOBER BALL. AT SOME POINT, THE PSYCHOLOGICAL TORMENT OF THE THOUGHT OF GAYLORD USING HIS TRICK PITCH MUST HAVE HAD AN EFFECT UPON THE BATTERS.

FURTHERMORE, THE WAY HE SEEMED TO COME BACK FROM THE DEAD SEVERAL TIMES OVER THE COURSE OF HIS CAREER. HE WAS GETTING ALONG SO-SO WITH THE GIANTS FOR SEVERAL YEARS UNTIL BREAKING OUT BIG IN 1966. AFTER SEVERAL GOOD YEARS, DOWN HE WENT. THEN, GOING TO CLEVELAND, HE WAS ON TOP AGAIN, HAVING A WHALE OF A '74 UNTIL SOMETHING SET HIM BACK LATE IN THE SEASON. AFTER A DOWNWARD TREND, HE WINDS UP IN SAN DIEGO, AND THEN BLOSSOMS YET AGAIN. PERRY WAS AMAZING.

WHITEY FORD AND ELSTON HOWARD WERE CRAFTY; NO DOUBT ABOUT IT. I GUESS IT WAS CHEATING, TO AN EXTENT. BUT THEN I FOUND THIS BIT ON PRE-WAR GREAT, ROGERS HORNSBY. HE WROTE AN ARTICLE ENTITLED, "YOU'VE GOT TO CHEAT TO WIN". AMONG THE WORDS ROGERS WROTE WERE THESE,

"WHEN I PLAYED SECOND BASE, I USED TO TRIP, KICK, ELBOW, OR SPIKE ANYONE I COULD."

HAROLD FRIEND, WHO WROTE THE PIECE ON GAYLORD PERRY AS A CHEATER, AND FOUND THE ARTICLE BY HORNSBY, AND QUOTED THE ABOVE, MADE THE FOLLOWING COMMENT AFTER ROGERS' ADMISSION: "HE IS NOT ALONE."

GOING BACK TO THE OP, TO WRAP THIS UP. I USED THIS PRIME EXAMPLE IN MY BOOK, NEVER CHEAPER BY THE DOZEN, ON THE STEROID USERS. I BELIEVE WHAT REALLY GOT ATHLETES THINKING ABOUT DOING THEM WORLDWIDE WAS "BIG BEN" JOHNSON, THE CANADIAN SPRINTER, IN THE 1988 OLYMPICS. I SAW THEM ON TV. BEN JOHNSON WAS A STREAMLINED HERCULES. I HAD NEVER SEEN SUCH A MUSCULAR SPRINTER. HE PUT OUR CARL LEWIS AWAY WITH EASE IN THE 100 METERS FINAL, SETTING A WORLD RECORD. HOWEVER, WHEN TEST TIME CAME AFTERWARDS, HE TESTED VERY POSITIVE. HIS GOLD MEDAL WAS STRIPPED, AND HE WAS SENT BACK TO CANADA IN DISGRACE.

TO TRY TO BE SUCCINCT, BASEBALL BECOMES A GAME OF GAUDY NUMBERS. BIG MAC, BARRY BONDS, AND I AM RATHER CERTAIN SAMMY SOSA (AND OTHERS) TAINTED, TARNISHED, AND BLEW AWAY THE HALLOWED NUMBERS OF BASEBALL'S GREATS. THEY DID SO WITH STEROIDS, PERIOD. THIS KIND OF CHEATING IS A CONSTANT SUPER VA-VOOM TO WHAT ABILITY THOSE DUDES ALREADY HAD. YOU CANNOT COMPARE WHAT THOSE DIRTY CHEATING RATS DID TO PERRY'S SOMETIME SLOBBER BALL, OR ELLIE'S SCUFFING UP A BALL SO FORD WOULD MAKE IT DO A DIPSIE-DOODLE TO THE BATTER. AGAIN, IF THE UMPIRES SAW ELLIE OR WHITEY OBVIOUSLY DO IT, THEY WOULD HAVE GIVEN THEM A WET ONE---TO THE SHOWERS!

WHEREAS, WITH SAY BIG MAC, HE SAYS RIGHT BEFORE '98 THAT HE'S GOING FOR MARIS'S RECORD, AND FIRST GAME, HE HITS A TOWERING BLAST THAT LEAVES EVERYBODY SHAKEN, AND HE'S ON THE FRONT PAGE OF THE USA TODAY SPORTS SECTION. I WAS NOT FOLLOWING BASEBALL, BUT EVEN I NOTICED IN THE PHOTO HOW MARK NOW LOOKED LIKE HERCULES. I READ THE ARTICLE. SAID HE WAS TAKING SOMETHING FOR HIS AILING BACK. THAT STUCK IN MY MIND, POSITIVELY AT FIRST. EVENTUALLY, I BECAME POSITIVE THAT WHATEVER HE WAS TAKING FOR HIS BAD BACK WAS NOT ONLY HELPING HIS BACK, BUT HELPING HIS ENTIRE BODY, GIVING HIM SUPER STRENGTH. INSTEAD OF ALL THOSE FLY OUTS, THERE WERE ALL THESE "SEE YAs".

IT JUST WAS NOT RIGHT.

BARRY SAW ALL THIS, AND WHAT IT DID FOR BIG MAC AND SLAMMIN SAMMY, AND DECIDED, "HEY, I'M GONNA GET SOME OF THAT, TOO!"

HE DID.

THE REST IS HISTORY, EXCEPT FOR THE HORROR STORIES THAT CONTINUE TO COME OUT ABOUT THE YOUTH WHO ALSO WATCHED WITH INTRIGUE AND INTEREST, AND DECIDED THEY WERE GOING TO GET SOME "STUFF" TO MAKE THEM GROW BIGGER AND STRONGER, TOO.

GAYLORD, ELSTON, AND WHITEY WERE PLAYING PATTYCAKE, COMPARED TO MARK MCGWIRE, SAMMY SOSA, BARRY BONDS, AND ROGER CLEMONS (AMONG OTHERS).

I AM CERTAIN I WON'T CONVINCE YOU, BUT YOU ASKED A GOOD QUESTION.

HAPPY NEW YEAR, MY FELLOW COLLECTOR. TAKE CARE. ---BRIAN POWELL

Brian, thanks for the response, but I think you've put yourself on a slippery slope, when you say (as I understand you) your objection to cheating depends on what you perceive as the degree of impact. And unless I missed it you didn't address greenies which, I repeat, were illegal to use without a prescription after 1970 or so. I infer you think they were more like pat-a-cake too?

In NASCAR, the old saying says "If you ain't cheating, you ain't trying". In NASCAR, if you are caught cheating, your wins are taken away and your records disappear. Did that happen in baseball? Nope. MLB reaped all the benefits of the home runs of the steroid era. There was no way they would disqualify McGwire, Sosa, or Bonds. Later on, MLB decides to be all holy and taint steroid users. If MLB had any cajones, they would have nipped it in the 1990's. They didn't, so all results are official. Since Bonds and Clemens have OFFICIAL numbers that rank among the best ever, I see no reason not to include them, especially when the ringmaster himself (Selig) is in for no great performance of his own.

Wow. This thing is practically split right down the middle.

Doesn't it seem to be that way with everything these days?

Honestly, Peter, you can take what I know about greenies and MLB and stick it in your eye, as my dear grandmother would say. I mean, I know absolutely nothing, including what greenies would do to improve one's performance.

When I think of steroids, and their degree of impact, as you aptly put it, their impact would be total. Once the ROID users were fully loaded, so to speak, EVERY time they came to bat, they were ready to power the ball way farther than they would have been able to at their best pre-ROID level. That is simply an illegal, disturbing advantage that is flat-out cheating. It doesn't matter that MLB had not deemed the drugs illegal during those years. All too often MLB moves at glacier speed to clean up its act, take appropriate action, and in the end, do the right thing. Naturally, my thinking of "doing the right thing" will frequently not coincide with someone else.

Be that as it may, the damage to MLB baseball and its reputation and records is essentially irreversible. Perhaps MLB's hierarchy is waiting for its fans to cease caring and give in to apathy. So much of their lame-brained inaction stems from a deep-seeded fear any decision will cause a deep drop in revenue. Perhaps they feel this lengthening ensuing period of years of leaving the record books alone, and thus rewarding the ROIDS with the home run records, is the right thing to do. After all, they broke the records. They fail to understand, and accept the fact that more than ever today, people want to know the story behind the story, what really went down, the true cause and effect.

Tis true, my equating slobber and scuff ball tricks to patty cake might be a slippery slope, but remember, all the umpires were watching, as well as the opposing team's dugout, as well as the fans. At any time, the umps could have seen something, called time, and lowered the boom. I found it quite entertaining, and yes, they were taking a slippery slope chance of having the boom lowered upon them. Be that as it may, come on, man, when the ass-terROIDS became the game face of baseball with their loaded bodies and mind-boggling home run and slugging percentage numbers, no one could do a thing for years. 'Twas those boomers that believed they could lower the boom on MLB pitching and get away with it. My, haven't their bodies shrunk today? It is amazing they're still alive.

Too late to say, but I'm getting verbose again.

Tis a hot stove league topic that will stay stoked 24/7 year-round. Nobody is really happy about the whole thing, either.

--- Brian Powell

There are no great answers here, particularly as I think doing whatever it takes to get an edge always has been and always will be part of sports, and I think it perhaps is unfair to ostracize those who got caught because there probably are equal numbers who used more discreetly.

It may not be entirely defensible, but I would say yes to Bonds and Clemens because they were top tier near certain HOFers before they (allegedly) used, or at least before the popular perception is of when they started. There are other guys whose numbers make them easy candidates but I don't care so much if they never get in, e.g. Sosa and Palmeiro. Maybe it's inconsistent.

Amphetamines and scuffing a baseball or even using a spitter has nothing in common with steroids in my opinion. Steroids and HGH alter your body. They allow a player like Brady Anderson to hit 50 homers over night. A greenie isn't going to do that for anybody. Throwing a spitter doesn't give a guy a new arm either. Using HGH or steroids is in a different category for me.

So will a corked bat. Cheating is cheating.

Peter, I know what you say has merit, but the first thing I thought of when you mentioned Bonds and Clemens were top tier near certain HOFers before....., I thought of Joe Jackson, who also was a sure shot HOFer.

Time is fleeting, and it brings along a new crop of people to the BBWA, among who will cast their ballots each year, or whenever. Last I paid attention, things were inching higher for the juiced bad boys. Some say it will prove they're really OK, and enshrinement will be an end that justified their means. It certainly won't change my mind, and many others, one bit. If you're pleased as punch if that day arrives, well, you won't be alone, either.

As you intimated, I think we have gridlock.

---Brian Powell

turns out, it doesn't

http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/my...l-fly-farther/

No players had sustained success at or above their peak years after ages 32 like the roids guys did. Is that pedantic enough for you?

Yes and yes.

LOL, did you even scroll down and read the comments to your article?

Sure helped Sammy Sosa hit 66 in '98

I don't really see any relation between using a corked bat and using steroids. The discussion centers around comparing amphetamines and steroids/HGH.

Wrong, the discussion centers around cheating. Nice try though.

There is a certain kind of cheating that is the issue with the two candidates. Altered equipment isn't really under consideration.

The OPs question was whether or not the two should be in or out (the HOF). He never mentioned anything about steroids/HGH even though other brought it up. Others also brought up altering equipment. I stand behind my point which is cheating is cheating no matter what is used or how it's done. As usual, your full of BS.

Well....Cheating isn't cheating. That's like saying a 71 Pinto and a Ferrari are the same thing because they're both cars. Amphetamines are not in the same ballpark as steroids and HGH. It's even sillier to compare Gaylord Perry or a corked bat to steroids. Jaywalking doesn't carry the same sentence as murder, there's no reason modern steroid users can't be held to a different standard given the impact of their particular indiscretion. What Clemens and Bonds did was unequivocally worse than Mantle popping uppers to shake off a late night of drinking. I will never understand why there are those that think these guys should be rewarded for what they did. In the Olympics they strip users of medals and records. Nobody is rewriting the baseball books, those guys are losing absolutely nothing. They're just not getting anything more than what they've already stolen from the game. I'm quite fine with that. No and No for me.

Yes, cheating is cheating. The consequences may depend on the severity, but its still cheating. It's like stealing is stealing. Stealing a loaf of bread doesn't have the same consequences as grand theft auto, but they're both stealing. A thief is a thief. A cheater is a cheater. A liar is a liar even if it is just a little white lie.

So Brett and Perry belong in the HOF even though they cheated, but not Clemens and Bonds? How do you decide which cheaters get in and which cheaters are left out?

By an arbitrary scale of impact, I guess. Did anyone follow the Clemens trial by the way? Where was this incontrovertible evidence that he used, I may have missed it?

Bolded and underlined...bingo. We're talking about consequences here, right? So yes, Bonds and Clemens being kept out while Perry is in is completely fair in my opinion. What they did was of a much greater magnitude than throwing a spitball.

I don't think it's arbitrary at all to understand that the effects of metabolic steroids are far greater than throwing a spitball. Particularly when everyone in the world knows the player throws spitballs. That's just common sense to me.

Did you follow the Clemens case? He was on trial specifically for perjury. That's the hardest thing in the justice world to prove, since it's pretty hard to prove what someone knew when they said or did something. Being found "not guilty" of perjury is nowhere close to the same thing as being found "innocent" of using steroids. You really think all that evidence was just circumstancial? Just a big misunderstanding, right? OK...I choose to believe that where there's smoke there's fire, and Clemens and Bonds were layered in smoke.

Actually, I wasn't even talking about a spitball. I was referring to him trying to cover up Brett's pine tar bat incident by hiding the bat.

I don't see how that changes anything but ok.

So let's say for a minute that all cheating is equal. Is your basis for enshrining Clemens and Bonds that mistakes have already been made, so we need to keep making them? You asked me what cheaters are in and which are out. I say the ones who are in are in, unless they drastically change the line of thinking and start removing plaques. And I'd be ok with that btw. But the ones who are not in, should stay out. I don't see the sense in continually permitting cheaters to reap the rewards of receiving the highest honor the game can give. They chose To cheat and should have to now live with the repurcussions of that choice. So my question to you would be, where does it end? Does 3x cheater Manny Ramirez need a plaque before people start to think the whole thing is ridiculous?

You are putting more words in my mouth than I can count at this point. But the bottom line from the trial was that the government's case was based almost exclusively on a single witness, the trainer, and jurors obviously did not believe him with regard to Clemens' use as they almost immediately found Clemens not guilty. Does it mean he was innocent? No, it doesn't. But why do we so readily assume Clemens used and Piazza (HOF) did not, for example?

It doesn't really change anything, but my personal opinion is that the cover up (Perry hiding Brett's pine tar bat) was far worse than the cheating itself.

No, my basis is that Bonds was a HOFer before he started using steroids. From what I know, Bonds didn't start using steroids until after the '98 season. You don't think he already put up HOF numbers by then? What if MLB could somehow discredit all Bonds stats after the '98 season? Would you think he deserves to be in then?

As far as Clemens goes, I'm not even going down that road. It's ridiculous to assume he did them when he never failed a test and he was acquitted of perjury charges.

Ifs and buts. I don't think you can look at half the body of work. For that matter, what if he never cheated and had just outright sucked for the next 8 years? Is he still a HOFer or just a Hall of Very Good guy that gets no love from voters? We don't have a theoretical career to judge, we have the one he played. To be honest, that uncertainty is as much a detriment to his HOF chances as the fact that he cheated. By the way, Bonds never failed a test either. (Rollseyes)

And not that when he started makes much difference to me, how does anyone claim to know when he started using? He might've started in A-ball for anyone knows.

As for Clemens, I don't assume he took them, I'm confident he did. It's ridiculous to me that anyone could be naive enough to think he didn't. Some things are pretty apparent even if a jury of "peers" can't prove you lied about it. He got better as he got older, there was enough incriminating evidence for an indictment, Pettitte even said Clemens admitted using HGH (even if he halfass backpedalled on that)...he was in the Mitchell Report for crying out loud. But yeah, I'm sure he was totally clean. Please.

Maybe Piazza did use, I definitely wouldn't bet he was clean. But I wouldn't bet he used either. I guess we'll never know unless he admits to it. But there's nowhere near the amount of evidence against him (or others, I know you used him only as an example) as there is against Rocket. The guys getting held out had multiple smoking guns. Right or wrong, that's the difference.

And that's where you just lost your argument. You're just like Packs. You made some valid points, then say something ridiculous. Nolan Ryan got better with age too. Do you think he took steroids?

Edited to add: Contrary to what's been written in this thread, there are a lot of players that have gotten better with age. And not only baseball, other sports too. Sports like basketball and football where the game takes more of a toll on your body.

One more edit: So what if his name was in the Mitchell report. Half the names in the report I've never heard of. I guess it didn't help them much, huh? And if you want to use the Mitchell report as your standard, do we assume that anyone not named in the report is innocent? Come on!

Niekro, Spahn, and Randy Johnson all put up most of their numbers after 30, if I recall, and into their 40s were still very productive.

Just checked on Randy's 4 straight Cy Youngs -- 35-38.