POLL: IN or OUT: YES or NO

[barrysloate]

Originally Posted by rats60

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.

[botn]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

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

[packs]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

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.

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?

[clydepepper]

Here are two weird ideas:

1.)The ONLY voting will be done by current Hall-of-Famers.


and / or


2.) Elect Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, Sosa, Palmeiro, etc.,

but only INDUCT Them POSTHUMOUSLY!

[packs]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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?

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

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.

[packs]

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?

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

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.