NonSports Forum

Net54baseball.com
Welcome to Net54baseball.com. These forums are devoted to both Pre- and Post- war baseball cards and vintage memorabilia, as well as other sports. There is a separate section for Buying, Selling and Trading - the B/S/T area!! If you write anything concerning a person or company your full name needs to be in your post or obtainable from it. . Contact the moderator at leon@net54baseball.com should you have any questions or concerns. When you click on links to eBay on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network. Enjoy!
Net54baseball.com
Net54baseball.com
T206s on eBay
Babe Ruth Cards on eBay
t206 Ty Cobb on eBay
Ty Cobb Cards on eBay
Lou Gehrig Cards on eBay
Baseball T201-T217 on eBay
Baseball E90-E107 on eBay
T205 Cards on eBay
Baseball Postcards on eBay
Goudey Cards on eBay
Baseball Memorabilia on eBay
Baseball Exhibit Cards on eBay
Baseball Strip Cards on eBay
Baseball Baking Cards on eBay
Sporting News Cards on eBay
Play Ball Cards on eBay
Joe DiMaggio Cards on eBay
Mickey Mantle Cards on eBay
Bowman 1951-1955 on eBay
Football Cards on eBay

Go Back   Net54baseball.com Forums > Net54baseball Postwar Sportscard Forums > Watercooler Talk- ALL sports talk

View Poll Results: First player with a positive PED test to get voted into the Hall of Fame?
Rafael Palmeiro 1 2.17%
Manny Ramirez 3 6.52%
Bartolo Colon 0 0%
Ryan Braun 0 0%
Nelson Cruz 2 4.35%
Alex Rodriguez 20 43.48%
Miguel Tejada 0 0%
Robinson Cano 2 4.35%
Fernando Tatis Jr. 4 8.70%
Other 14 30.43%
Voters: 46. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-26-2023, 04:23 PM
jayshum jayshum is offline
Jay Shumsky
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: NJ
Posts: 2,704
Default First Hall of Famer with a PED suspension?

So far, no one who has been suspended for PEDs has been voted into the Hall of Fame. Some writers say they will not vote for anyone who was suspended.
Who will be the first player with a PED suspension to get voted into the Hall of Fame?

Last edited by jayshum; 05-26-2023 at 04:26 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-26-2023, 04:27 PM
butchie_t butchie_t is offline
β∪τ∁ℏ †∪RΩεΓ
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2021
Location: Nevada
Posts: 1,204
Default

With any luck at all......none of them, ever.
__________________
“Man proposes and God disposes.”
U.S. Grant, July 1, 1885

Completed: 1969 - 2000 Topps Baseball Sets and Traded Sets.

Senators and Frank Howard fan.

I collect Topps baseball variations -- I can quit anytime I want to.....I DON'T WANT TO.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-26-2023, 05:51 PM
BobC BobC is online now
Bob C.
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Ohio
Posts: 3,275
Default

Interesting question. Though I have no idea myself, and am not going to hazard a guess, I've always thought Mark McGwire may likely be the first baseball player who, though never formally suspended for steroid use by MLB, had admitted to using what were at one time legal, over-the-counter supplements/steroids that were later banned. He seemed to be one of those that was somewhat honest and forthright when asked, does not have a bad history with baseball writers and others in the sport, and was well enough liked and respected to have also spent over a decade as an MLB coach after retiring as a player, primarily as a hitting coach, for various MLB teams as well.

When he first came up to the majors, McGwire was ROY and led MLB in HRs, and supposedly didn't start with the supplements/steroids till a couple years or so after his rookie season. And based on the notions/beliefs of many that during these times upwards of half, or more, of all MLB players were taking some form of steroids or supplements, at some point one has to think that maybe it will not be held so much against the better players of this specific time period who have HOF aspirations, as they were acting like most every other MLB player was at the time, but still exceedingly much better than the rest of them. Whether as fans and onlookers who hated/accepted it or not, steroid use was prevalent in MLB, and MLB choose to look the other way for quite a long time. It comes across as almost a retroactive punishment for something that originally wasn't considered wrong. So after a period of time, I can eventually see some acceptance of these steroid era superstars, however begrudgingly, and have always thought McGwire may be the one to lead the way to HOF induction due to his overall acceptance and likability with everyone out there. Time will tell.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-26-2023, 05:51 PM
BobC BobC is online now
Bob C.
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Ohio
Posts: 3,275
Default

.

Last edited by BobC; 05-26-2023 at 05:51 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-26-2023, 06:07 PM
mrreality68's Avatar
mrreality68 mrreality68 is offline
Jeffrey Kuhr
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 5,607
Default

I selected other because I believe it will be none of them
__________________
Thanks all

Jeff Kuhr

https://www.flickr.com/photos/144250058@N05/

Looking for
1920 Heading Home Ruth Cards
1933 Uncle Jacks Candy Babe Ruth Card
1921 Frederick Foto Ruth
Joe Jackson Cards 1916 Advertising Backs
1910 Old Mills Joe Jackson
1914 Boston Garter Joe Jackson
1915 Cracker Jack Joe Jackson
1911 Pinkerton Joe Jackson
Shoeless Joe Jackson Autograph
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-26-2023, 06:09 PM
Peter_Spaeth's Avatar
Peter_Spaeth Peter_Spaeth is offline
Peter Spaeth
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 30,264
Default

A Rod maybe.
__________________
My avatar is a sketch by my son who is an art school graduate. Some of his sketches and paintings are at
https://www.jamesspaethartwork.com/

He is available to do custom drawings in graphite, charcoal and other media. He also sells some of his works as note cards/greeting cards on Etsy under JamesSpaethArt.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-26-2023, 06:29 PM
jayshum jayshum is offline
Jay Shumsky
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: NJ
Posts: 2,704
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobC View Post
Interesting question. Though I have no idea myself, and am not going to hazard a guess, I've always thought Mark McGwire may likely be the first baseball player who, though never formally suspended for steroid use by MLB, had admitted to using what were at one time legal, over-the-counter supplements/steroids that were later banned. He seemed to be one of those that was somewhat honest and forthright when asked, does not have a bad history with baseball writers and others in the sport, and was well enough liked and respected to have also spent over a decade as an MLB coach after retiring as a player, primarily as a hitting coach, for various MLB teams as well.

When he first came up to the majors, McGwire was ROY and led MLB in HRs, and supposedly didn't start with the supplements/steroids till a couple years or so after his rookie season. And based on the notions/beliefs of many that during these times upwards of half, or more, of all MLB players were taking some form of steroids or supplements, at some point one has to think that maybe it will not be held so much against the better players of this specific time period who have HOF aspirations, as they were acting like most every other MLB player was at the time, but still exceedingly much better than the rest of them. Whether as fans and onlookers who hated/accepted it or not, steroid use was prevalent in MLB, and MLB choose to look the other way for quite a long time. It comes across as almost a retroactive punishment for something that originally wasn't considered wrong. So after a period of time, I can eventually see some acceptance of these steroid era superstars, however begrudgingly, and have always thought McGwire may be the one to lead the way to HOF induction due to his overall acceptance and likability with everyone out there. Time will tell.
I guess some would argue that Ortiz tested positive and was voted in, but there is some uncertainty about his test since it was part of the initial survey testing. I thought about including guys that never had a positive test or suspension in the poll, but I decided not to since I have read comments from a lot of writers who vote and distinguish between before and after the start of testing for how they decide who they will vote for. McGwire, Clemens, Bonds and Sosa are all in the pre-testing group but who most are pretty sure were using PEDs. Then there are the guys who are already in that people are suspicious of like Piazza, Bagwell and Pudge.

I don't think anyone currently on the ballot that has a positive test gets voted in by the writers but I do think Tatis has a chance if he puts up a great career and doesn't get suspended again so that's who I voted for.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-26-2023, 06:31 PM
jayshum jayshum is offline
Jay Shumsky
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: NJ
Posts: 2,704
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobC View Post
Interesting question. Though I have no idea myself, and am not going to hazard a guess, I've always thought Mark McGwire may likely be the first baseball player who, though never formally suspended for steroid use by MLB, had admitted to using what were at one time legal, over-the-counter supplements/steroids that were later banned. He seemed to be one of those that was somewhat honest and forthright when asked, does not have a bad history with baseball writers and others in the sport, and was well enough liked and respected to have also spent over a decade as an MLB coach after retiring as a player, primarily as a hitting coach, for various MLB teams as well.

When he first came up to the majors, McGwire was ROY and led MLB in HRs, and supposedly didn't start with the supplements/steroids till a couple years or so after his rookie season. And based on the notions/beliefs of many that during these times upwards of half, or more, of all MLB players were taking some form of steroids or supplements, at some point one has to think that maybe it will not be held so much against the better players of this specific time period who have HOF aspirations, as they were acting like most every other MLB player was at the time, but still exceedingly much better than the rest of them. Whether as fans and onlookers who hated/accepted it or not, steroid use was prevalent in MLB, and MLB choose to look the other way for quite a long time. It comes across as almost a retroactive punishment for something that originally wasn't considered wrong. So after a period of time, I can eventually see some acceptance of these steroid era superstars, however begrudgingly, and have always thought McGwire may be the one to lead the way to HOF induction due to his overall acceptance and likability with everyone out there. Time will tell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth View Post
A Rod maybe.
I don't see the writers voting in A Rod and given what happened with Bonds and Clemens with the veteran's committee, that seems unlikely for A Rod as well.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-26-2023, 06:58 PM
G1911 G1911 is offline
Gr.eg McCl.@y
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 6,302
Default

Whenever a player as popular as Ortiz is with the writers comes around, gets suspended for steroids, and the writers decide to chuck out their informal rule to vote in the guy they like.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-26-2023, 08:20 PM
BobC BobC is online now
Bob C.
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Ohio
Posts: 3,275
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jayshum View Post
I guess some would argue that Ortiz tested positive and was voted in, but there is some uncertainty about his test since it was part of the initial survey testing. I thought about including guys that never had a positive test or suspension in the poll, but I decided not to since I have read comments from a lot of writers who vote and distinguish between before and after the start of testing for how they decide who they will vote for. McGwire, Clemens, Bonds and Sosa are all in the pre-testing group but who most are pretty sure were using PEDs. Then there are the guys who are already in that people are suspicious of like Piazza, Bagwell and Pudge.

I don't think anyone currently on the ballot that has a positive test gets voted in by the writers but I do think Tatis has a chance if he puts up a great career and doesn't get suspended again so that's who I voted for.
I know Jay, very confusing, and not sure exactly what everyone with a HOF vote may or may not be thinking. McGwire openly admitted using Androstenedione, when it was not yet formally banned, and at the time was still an over-the-counter supplement that any one of us could easily, and legally, go and buy at a lot of different retail outlets. Plus, many of the other players you mentioned, like Bonds and Clemens, were not personally liked very much at all by sportswriters, other players, and most fans, unlike McGwire is/was. Most people think of McGwire as a much better overall person, which I believe means a lot for HOF induction in regard to PED users!

Sosa is kind of a conundrum as I always thought of him as pretty well liked as well. But unlike McGwire, when his attorney went before Congress in 2005 to testify for him, he stated he had never taken any illegal PEDs during his playing career and was clean. And then later on in 2009 the story was leaked and first reported in the New York Times that Sosa was included on a list of players that had actually tested positive for using PEDs back in 2003. So in other words, he had actually lied to Congress. I'm guessing that, and the fact he hasn't been involved with MLB since finally retiring in 2009, as well as no longer living in the U.S. since, has worked against him.

So in my mind, maybe once the "public" can forgive and look past McGwire's use of PEDs and give him an honest chance for HOF induction, I think he'll get in. And then sometime after that, the others mentioned may finally start to be given a chance for their own HOF induction.

However, had A-Rod not split from JLo, I would amend my guess and say that A-Rod would likely be the first of the known PED users to get into the HOF. Not because of his baseball record and achievements, but because he was with JLo. All the women out there love JLo, and the men who would be voting for who gets into the HOF probably wouldn't have liked having to sleep on the couch all the time, and/or having wives/girlfriends with constant headaches.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 05-26-2023, 08:46 PM
jayshum jayshum is offline
Jay Shumsky
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: NJ
Posts: 2,704
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobC View Post
I know Jay, very confusing, and not sure exactly what everyone with a HOF vote may or may not be thinking. McGwire openly admitted using Androstenedione, when it was not yet formally banned, and at the time was still an over-the-counter supplement that any one of us could easily, and legally, go and buy at a lot of different retail outlets. Plus, many of the other players you mentioned, like Bonds and Clemens, were not personally liked very much at all by sportswriters, other players, and most fans, unlike McGwire is/was. Most people think of McGwire as a much better overall person, which I believe means a lot for HOF induction in regard to PED users!

Sosa is kind of a conundrum as I always thought of him as pretty well liked as well. But unlike McGwire, when his attorney went before Congress in 2005 to testify for him, he stated he had never taken any illegal PEDs during his playing career and was clean. And then later on in 2009 the story was leaked and first reported in the New York Times that Sosa was included on a list of players that had actually tested positive for using PEDs back in 2003. So in other words, he had actually lied to Congress. I'm guessing that, and the fact he hasn't been involved with MLB since finally retiring in 2009, as well as no longer living in the U.S. since, has worked against him.

So in my mind, maybe once the "public" can forgive and look past McGwire's use of PEDs and give him an honest chance for HOF induction, I think he'll get in. And then sometime after that, the others mentioned may finally start to be given a chance for their own HOF induction.

However, had A-Rod not split from JLo, I would amend my guess and say that A-Rod would likely be the first of the known PED users to get into the HOF. Not because of his baseball record and achievements, but because he was with JLo. All the women out there love JLo, and the men who would be voting for who gets into the HOF probably wouldn't have liked having to sleep on the couch all the time, and/or having wives/girlfriends with constant headaches.
I never thought much about the possible JLo effect on voting for A Rod. I do think that him announcing games on ESPN is helping him with his image even though I think he's a terrible announcer and I can't stand listening to him. I still think he doesn't get voted in by the writers because of the length of his suspension and how long he was apparently using PEDs for.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-26-2023, 09:07 PM
BobC BobC is online now
Bob C.
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Ohio
Posts: 3,275
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jayshum View Post
I never thought much about the possible JLo effect on voting for A Rod. I do think that him announcing games on ESPN is helping him with his image even though I think he's a terrible announcer and I can't stand listening to him. I still think he doesn't get voted in by the writers because of the length of his suspension and how long he was apparently using PEDs for.
And thus, the reason I added the rolling eyes emoji after that last statement. Still, I remember on a different thread here in the forum where the question was asked of members, how many baseball players can their wives/girlfriends name. I was a little surprised when a few mentioned A-Rod as one of the few, if any, they could name. Asked why A-Rod, the answer was their wives/girlfriends really only knew of him because they knew he was going with JLo at one time. That actually kind of stunned me. But there was a definite effect it had on some people. LOL
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-26-2023, 09:40 PM
Peter_Spaeth's Avatar
Peter_Spaeth Peter_Spaeth is offline
Peter Spaeth
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 30,264
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jayshum View Post
I don't see the writers voting in A Rod and given what happened with Bonds and Clemens with the veteran's committee, that seems unlikely for A Rod as well.
Well, you're projecting Tatis 25 or so years from now. A lot can change in that many years, and maybe 10. 15, 20 years from now, but before Tatis could be eligible if his career even pans out, things will be different. I think if that happens, ARod is the most likely to break the barrier, as he isn't I don't think as hated as Bonds and Clemens.
__________________
My avatar is a sketch by my son who is an art school graduate. Some of his sketches and paintings are at
https://www.jamesspaethartwork.com/

He is available to do custom drawings in graphite, charcoal and other media. He also sells some of his works as note cards/greeting cards on Etsy under JamesSpaethArt.

Last edited by Peter_Spaeth; 05-26-2023 at 09:40 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-27-2023, 03:55 AM
Jim65's Avatar
Jim65 Jim65 is offline
Jam.es Braci.liano
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 2,277
Default

These players all have big problems. Some have multiple steroids violations (Manny, Braun, ARod, Cano) Some are just not HOF players (Colon, Tejada, Cruz) voters can't get past Palmeiro's arrogant finger pointing, and Tatis is way too far away to judge.

I feel that since a known cheater is already in (Ortiz) and younger sportswriters coming in, the attitudes about steroids will likely change in the future, so I voted ARod.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-27-2023, 06:55 AM
jayshum jayshum is offline
Jay Shumsky
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: NJ
Posts: 2,704
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth View Post
Well, you're projecting Tatis 25 or so years from now. A lot can change in that many years, and maybe 10. 15, 20 years from now, but before Tatis could be eligible if his career even pans out, things will be different. I think if that happens, ARod is the most likely to break the barrier, as he isn't I don't think as hated as Bonds and Clemens.
I agree that Tatis is a long way to go to even have a Hall of Fame career and that a lot will change as the composition of writers who vote evolves over time, but I don't think it happens fast enough for ARod to get voted in by the writers in the next 8 years that he has. It will be interesting to see, though. In his first 2 years, he got 34.3% and 35.7% which is right around where Bonds and Clemens started, and they ended in the mid 60% range. While ARod may not be as hated as Bonds and Clemens, he certainly isn't beloved like Ortiz. Maybe his continued presence as a broadcaster helps him some. We'll see.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-27-2023, 10:29 AM
mrreality68's Avatar
mrreality68 mrreality68 is offline
Jeffrey Kuhr
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 5,607
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jayshum View Post
I agree that Tatis is a long way to go to even have a Hall of Fame career and that a lot will change as the composition of writers who vote evolves over time, but I don't think it happens fast enough for ARod to get voted in by the writers in the next 8 years that he has. It will be interesting to see, though. In his first 2 years, he got 34.3% and 35.7% which is right around where Bonds and Clemens started, and they ended in the mid 60% range. While ARod may not be as hated as Bonds and Clemens, he certainly isn't beloved like Ortiz. Maybe his continued presence as a broadcaster helps him some. We'll see.
Or perhaps if his basketball team wins it will also add to his appeal
__________________
Thanks all

Jeff Kuhr

https://www.flickr.com/photos/144250058@N05/

Looking for
1920 Heading Home Ruth Cards
1933 Uncle Jacks Candy Babe Ruth Card
1921 Frederick Foto Ruth
Joe Jackson Cards 1916 Advertising Backs
1910 Old Mills Joe Jackson
1914 Boston Garter Joe Jackson
1915 Cracker Jack Joe Jackson
1911 Pinkerton Joe Jackson
Shoeless Joe Jackson Autograph
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-27-2023, 11:25 AM
jayshum jayshum is offline
Jay Shumsky
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: NJ
Posts: 2,704
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrreality68 View Post
Or perhaps if his basketball team wins it will also add to his appeal
What basketball team?
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-27-2023, 12:36 PM
mrreality68's Avatar
mrreality68 mrreality68 is offline
Jeffrey Kuhr
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 5,607
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jayshum View Post
What basketball team?
Talking about A-Rod and the Minnesota Timberwolves
__________________
Thanks all

Jeff Kuhr

https://www.flickr.com/photos/144250058@N05/

Looking for
1920 Heading Home Ruth Cards
1933 Uncle Jacks Candy Babe Ruth Card
1921 Frederick Foto Ruth
Joe Jackson Cards 1916 Advertising Backs
1910 Old Mills Joe Jackson
1914 Boston Garter Joe Jackson
1915 Cracker Jack Joe Jackson
1911 Pinkerton Joe Jackson
Shoeless Joe Jackson Autograph
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-27-2023, 12:47 PM
jayshum jayshum is offline
Jay Shumsky
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: NJ
Posts: 2,704
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrreality68 View Post
Talking about A-Rod and the Minnesota Timberwolves
Hadn't heard about that before
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-27-2023, 12:52 PM
mrreality68's Avatar
mrreality68 mrreality68 is offline
Jeffrey Kuhr
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 5,607
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jayshum View Post
Hadn't heard about that before
He is a minority owner of the team and when all day will be the majority co-owner of the team

https://www.si.com/fannation/bringme...berwolves-lynx
__________________
Thanks all

Jeff Kuhr

https://www.flickr.com/photos/144250058@N05/

Looking for
1920 Heading Home Ruth Cards
1933 Uncle Jacks Candy Babe Ruth Card
1921 Frederick Foto Ruth
Joe Jackson Cards 1916 Advertising Backs
1910 Old Mills Joe Jackson
1914 Boston Garter Joe Jackson
1915 Cracker Jack Joe Jackson
1911 Pinkerton Joe Jackson
Shoeless Joe Jackson Autograph
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 05-30-2023, 07:50 AM
jabiloxi jabiloxi is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 433
Default McGwire and Sosa likely 1st to get in

I think McGwire and Sosa will get in 1st. It would be great to see. They basically saved baseball in 1998 and have been treated like villains since the Steroid scandal. Such a shame.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 05-30-2023, 07:53 AM
packs packs is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 8,317
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jabiloxi View Post
I think McGwire and Sosa will get in 1st. It would be great to see. They basically saved baseball in 1998 and have been treated like villains since the Steroid scandal. Such a shame.
They brought in money and eyes but made baseball exponentially worse. The whole reason we're even discussing the topic is because of what these two chose to do. They do not belong in the Hall of Fame.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 05-30-2023, 09:36 AM
butchie_t butchie_t is offline
β∪τ∁ℏ †∪RΩεΓ
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2021
Location: Nevada
Posts: 1,204
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by packs View Post
They brought in money and eyes but made baseball exponentially worse. The whole reason we're even discussing the topic is because of what these two chose to do. They do not belong in the Hall of Fame.
^^^^^^^So much THIS^^^^^^^^

Thanks.
__________________
“Man proposes and God disposes.”
U.S. Grant, July 1, 1885

Completed: 1969 - 2000 Topps Baseball Sets and Traded Sets.

Senators and Frank Howard fan.

I collect Topps baseball variations -- I can quit anytime I want to.....I DON'T WANT TO.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 05-30-2023, 09:46 AM
Peter_Spaeth's Avatar
Peter_Spaeth Peter_Spaeth is offline
Peter Spaeth
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 30,264
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by packs View Post
They brought in money and eyes but made baseball exponentially worse. The whole reason we're even discussing the topic is because of what these two chose to do. They do not belong in the Hall of Fame.
I see Sosa as having no chance at all.
__________________
My avatar is a sketch by my son who is an art school graduate. Some of his sketches and paintings are at
https://www.jamesspaethartwork.com/

He is available to do custom drawings in graphite, charcoal and other media. He also sells some of his works as note cards/greeting cards on Etsy under JamesSpaethArt.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 05-30-2023, 10:02 AM
gonefishin gonefishin is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2022
Posts: 637
Default

McGwire.

Maybe it should be Conseco for starting it all to begin with. Of course with an asterisk.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 05-30-2023, 01:54 PM
philliesfan philliesfan is online now
Robert J. Miller
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Near Philadelphia, Pa.
Posts: 2,004
Default

First, I do not believe any of them should be in. They cheated.
But, if I was to guess as to who gets voted in first, my guess would be Alex Rodriguez. He was a Yuckie and that team always gets preferential treatment. Just look at Rizzuto. Just my opinion.
Bob
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 05-30-2023, 02:16 PM
BobC BobC is online now
Bob C.
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Ohio
Posts: 3,275
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by packs View Post
They brought in money and eyes but made baseball exponentially worse. The whole reason we're even discussing the topic is because of what these two chose to do. They do not belong in the Hall of Fame.
But how is that really any different than changing the way the balls were made, or building stadiums/fields with shorter outfield dimensions, to end the dead-ball era and create more money for owners from the game's switch to the dramatic home run emphasis? Or in later years when teams would literally have pots of coffee, laced with uppers, sitting just outside the dugouts, for players to partake in during games to keep that "edge" they needed? Or what about the advent of advanced medical procedures and medicine to allow for reconstructive and other forms of surgery, and/or to allow for faster/better recovery from injuries? Better equipment, better medicine, better training and development techniques, including improved dietary, vitamin, and supplement regimens for players are all the norm for every sport I can think of today. The questions come down to simply one of where (and why) do people end up drawing the line of what they will or will not accept.

I am also not a fan of such chemically induced enhancements. But if the idea is to somehow keep the fantasy that professional sports/baseball is an everyman's game, that maybe doesn't require someone to be way over 6' tall, weigh at least 200+ pounds, have a vertical leap of over 36", or be able to run the 100 yard dash in 10 seconds or less, so that fans can still have some semblance of the dream of one day playing a major professional sport, they are kidding themselves. Those days of the possibility of a somewhat average person ever being able to succeed and become a professional athlete simply by hard work and dedication are likely long gone. Unless you have an absolute gift of natural talent, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. It is exactly why movies like "Rudy" were/are so hugely popular, average people still like to dream. So, since these already elite, talented athletes are functioning way above the athletic level of the average, everyday human, exactly what does drawing the line at some medicinal/supplemental elements being allowed or banned actually saying or proving? I can affirmatively agree that if a certain steroid/substance is illegal and banned from everyday use of everyone, that it clearly should also be banned from sports. But then you get into the constantly growing gray area of things that aren't banned or illegal, except now maybe for athletes. Why? If at least part of the idea of banning certain things for athletes may have to do with the concept of those athletes being just like you and me, that ship has sailed way in the past and isn't at all relevant anymore.

You then state how McGwire and Sosa have exponentially made baseball worse. Worse how so? At least in McGwire's case, when he supposedly started out with using PEDs, there were no MLB banned substances, and he was using an over-the-counter supplement, that he admitted to using. And I don't believe he ever failed any subsequent drug test or was ever suspended by MLB for doing so. If I'm wrong, please correct me. Now if the use of PEDs by the likes of McGwire and Sosa led to the outing of such rampant PED use by players to the extent that fans and MLB finally took notice and action, and ended up having MLB implement the bans and drug testing to ensure that such PED use wasn't continuing, isn't that in some way actually a good thing then? Or are you somehow saying that baseball is still worse in some way because of the PEDs, even after that was corrected by the formal banning and testing for them? Don't forget, baseball is no longer considered America's pastime like it once was, and many long-time and casual fans were turned off from MLB following the player's strike in '94. I can't count how many times I've seen Leon comment about how he really doesn't watch baseball anymore because of that strike. So, without those home run histrionics in the late '90s, bringing back many old fans, and likely attracting many new ones, who knows where baseball would be today otherwise?

And as for where the line needs to be drawn on such things as PEDs as unnatural advantages for some, how is that any different than say LeBron James supposedly using and sleeping in a hyperbaric chamber to improve recovery from injury and to fight the ravages of Father Time? The use of hyperbaric oxygen therapy is most certainly a non-traditional and unnatural way to enhance one's elite athletic performance over time. So how is unnaturally enhancing or healing one's body for some athletic advantage supposedly okay for some methods/treatments like this, but not for others?

And also, why not in the case of say someone like McGwire, would they be retroactively condemned and forever after vilified for something that was once legal. Why not allow them to be grandfathered in to such an activity maybe? And before you go saying that is absurd and no one would ever allow or agree to such a thing, you need to check back into the banning of the spitball, and other substance-abuse type pitches that was put into effect by MLB back on 2/9/1920. For along with that ban, it also included a list of current MLB pitches who used such substance-enhanced pitches to play in the majors, and allowed them to continue throwing spitballs and such till their careers ended. So as preposterous as my idea may have originally sounded to you, it is clearly not unprecedented.

And speaking of spit ballers, are you also vehemently calling for the expulsion of Whitey Ford, Don Drysdale, Don Sutton, Gaylord Perry, and Bullet Rogan from Cooperstown then? If not, please explain how their obvious cheating through the use of foreign substances on their pitches is any less outright cheating than using a PED then? And by the way, of the 17 named pitchers who were grandfathered in and allowed to continue throwing spitballs and other substance-enhanced pitches after the 1920 ban was put into effect, three of them are also in the HOF. Should we now be demanding they be taken out as well, to go along with your sentiments towards McGwire and maybe some of these other PED users?
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 05-30-2023, 02:23 PM
packs packs is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 8,317
Default

You're asking how cheating is different from agreed upon manipulations? When they built new Yankee Stadium it's not like the Yankees needed to get all 30 teams to sign off on their dimensions. The league's rules allow them to build their stadium to already agreed upon limits.

I really don't see any correlation between a new stadium and Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire deciding to cheat and pretending they weren't.

How did they make baseball worse? When there are discussions that have to take place about "the REAL home run king" there's a problem with the sport. It should be black and white but it's not because cheaters cheated and some of the most hallowed records in all of sports became artificial and cheap.

Last edited by packs; 05-30-2023 at 04:15 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 05-30-2023, 03:19 PM
Peter_Spaeth's Avatar
Peter_Spaeth Peter_Spaeth is offline
Peter Spaeth
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 30,264
Default

To Bob's point, I think there's just a different emotional reaction to different types of "cheating," whether one can rationalize it or not. Taking banned substances or stealing signs are just flash points for most people, whereas getting away with a spitball somehow seems (to most) just part of the inherent fabric of the game.
__________________
My avatar is a sketch by my son who is an art school graduate. Some of his sketches and paintings are at
https://www.jamesspaethartwork.com/

He is available to do custom drawings in graphite, charcoal and other media. He also sells some of his works as note cards/greeting cards on Etsy under JamesSpaethArt.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 05-30-2023, 03:41 PM
packs packs is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 8,317
Default

I would agree with that. Personally I’m unconcerned with substances on the baseball as opposed to substances in the body. Batters use pine tar and it’s not seen as cheating (except for one famous occasion). Rules are rules and I understand the punishments for pitchers now but if you can use a substance to grip the bat there’s not a lot of separation to me when a pitcher does it.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 05-30-2023, 03:49 PM
Peter_Spaeth's Avatar
Peter_Spaeth Peter_Spaeth is offline
Peter Spaeth
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 30,264
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by packs View Post
I would agree with that. Personally I’m unconcerned with substances on the baseball as opposed to substances in the body. Batters use pine tar and it’s not seen as cheating (except for one famous occasion). Rules are rules and I understand the punishments for pitchers now but if you can use a substance to grip the bat there’s not a lot of separation to me when a pitcher does it.
It's funny though, if a batter uses a corked bat I think most people see red. But a pitcher scuffs the ball, not so much.
__________________
My avatar is a sketch by my son who is an art school graduate. Some of his sketches and paintings are at
https://www.jamesspaethartwork.com/

He is available to do custom drawings in graphite, charcoal and other media. He also sells some of his works as note cards/greeting cards on Etsy under JamesSpaethArt.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 05-30-2023, 05:30 PM
mrreality68's Avatar
mrreality68 mrreality68 is offline
Jeffrey Kuhr
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 5,607
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth View Post
It's funny though, if a batter uses a corked bat I think most people see red. But a pitcher scuffs the ball, not so much.
Fair statement
__________________
Thanks all

Jeff Kuhr

https://www.flickr.com/photos/144250058@N05/

Looking for
1920 Heading Home Ruth Cards
1933 Uncle Jacks Candy Babe Ruth Card
1921 Frederick Foto Ruth
Joe Jackson Cards 1916 Advertising Backs
1910 Old Mills Joe Jackson
1914 Boston Garter Joe Jackson
1915 Cracker Jack Joe Jackson
1911 Pinkerton Joe Jackson
Shoeless Joe Jackson Autograph
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 05-30-2023, 07:08 PM
BobC BobC is online now
Bob C.
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Ohio
Posts: 3,275
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by packs View Post
You're asking how cheating is different from agreed upon manipulations? When they built new Yankee Stadium it's not like the Yankees needed to get all 30 teams to sign off on their dimensions. The league's rules allow them to build their stadium to already agreed upon limits.

I really don't see any correlation between a new stadium and Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire deciding to cheat and pretending they weren't.

How did they make baseball worse? How do you think? When there are discussions that have to take place about "the REAL home run king" there's a problem with the sport. It should be black and white but it's not because cheaters cheated and some of the most hallowed records in all of sports became artificial and cheap.

Think about the rest of your life. When do you ever prefer something less than the real thing? That's what you got for a decade or so when baseball was dominated by players who weren't actually very good at it.
O----M----G

LOL!!!

You don't get it at all, do you?

The reference to the ballpark changes and the changes to the types of balls used had to do with your initial comment I was responding to.

They brought in money and eyes but made baseball exponentially worse.

MLB made a ton of changes and took the game from what was once called the Dead-Ball Era to a more modern game with an emphasis on HRs. There wasn't any intended direct correlation between McGwire and Sosa using PEDs and new stadiums, the reference was to show how MLB maybe looked at such changes in trying to increase HRs as a way to promote the sport, and make more money. Back then, to help offset the gambling issues turning off fans, and in the '90s with fans turned off by the player's strike. In the 1920's, MLB set the changes up and initiated them themselves. In the '90s, maybe MLB latched onto something that others like McGwire and Sosa started doing, and by a turning a blind eye and not actively opposing it, more or less unofficially endorsed the use of PEDs by more players, all to achieve MLB's true goal of enhancing the game, attracting more fans, and of course, making more money! The point being that MLB is not at all totally innocent and not at least partially at fault for most all of this. MLB only changed their tune and upped the PED enforcement when fans started complaining. Which is what I was getting at with the references to how fans may feel about players and what they do, or not do, so as to acceptably train and play the best baseball they can.

And as for how McGwire and Sosa made baseball worse, why are asking me, I never said they made it worse? I was asking YOU for that answer, in response to what YOU had said, and obviously you either can't, or won't give an answer. So, am I supposed to read your mind and answer for you then? No, I'm not going to do that, or go putting words in your mouth. Or is this all about your next comment referring to supposed issues arising from having discussions of the "REAL home run king"? So is that it, you think PEDs made baseball worse because certain records became supposedly easier to break? If so, that is one of the most ridiculous arguments I have ever heard!

Remember me commenting about teams that had coffee laced with uppers in them? I think the Yankees back in the '50s and '60s were one of the teams I had heard rumors of as doing this. So, is it at all possible someone like Maris, who set one of those HR records you're supposedly talking about, may have been taking advantage of some otherwise not so normal performance enhancers himself? Or if you're specifically referring to Ruth, then my earlier comments about all the changes being made to the baseballs and the sizes of the ballfields are also relevant. Go back 100 years and I'll bet there were tons of fans that despised the changes and the way the game had been altered and now seemed to focus on hitting home runs. At the time, the Dead-Ball Era had been around for around 50 years or so, what about the discussions people may have had back then about how it maybe wasn't fair to earlier power hitters during the Dead-Ball Era to have Ruth replace their records after making the baseballs livelier, the stadium fences shorter, and other things like outlawing spitball pitchers? If someone thinks like that, they're as bad as the Russians, picking a time when your supposed "empire" was at its largest, and claiming going forward that is always how it has been, and now how it always should be going forward. But in this case, picking a time baseball was played a certain way, and then claiming any changes to it ruin the game and make it no longer real because how those changes can possibly affect old records...............tsk, tsk, tsk, how dare they!

Baseball rules, equipment, stadiums, training, medical advancements, and on and on, have been changing constantly. My question(s) to you again, are basically why did fans/MLB suddenly draw the line at PEDs, and yet still allow (and actually revere in many cases) other known baseball cheaters, such as all the known spitball pitchers in the HOF I've previously mentioned, to stay in the HOF with virtually no complaints at all? Otherwise, how can you complain about the one, but not about the other? So, do you have similar thoughts and feelings against the HOF status of those pitchers I've previously mentioned, Ford, Drysdale, Sutton, Perry, and Rogan? And if not, why not, they're just as guilty, if not more so, of breaking MLB rules and cheating as alleged PED users?

And as to your comment that baseball during the PED era was dominated by players that weren't very good.......really?!?!?! Please explain then how after the 150+ years professional baseball has been around that ONLY during the decade or so that PEDs were being used that there were supposedly no good dominant baseball players? Did it ever occur to you that if upwards of half or more of the ballplayers during that time were actually taking one form of PEDs or another, and that includes both hitters and pitchers, they were doing so merely to keep a somewhat level playing field amongst all the other players taking PEDs as well? So that the players taking PEDS who were dominant would have likely been just as dominant if no one used any PEDs at all during that time.

And if you choose to say that baseball during that PED era wasn't "real", I can just imagine many people right after the Dead-Ball Era ended up saying the exact same thing you are. It isn't the same game, and the changes make a mockery of some of the records set in the 50 or so years before that time.....exactly same thing you're complaining about now. Your excuse seems to be that was okay back then because MLB set up and initiated the changes, as opposed to merely going along and showing a blind eye to changes that players had initiated on their own. My comment/question again is that why did MLB have to outlaw and ban PEDs after the fact, or at least wait so long to really do anything about them then/ Most every change ever made by MLB can affect earlier records and achievements as well, but you choose to supposedly only pick on the PED users and blame them for such changes ruining baseball, and look at those entirely differently than any other changes made by MLB over the years.

Last edited by BobC; 05-30-2023 at 07:11 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 05-30-2023, 07:08 PM
BobC BobC is online now
Bob C.
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Ohio
Posts: 3,275
Default

.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth View Post
To Bob's point, I think there's just a different emotional reaction to different types of "cheating," whether one can rationalize it or not. Taking banned substances or stealing signs are just flash points for most people, whereas getting away with a spitball somehow seems (to most) just part of the inherent fabric of the game.


Exactly right, and also the point is that at first, these PEDs were not banned, just like spitballs and maybe other things, like how much pine tar you can have on a bat. LOL

But to claim that the McGwire and Sosa specifically ruined baseball because people now argue that certain records they like and look up to were somehow compromised as a result of PED users, seems a little crazy. Does it make for discussions points about who people think are the best and/or should hold certain records, yes of course. But to then go further and claim that raises things to the level of actually ruining the game of baseball itself......really?!?!?

My usual mistake is expecting people to have open minds and actually think and use logic to start looking at things they say or believe, and maybe start thinking about and looking at such things from different contextual and/or historic points of view or circumstances they may not have previously considered. They usually don't like that though, and just want "yes" people to agree with everything they say. LOL

So when someone tells me something like they don't view cheating using a banned PED substance the same as using say corked bats or throwing spitballs, I just have to ask why and how they can make such a differentiation. Cheating is cheating.....period, right? So how can one form of cheating be so terrible and ruin the game, whereas the same person(s) thinks and feels another form of cheating isn't that bad at all, and don't really care about it?

What is also somewhat confounding is how it seems when one form of cheating is maybe used/practiced by only a few players, at most, they are oftentimes thought of even more highly in some cases because of their attempts at cheating. Like spit ballers and those that have used cork bats. It is like they're even more highly liked and revered specifically because of their attempts to get away with cheating, in that sort of infamous, "bad boy" image or complex if you will. What's the old saying, "If you ain't cheating, you ain't trying!" But then switch to a different form of perceived cheating that becomes more accepted and practiced throughout the entirety of a sport, like the upwards of half or more of all MLB players supposedly on PEDs at one point in time, and suddenly all of fandom comes to hate them all, but specifically lays the blame at the more noted, dominant players. Meanwhile, think about this, if pretty much everyone really is doing the same thing, then is it really cheating since they are pretty much all trying to get the same advantage, so it ends up that no one really does have any advantage, they're all just trying to stay equal. LOL Think about it, it's like the whole cheating concept is really bass-ackwards for many people.

Last edited by BobC; 05-30-2023 at 08:26 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 05-30-2023, 08:37 PM
Peter_Spaeth's Avatar
Peter_Spaeth Peter_Spaeth is offline
Peter Spaeth
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 30,264
Default

The point I always get vilified for, the same guys who think steroids should be punishable by death worship Mays, Aaron, and a whole generation of players who popped greenies. Yes I know there are differences, but even so...
__________________
My avatar is a sketch by my son who is an art school graduate. Some of his sketches and paintings are at
https://www.jamesspaethartwork.com/

He is available to do custom drawings in graphite, charcoal and other media. He also sells some of his works as note cards/greeting cards on Etsy under JamesSpaethArt.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 05-30-2023, 08:41 PM
todeen's Avatar
todeen todeen is offline
Tim Odeen
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,892
Default

I support inclusion of PED users. If Bud Selig can be included in the hall for his work as Commissioner, overseeing the PED era, and profiting from it, than it is complete hypocrisy to exclude the players that earned him his wealth. He represented the owners who wanted the PED money to continue to roll in. Not until public opinion changed, and profits were endangered, did MLB advocate for a steroid policy.

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk
__________________
Barry Larkin, Joey Votto, Tris Speaker, 1930-45 Cincinnati Reds, T206 Cincinnati
Successful deals with: Banksfan14, Brianp-beme, Bumpus Jones, Dacubfan (x5), Dstrawberryfan39, Ed_Hutchinson, Fballguy, fusorcruiser (x2), GoCalBears, Gorditadog, Luke, MikeKam, Moosedog, Nineunder71, Powdered H20, PSU, Ronniehatesjazz, Roarfrom34, Sebie43, Seven, and Wondo
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 05-30-2023, 09:06 PM
G1911 G1911 is offline
Gr.eg McCl.@y
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 6,302
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by packs View Post
You're asking how cheating is different from agreed upon manipulations? When they built new Yankee Stadium it's not like the Yankees needed to get all 30 teams to sign off on their dimensions. The league's rules allow them to build their stadium to already agreed upon limits.

I really don't see any correlation between a new stadium and Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire deciding to cheat and pretending they weren't.
+1. I'm fine with either keeping the cheaters out or letting them in (I would not punish, nor think it reasonable to punish, those who strictly used before it was actually against the rules), but some of the arguments made are just completely nonsensical. When did the Yankees violate the rules on park dimensions? "Thing 1 I do not like" does not equal "Thing 2 I do not like". No argument using this logic ever stands to cursory examination.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 05-30-2023, 09:32 PM
BobC BobC is online now
Bob C.
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Ohio
Posts: 3,275
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth View Post
The point I always get vilified for, the same guys who think steroids should be punishable by death worship Mays, Aaron, and a whole generation of players who popped greenies. Yes I know there are differences, but even so...
Just like I referred to with the uppers-laced coffee that teams like the Yankees (and thus maybe Maris and Mantle) used to be known for using and providing for their players.

Funny thing is though, that when you try to question others why such a bias in favor of their favorite players, they'll typically give you no real answer, and refuse to admit to their biased and often illogical reasoning. LOL
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 05-30-2023, 09:41 PM
Peter_Spaeth's Avatar
Peter_Spaeth Peter_Spaeth is offline
Peter Spaeth
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 30,264
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobC View Post
Just like I referred to with the uppers-laced coffee that teams like the Yankees (and thus maybe Maris and Mantle) used to be known for using and providing for their players.

Funny thing is though, that when you try to question others why such a bias in favor of their favorite players, they'll typically give you no real answer, and refuse to admit to their biased and often illogical reasoning. LOL
Not to defend steroids, but every generation tries for an edge in whatever way it can. Maybe by the 80s that edge was higher tech, and I get the difference between no official ban on greenies and an eventual ban on steroids, but it seems a bit inconsistent to worship Mays and vilify Bonds, for example. I agree there's some heavy nostalgia bias there.
__________________
My avatar is a sketch by my son who is an art school graduate. Some of his sketches and paintings are at
https://www.jamesspaethartwork.com/

He is available to do custom drawings in graphite, charcoal and other media. He also sells some of his works as note cards/greeting cards on Etsy under JamesSpaethArt.

Last edited by Peter_Spaeth; 05-30-2023 at 09:43 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 05-30-2023, 10:24 PM
BobC BobC is online now
Bob C.
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Ohio
Posts: 3,275
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth View Post
Not to defend steroids, but every generation tries for an edge in whatever way it can. Maybe by the 80s that edge was higher tech, and I get the difference between no official ban on greenies and an eventual ban on steroids, but it seems a bit inconsistent to worship Mays and vilify Bonds, for example. I agree there's some heavy nostalgia bias there.
Hey, like I also alluded to, "If you ain't cheating, you ain't trying! Typical male-dominated, uber-competitive, testosterone heavy thinking and expectations. And again, why it seems weird when just a couple or so players get caught cheating, they are often regaled and revered for doing so and trying so hard to win. But when a lot/most of the players do such cheating, the reaction and fan sentiment is more often the exact opposite. Go figure.

I always think back to the time Albert Belle got caught with a corked bat, and one of his teammates actually climbed through the false ceiling and broke into the umpire's dressing room to swap it out for a clean one. Instead of being vilified for doing all that, Belle and his teammate are almost looked upon as sort of revered folk heroes in some areas whenever that story comes up. Yet, whenever talk of Belle's HOF aspirations comes up, it isn't the cheating that is considered the reason he's not getting in. It's the injury shortened career, along with his other not so normal/acceptable actions and stunts, like chasing down trick-or-treating kids with his SUV for egging his house, among other not so great things.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 05-31-2023, 07:16 AM
packs packs is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 8,317
Default

I told you how I thought it made baseball worse. The game became inauthentic and a cartoon version of itself. I don't particularly like watching people play video games and that's what you were watching. The only way Brady Anderson could hit 50 home runs was to cheat. Sammy Sosa could not hit 66 home runs in a season unless he cheated. Mark McGwire could not hit 70 home runs in a season unless he cheated. Roger Clemens's career was over until he cheated. Jason Giambi won a faux MVP while he was cheating. Bonds won 4 MVPs in a row cheating. It got to a point where you questioned nearly everything you saw because a lot of what you were seeing wasn't real.

I don't see a silver lining to any of these things and that's why I said it made the game worse.

Last edited by packs; 05-31-2023 at 07:24 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 05-31-2023, 07:37 AM
todeen's Avatar
todeen todeen is offline
Tim Odeen
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,892
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by packs View Post
I told you how I thought it made baseball worse. The game became inauthentic and a cartoon version of itself. I don't particularly like watching people play video games and that's what you were watching. The only way Brady Anderson could hit 50 home runs was to cheat. Sammy Sosa could not hit 66 home runs in a season unless he cheated. Mark McGwire could not hit 70 home runs in a season unless he cheated. Roger Clemens's career was over until he cheated. Jason Giambi won a faux MVP while he was cheating. Bonds won 4 MVPs in a row cheating. It got to a point where you questioned nearly everything you saw because a lot of what you were seeing wasn't real.

I don't see a silver lining to any of these things and that's why I said it made the game worse.
I am in complete agreement with you. But I think it would do more good for the HOF to enshrine the best of the cheaters, and then create a wing that incorporates the history of 1985 - Present. They should openly write about how it negatively affected fans and the game. They can even include the consequence of this offensive surge by highlighting Three Real Outcomes and the "sticky stuff" our modern pitchers have been using to get extra rotation on the ball. There is no way to talk about one without talking about the other.

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk
__________________
Barry Larkin, Joey Votto, Tris Speaker, 1930-45 Cincinnati Reds, T206 Cincinnati
Successful deals with: Banksfan14, Brianp-beme, Bumpus Jones, Dacubfan (x5), Dstrawberryfan39, Ed_Hutchinson, Fballguy, fusorcruiser (x2), GoCalBears, Gorditadog, Luke, MikeKam, Moosedog, Nineunder71, Powdered H20, PSU, Ronniehatesjazz, Roarfrom34, Sebie43, Seven, and Wondo
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 05-31-2023, 08:42 AM
packs packs is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 8,317
Default

I don't think it helps to discuss philosophical things like Dead Ball to Lively Ball or 154 games to 162 games in relation to an issue like PEDs and steroids. There is no similarity or common thread in my opinion.

Universal changes to the game (dead ball to lively ball, 154 games to 162, evolving stadium dimensions, evolutions in the manufacturing of the baseball itself, advances in medicine) affect every team and player equally. I'm not sure how that relates to individual players choosing to cheat.

Last edited by packs; 05-31-2023 at 08:43 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 05-31-2023, 11:01 AM
steve B steve B is online now
Steve Birmingham
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: eastern Mass.
Posts: 8,087
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth View Post
The point I always get vilified for, the same guys who think steroids should be punishable by death worship Mays, Aaron, and a whole generation of players who popped greenies. Yes I know there are differences, but even so...
An admittedly small sample size, but I can state with certainty that greenies did NOT improve my hitting in any way. Even with a bit more focus, I still can't hit anything with any real speed to it.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 05-31-2023, 11:13 AM
G1911 G1911 is offline
Gr.eg McCl.@y
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 6,302
Default

Greenies were not against the rules, and did not produce video game statistics.

Steroids were against baseball rules (I don't see much case for punishing players before this was true) and did in fact produce absurd video game statistics.

Dexedrine and steroids are very, very different and were treated very differently in the rules at the times in discussion, and produced very different effects.

Deciding many decades later something was not okay to retroactively punish almost everyone of that period makes little sense to me.

I am fine with inducting the steroid guys, it should just be done 1) with a reasonable justification if one is given and 2) not only for guys the writers swoon for (Ortiz) but applied consistently.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 05-31-2023, 11:26 AM
steve B steve B is online now
Steve Birmingham
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: eastern Mass.
Posts: 8,087
Default

I would have to do a lot of looking up that's more challenging than usual, but I think to some degree the MLB finally cracking down was essentially forced by the IOC which required strict adherence to WADA rules. (which are debatably draconian)
Baseball was in for 2008, but that planning goes back close to 4 years, and their programs which didn't exist much earlier were too weak in 04 and even with stiffer penalties not much better in 05. They didn't even ban HGH until 2011.

Without the IOC taking away an occasional bit of world stage, would they have instituted any programs at all?
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 05-31-2023, 01:41 PM
BobC BobC is online now
Bob C.
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Ohio
Posts: 3,275
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by packs View Post
I don't think it helps to discuss philosophical things like Dead Ball to Lively Ball or 154 games to 162 games in relation to an issue like PEDs and steroids. There is no similarity or common thread in my opinion.

Universal changes to the game (dead ball to lively ball, 154 games to 162, evolving stadium dimensions, evolutions in the manufacturing of the baseball itself, advances in medicine) affect every team and player equally. I'm not sure how that relates to individual players choosing to cheat.
Packs, I'm not disparaging you, just trying to understand you and your point of view, and maybe help shed some light on some things you maybe aren't considering.

You specifically named and blamed McGwire and Sosa for making baseball exponentially worse, not all the other PED users, just those two, which doesn't make sense.

They brought in money and eyes but made baseball exponentially worse. The whole reason we're even discussing the topic is because of what these two chose to do. They do not belong in the Hall of Fame.

That response of yours was to a comment made by another poster that said they thought McGwire and Sosa would get into the HOF first. They, McGwire and Sosa, most certainly were not the only ones making such choices though.

And when I asked you how they, McGwire and Sosa, had made baseball exponentially worse, you couldn't give me an exact, specific answer, just asking me my same question right back at me, and some other things along the lines that baseball was no longer "real" because of them. But you also added the one and only, somewhat specific, single reference about how because of them, McGwire and Sosa, there are now discussions about things like who "the REAL home run king" is. I find that very telling that that is the only specific response you seem to have actually given to the question of what was done to make baseball worse by McGwire and Sosa. It is not necessarily the game itself that was made worse, it seems to be more the fame and reputations of certain players whose record(s) were eclipsed that you feel has somehow been equated to ruining the overall game of baseball itself.

And that was why I brought up all the changes that took place to end the Dead-Ball Era, to point out how other changes made to the game of baseball in the past also affected and replaced records of even earlier, well-loved players, just like you're saying happened to "the REAL home run king" because of the PEDs. That is the relevance of why I brought that all up, to show how other records have been impacted and replaced because of other rules and game changes over the years as well. But you only seem to vilify the PED users, specifically McGwire and Sosa, as making baseball unreal and exponentially worse because PEDs were ultimately banned, and therefore the PED users were/are considered cheaters, and therefore unworthy of ever being given any HOF consideration. But when I also asked about other known cheaters in the baseball HOF, specifically spitball pitchers, you, and many others, seems to not care about that at all. Which I'll say once again, makes no sense. Cheating is cheating, how is one form different than another in whether a player is deserving of HOF consideration or not? Or is the thinking somehow that because a PED user is on those PEDs every single time they come to bat, and for every single pitch they see, whereas a spitball pitcher or corked bat user doesn't always throw a spitball or use a corked bat for every single pitch they throw/see, that somehow makes them so much better than someone using a PED?

It seems the issue that some people may have with PED users doesn't really come down to cheating at all, just that records once thought as inviolate are no longer the records, and PED use is possibly considered the sole reason. Why else would other known cheaters already in the HOF be left alone? Seems there is at a minimum, some kind or type of a dual standard being applied to ballplayers during the PED era, when a preponderance of the MLB players are rumored to have taken part in the PED usage. So, when most ballplayers are cheating, which more or less can possibly negate anyone having an advantage over anyone else, that is bad, but when only a very few ballplayers cheat, so that they definitely do have a decided advantage over most everyone else, that isn't so bad, and in some instances is sometimes even looked upon as good. Those FACTS makes absolutely no logical, common sense at all!

Again, I am not for the use of PEDs since they have officially been banned by MLB, but to so completely and excessively vilify and deny any real HOF consideration for the users for doing so before any ban existed, or during the period when MLB really didn't care and passively supported the practice IMO, seems completely wrong, especially in light of the fact that there are many other known cheaters that are already in the baseball HOF.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 05-31-2023, 01:48 PM
packs packs is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 8,317
Default

I answered you twice and I'm not going to read your entire post. I don't feel disparaged by you because I don't think you're really challenging me in any way.

The PED era went into high gear in 1998. Why do I think that? Because that was the year Sosa and McGwire chased the home run crown. It was the year that PEDs came into the public eye, in my opinion. The only time I can remember anyone considering something weird was going on before that was when both Brady Anderson and Todd Hundley of all people managed to hit 50 and 46 home runs in 1996 out of nowhere.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 05-31-2023, 01:58 PM
Jim65's Avatar
Jim65 Jim65 is offline
Jam.es Braci.liano
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 2,277
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by packs View Post
I answered you twice and I'm not going to read your entire post. I don't feel disparaged by you because I don't think you're really challenging me in any way.

The PED era went into high gear in 1998. Why do I think that? Because that was the year Sosa and McGwire chased the home run crown. It was the year that PEDs came into the public eye, in my opinion. The only time I can remember anyone considering something weird was going on before that was when both Brady Anderson and Todd Hundley of all people managed to hit 50 and 46 home runs in 1996 out of nowhere.
The first I remember hearing steroids and baseball was Lenny Dykstra showing up in spring all bulked up 1989 or 1990. Everyone knew and just laughed it off. He was probably the biggest reason MLB banned steroids in 1991.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 05-31-2023, 03:10 PM
BobC BobC is online now
Bob C.
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Ohio
Posts: 3,275
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by packs View Post
I answered you twice and I'm not going to read your entire post. I don't feel disparaged by you because I don't think you're really challenging me in any way.

The PED era went into high gear in 1998. Why do I think that? Because that was the year Sosa and McGwire chased the home run crown. It was the year that PEDs came into the public eye, in my opinion. The only time I can remember anyone considering something weird was going on before that was when both Brady Anderson and Todd Hundley of all people managed to hit 50 and 46 home runs in 1996 out of nowhere.
Really?

So, your answer is forget everything else, and every other player that ever cheated but is already in the HOF, and your opinion is that McGwire and Sosa are what ruined baseball, so they can't ever be in the HOF because they broke some earlier ballplayer's HR record, so forget about facts, logic, common sense, or anything else that has gone on in baseball since it began.

OK, got it!
Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Who is this hall of famer Sladge34 Autograph Forum- Primarily Sports 6 09-27-2017 12:28 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:59 AM.


ebay GSB