OT: No One Elected to the Hall?

[Joe_G.]

I'm considering heading to the HOF this summer to see Deacon White's enshrinement. I think it would be fantastic if no one were elected by the BB Writer's Association of America. It would seem fitting that Deacon joins with Hank O'Day, Jacob Ruppert, and no one else. Sharing the day with Bonds or Clemens, for example, wouldn't set as well with me. A shutout by the BBWAA would serve the steriod era players right (hopefully first of many shutouts). Perhaps the HOF will make a bigger deal over the Veterans Committee vote if that is all they have this year. Lastly, the town may not be as crazy for my visit this July. So here's to hoping for a BBWAA shutout

[z28jd]

Originally Posted by Joe_G.

I'm considering heading to the HOF this summer to see Deacon White's enshrinement. I think it would be fantastic if no one were elected by the BB Writer's Association of America. It would seem fitting that Deacon joins with Hank O'Day, Jacob Ruppert, and no one else. Sharing the day with Bonds or Clemens, for example, wouldn't set as well with me. A shutout by the BBWAA would serve the steriod era players right (hopefully first of many shutouts). Perhaps the HOF will make a bigger deal over the Veterans Committee vote if that is all they have this year. Lastly, the town may not be as crazy for my visit this July. So here's to hoping for a BBWAA shutout

Don't forget the wild crowds that the Ford C Frink and Spinks award winners bring into town.

Nothing against you Joe because everyone does it, but I'd like to see one person positively identify a clean player during the "steroid era". You can't, I can't and no one here can name one person that was 100% without a doubt clean, so why even bother naming names. As soon as one player from the era was voted in, you opened the door for them all as far as I'm concerned. I don't think I'm going out on a limb by saying there is at least one PED user in the Hall already and I don't even have to venture a guess, it's just very highly likely by now.

[Jlighter]

Originally Posted by z28jd

Don't forget the wild crowds that the Ford C Frink and Spinks award winners bring into town.

Nothing against you Joe because everyone does it, but I'd like to see one person positively identify a clean player during the "steroid era". You can't, I can't and no one here can name one person that was 100% without a doubt clean, so why even bother naming names. As soon as one player from the era was voted in, you opened the door for them all as far as I'm concerned. I don't think I'm going out on a limb by saying there is at least one PED user in the Hall already and I don't even have to venture a guess, it's just very highly likely by now.

I'm going to go on a limb and say, Tim Wakefield.

[cardaholic]

Originally Posted by Jlighter

I'm going to go on a limb and say, Tim Wakefield.

I'll go with Juan Pierre.

[WhenItWasAHobby]

It will be curious to see how things turn out. To me, Biggio and Piazza should be locks to get in, while Clemens and Bonds should be denied with a vengence. I suppose we'll know later today. Regardless of who gets in or is denied, I won't loose any sleep over it. The Hall has lost its luster in my view.

[barrysloate]

A straw poll taken about a month ago gave Bonds less than 40% of the vote, and Clemens even less than that. So their chances are virtually zero.

[h2oya311]

Excluding the announcers, with the three most recent inducties, we'll have an even 300 HOFers. It would be nice to lock it in there at 300 and add no more. Seriously, adding more will simply make me broke (see my collection focus). That said, I 100% agree that Biggio and Piazza will be enshrined this summer bringing the total to 302. I'm hoping the others on the ballot get at least one year to wallow in self-mysery, like time-out for a toddler.

It feels like the "REAL" HOF is comprised of those that made it into the Hall the first year they were eligible via BBWA, well, at least in the last few decades. Clemens and others, if they get in, will have to be "second-ballot" HOFers, which is like a lower class HOF.

The American way of "innocent until proven guilty" makes this whole process very difficult, since most players have never been proven guilty of taking PEDs, there have only been rumors of guilt. Since we'll never "know" who took PED's during the era, do we actually assign a "guilty until proven innocent" mantra? I doubt it. Suspicion of PED-use cannot dictate whether or not a player gets in, in my opinion. Then again, it's the BBWA that decides, so I'm guessing that I'd be a minority if I were a voter.

[Peter_Spaeth]

How many players in the Hall used amphetamines in the "Ball Four" days?

[ctownboy]

"most of them did it some were cought some werent, the coaches, owners and MLB didnt care.".

EK, this is where you and a lot of other people are wrong.

Back then, (1991) the Commissioner knew things were going on and even had rules in place that banned steroids and PEDs. The problem was, the Players Association DID NOT want those rules, accept those rules or have their players vote on those rules. Why, because the players KNEW if they performed better that they would get paid more. So why would they vote against their own self interest?

So, the players didn't want to vote for banning steroids and other PEDs and to implement testing. On the other side, the owners didn't want to make a fuss about steroids because they KNEW the players didn't want testing and would probably go on strike if such a ban and testing were put in place. So, to keep the peace, the owners went along with the players.

So, in my opinion, ANY player who took steroids shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame and that is because they have already been rewarded with higher pay than they should have gotten and maybe even a longer life in baseball. For those who say that steroids didn't help everybody. I say false.

That is because compensation for Free Agents and for Salary Arbitration went up and THOSE numbers are based on the performance of your peers. So, for instance, if a player like Barry Bonds uses and gets paid more then people who perform just below his level will get a pay raise when they are Free Agents. Or, if a young guy puts up numbers like somebody just below Bonds then the agent for that player will submit his salary request to the Arbitrators and will use the stats of the other player/s as comparables and put in a high number for his salary request.

Nope, if I were in charge of MLB, I would consider EVERYBODY who played from 1991 (when Fay Vincent wrote the seven page set of rules) to 2004 (when the actual rules, testing and penalties were finally adopted) guilty and I would BAN THEM ALL. When I say ban, I mean not only from the Hall of Fame but also from ANY job in MLB or the Minors. I would also make them have to get special permission to even show up at a Major League stadium (like Pete Rose does now).

After I did this, I would say the ONLY way they would be allowed back in is if they submit to not only lie detector tests but actual brain scans. This way, if a person were lying about taking steroids or PEDs (I think a lot of guys would) then even if they passed a lie detector test (sociopaths often can) they probably couldn't pass a brain scan.

Brain scans have been able to show changes in a persons brain when they are lying even if the lie detector test doesn't. By doing this, we could weed out the people lying from those telling the truth and get a better idea of who put up numbers they wouldn't otherwise have if they hadn't used steroids.

Now, I know some guys who have a lot of money and/or who are sociopaths wont take the tests and wont care if they are banned. But a LOT of other former players will want to take these tests. A) because they either want to show they were clean and they don't want their names to be forever darkened with the idea that they MIGHT have used or B) because they actually want to get into the HOF or they actually want to work in MLB and be around the teams and players.

By doing this, a lot of guesswork would be taken out of who did and didn't cheat. Then the writers would have an easier time of deciding who deserves to be in the HOF and who doesn't and they can have a foot to stand on, at least for arguments sake, if they vote for a guy who admitted to using steroids.

David

[doug.goodman]

Brain scans

Awesome

[glynparson]

However at the time most of these guys are accused of taking them there was no penalty. I think instituting a penalty after the fact is not right. I have very little disdain for these guys that did something in an attempt to make them better as opposed to the myriad of 1980's players that used drugs that made them worse ballplayers. If they were the best of their era they deserve to be in. The Hall is there to tell the history of the game and this IS part of the games history. Let the 'roiders in as well as Rose and Joe Jax.

[EvilKing00]

Originally Posted by ctownboy

"most of them did it some were cought some werent, the coaches, owners and MLB didnt care.".

EK, this is where you and a lot of other people are wrong.

Back then, (1991) the Commissioner knew things were going on and even had rules in place that banned steroids and PEDs. The problem was, the Players Association DID NOT want those rules, accept those rules or have their players vote on those rules. Why, because the players KNEW if they performed better that they would get paid more. So why would they vote against their own self interest?

So, the players didn't want to vote for banning steroids and other PEDs and to implement testing. On the other side, the owners didn't want to make a fuss about steroids because they KNEW the players didn't want testing and would probably go on strike if such a ban and testing were put in place. So, to keep the peace, the owners went along with the players.

So, in my opinion, ANY player who took steroids shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame and that is because they have already been rewarded with higher pay than they should have gotten and maybe even a longer life in baseball. For those who say that steroids didn't help everybody. I say false.

That is because compensation for Free Agents and for Salary Arbitration went up and THOSE numbers are based on the performance of your peers. So, for instance, if a player like Barry Bonds uses and gets paid more then people who perform just below his level will get a pay raise when they are Free Agents. Or, if a young guy puts up numbers like somebody just below Bonds then the agent for that player will submit his salary request to the Arbitrators and will use the stats of the other player/s as comparables and put in a high number for his salary request.

Nope, if I were in charge of MLB, I would consider EVERYBODY who played from 1991 (when Fay Vincent wrote the seven page set of rules) to 2004 (when the actual rules, testing and penalties were finally adopted) guilty and I would BAN THEM ALL. When I say ban, I mean not only from the Hall of Fame but also from ANY job in MLB or the Minors. I would also make them have to get special permission to even show up at a Major League stadium (like Pete Rose does now).

After I did this, I would say the ONLY way they would be allowed back in is if they submit to not only lie detector tests but actual brain scans. This way, if a person were lying about taking steroids or PEDs (I think a lot of guys would) then even if they passed a lie detector test (sociopaths often can) they probably couldn't pass a brain scan.

Brain scans have been able to show changes in a persons brain when they are lying even if the lie detector test doesn't. By doing this, we could weed out the people lying from those telling the truth and get a better idea of who put up numbers they wouldn't otherwise have if they hadn't used steroids.

Now, I know some guys who have a lot of money and/or who are sociopaths wont take the tests and wont care if they are banned. But a LOT of other former players will want to take these tests. A) because they either want to show they were clean and they don't want their names to be forever darkened with the idea that they MIGHT have used or B) because they actually want to get into the HOF or they actually want to work in MLB and be around the teams and players.

By doing this, a lot of guesswork would be taken out of who did and didn't cheat. Then the writers would have an easier time of deciding who deserves to be in the HOF and who doesn't and they can have a foot to stand on, at least for arguments sake, if they vote for a guy who admitted to using steroids.

David

when sosa and mcgwire were chasing the HR record and the baseball interest was OFF the chart, EVERYONE looked the other way and enjoyed the money comming in.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by EvilKing00

when sosa and mcgwire were chasing the HR record and the baseball interest was OFF the chart, EVERYONE looked the other way and enjoyed the money comming in.

Not everyone. Some people thought they were legit - an anomaly of TWO superhuman hitters appearing at the same time. Stuff like that happens in sports and the rarity makes it that much more interesting. Hindsight is 20-20, but at the point where it was ONLY McGwire and Sosa, we, as baseball fans, enjoyed it - how could you not? Then Bonds one-up'd them. That's when my eyebrows raised a bit. I would argue that if no HR records were broken by the steroid guys, we would forgive the pitchers such as Clemens, and he would get voted in, simply because he didn't invalidate any power numbers.

As far as Bonds, McGwire and Sosa not getting in the hall - the big difference between their brand of cheating and what guys in the past did (amphetamines, booze, gambling, etc.) is that they invalidated some sacred numbers, and numbers are what baseball is all about: 714, 61 - if you give one of those two numbers to someone my age, they respond with 'Ruth' and 'Maris'. Impossible to think of anything else.

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by Runscott

As far as Bonds, McGwire and Sosa not getting in the hall - the big difference between their brand of cheating and what guys in the past did (amphetamines, booze, gambling, etc.) is that they invalidated some sacred numbers, and numbers are what baseball is all about: 714, 61

What exactly is that supposed to mean? Are you trying to say, that they would be viewed in a better light had they not broken those records? If Bonds, Mcgwire and Sosa finished with 60 in those seasons, or if Bonds finished his career with 713, then steroids wouldn't have been that big of a deal? That their actions would somehow have been less of an embarassment to the game?

I'm just busting your balls. To an extent. I don't think the final numbers really have to do much with anything. Maris hit 61 without steroids, albeit in more games than it took Ruth to hit 60. Mac, Sosa and Bonds each passed that record with them. Same for the all time records. Ruth set it against a bunch of white guys. Aaron against a more diverse, yet more watered down field, with more games in a season.. Bonds against and even more diverse(yet even more watered down) field, and even more games in a season, while on steroids. Point is, we know all the facts behind these numbers and that won't change. Neither set of numbers, diminishes the others.. Personally, I think it would've been worse had they NOT passed those numbers..

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by novakjr

What exactly is that supposed to mean? Are you trying to say, that they would be viewed in a better light had they not broken those records?
If Bonds, Mcgwire and Sosa finished with 60 in those seasons, or if Bonds finished his career with 713, then steroids wouldn't have been that big of a deal? That their actions would somehow have been less of an embarassment to the game?

I'm just busting your balls. To an extent. I don't think the final numbers really have to do much with anything. Maris hit 61 without steroids, albeit in more games than it took Ruth to hit 60. Mac, Sosa and Bonds each passed that record with it. Same for the all time records. Ruth set it against a bunch of white guys. Aaron against a more diverse, yet more watered down field, with more games in a season.. Bonds against and even more diverse(yet even more watered down) field, and even more games in a season, while on steroids. Point is, we know all the facts behind these numbers and that won't change. Neither set of numbers, diminishes the others..

David, you've read things into my post that weren't there. Busting my balls is okay, but bust them over something I said.

Yes, the power numbers are sacred. You mentioned the problems surrounding Maris' breaking of Ruth's record, which resulted in an '*' in the record books - just another illustration of how important these numbers are to baseball fans.

No, if the numbers had been lower, it would NOT have made steroids acceptable. Many (most?) board members think Bonds should be in the HOF anyway. If he had not broken the two HR records, I think even more people would be in favor of allowing him (and the others) in. It's just my opinion, but I'm sticking with it.

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by Runscott

If he had not broken the two HR records, I think even more people would be in favor of allowing him (and the others) in. It's just my opinion, but I'm sticking with it.

For the most part. That's exactly what I thought you meant the first time. The wording in my response may have been a bit sarcastically extreme, but at it's core, what you just said, is exactly what I meant.. Maybe I was wrong in wording it that steroids would've been more acceptable, but you pretty much just backed up that the PLAYERS who used them would be..

ESPN just posted a great article.
http://espn.go.com/mlb/hof13/story/_...b-hall-fame-be