Who would be on your Hall of Fame ballot?

[Tank]

schilling and vizquel.

I would never knowingly vote for a cheater.

[Stradling]

You guys may or may not know this but there is a pretty big population of fans on FB baseball that doesn’t believe it was cheating.   They believe they took PEDs but they ignore the memo sent out in I believe the 90’s, by the commissioner, that it was cheating if they used.  They believe that it wasn’t cheating until there was an actual set penalty for testing positive, which wasn’t until something like 2005.  Those guys are almost all assholes. 

[happybat4]

I honestly don't know how someone can argue Schilling is not a HOF pitcher.

[Tank]

12 minutes ago, happybat4 said:

I honestly don't know how someone can argue Schilling is not a HOF pitcher.

go read any facebook group about the hall of fame, and hold on to your butt.

[happybat4]

It's possible nobody gets elected next year as well.

[Dtwncbad]

On 1/27/2021 at 8:19 AM, Lou said:

I don't think any cheaters belong in the HOF. 

I am like a broken record on this, but notice how you structured that sentence.  You could have said, "I think the HOF should choose to only display the players that did not cheat."

Instead, your sentence suggests that the HOF is a personal award to a player, and therefore that player should not be "allowed into" the HOF.

My personal belief is everyone should be really disciplined in their analysis to specifically exclude how that player may personally feel (personally rewarded or personally punished) about the "honor" of being displayed in the HOF.

I totally get that two natural, organic byproducts of the HOF officially marking a player as one of the greatest players of all-time are:

1) that the player feels personally rewarded.

2). that all the guys "in" the HOF have become fraternal, and see it as such

But somehow now it seems that these two byproducts have moved themselves in front of the simple question of who was or was not one of the best players of all time. . . 

I just think that's a mistake.

We now have so many people who simply want to starve a certain player from that player's own personal satisfaction of being inducted.  We have lots of players "in" the HOF who openly lobby who they want in their fraternity and who they don't want in their fraternity.

I think the whole thing is off the rails and has lost its way.  I could not care less how Barry Bonds FEELS about being inducted or Pete Rose FEELS about being inducted.  And I also could not care less about Joe Morgan not wanting Jeff Kent in the HOF.  None of that matters to me.

The only thing that should matter is the institution of the HOF being 100% committed to being historically accurate, regardless of what byproducts are produced.  Instead, they fear "contamination" with side stories.  I get that, but then the correct path would be to always just tell the truth.  If Pete Rose shamed himself betting on baseball after he retired, just tell that story.  It is part of baseball history, and it is in my view simply better to just tell the truth.  Rose was one of the best players in history and he then shamed himself.  Put it on his plaque and let people read about it and learn about it at the HOF.

Anyway, I didn't intend on this post to be this long when I started it.  It just ended up that way.  And one the whole here, the post really isn't a response to you personally Lou, its just me being the broken record on this subject.  And that's officially the second time I said "broken record" in this post, which is kind of funny all on its own.

[Lou]

3 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

I am like a broken record on this, but notice how you structured that sentence.  You could have said, "I think the HOF should choose to only display the players that did not cheat."

Instead, your sentence suggests that the HOF is a personal award to a player, and therefore that player should not be "allowed into" the HOF.

My personal belief is everyone should be really disciplined in their analysis to specifically exclude how that player may personally feel (personally rewarded or personally punished) about the "honor" of being displayed in the HOF.

I totally get that two natural, organic byproducts of the HOF officially marking a player as one of the greatest players of all-time are:

1) that the player feels personally rewarded.

2). that all the guys "in" the HOF have become fraternal, and see it as such

But somehow now it seems that these two byproducts have moved themselves in front of the simple question of who was or was not one of the best players of all time. . . 

I just think that's a mistake.

We now have so many people who simply want to starve a certain player from that player's own personal satisfaction of being inducted.  We have lots of players "in" the HOF who openly lobby who they want in their fraternity and who they don't want in their fraternity.

I think the whole thing is off the rails and has lost its way.  I could not care less how Barry Bonds FEELS about being inducted or Pete Rose FEELS about being inducted.  And I also could not care less about Joe Morgan not wanting Jeff Kent in the HOF.  None of that matters to me.

The only thing that should matter is the institution of the HOF being 100% committed to being historically accurate, regardless of what byproducts are produced.  Instead, they fear "contamination" with side stories.  I get that, but then the correct path would be to always just tell the truth.  If Pete Rose shamed himself betting on baseball after he retired, just tell that story.  It is part of baseball history, and it is in my view simply better to just tell the truth.  Rose was one of the best players in history and he then shamed himself.  Put it on his plaque and let people read about it and learn about it at the HOF.

Anyway, I didn't intend on this post to be this long when I started it.  It just ended up that way.  And one the whole here, the post really isn't a response to you personally Lou, its just me being the broken record on this subject.  And that's officially the second time I said "broken record" in this post, which is kind of funny all on its own.

Ok.

I still don't think cheaters belong in the HOF.

[Dtwncbad]

2 hours ago, Stradling said:

You guys may or may not know this but there is a pretty big population of fans on FB baseball that doesn’t believe it was cheating.   They believe they took PEDs but they ignore the memo sent out in I believe the 90’s, by the commissioner, that it was cheating if they used.  They believe that it wasn’t cheating until there was an actual set penalty for testing positive, which wasn’t until something like 2005.  Those guys are almost all assholes. 

I think the better, more unemotional view on steroids, to me, comes down to two things:

1). It is almost certain (I would even remove the word "almost") that these steroid hitters were facing a massive number of juiced pitchers, and the juiced pitchers were facing juiced hitters.  At some point it is simply algebra.  It cancels itself out of the equation.

2). Steroids was deliberately ignored at that time by the whole institution of the game because the institution of the game was benefitting from what was going on.  it sure seems cheesy for the institution of baseball to WANT all this to happen and then pretend they didn't and try to scapegoat a few individual players to save face.

I would never say that steroids was not "cheating."  But I will it was so widespread that it is impossible to conclude that any one player had an "unfair advantage" over everyone else they were playing against, and I would also say baseball had not problem with the "cheating" at the time.

So given that, I can't intellectually singularly put myself in the camp of thinking "We have to deny these cheaters from being in the HOF."

It sucks, but it is simply what baseball chose to allow at that time. . . before they decided to pretend they didn't.  I am almost amused by the concept of the institution of baseball itself being "punished" by putting all these "cheaters" in the HOF so that the institution of baseball will permanently lay in the bed they made.

[Dtwncbad]

12 minutes ago, Lou said:

Ok.

I still don't think cheaters belong in the HOF.

Yeah, not problem.  We all have opinions.  I just prefer that the HOF at least attempt to be the place that recognizes who the best players of all time are, regardless of all the garbage that has gone on.  My opinion was Bonds and Clemens are total assholes.  But they were great.  Bonds in particular was a really shitty guy.  I know someone that worked directly with him as an employee of the Giants for years and years.  Bonds was purely a dick, to his core.  A selfish prick that enjoyed making trouble for normal people.  Hate is a pretty strong word, but I guess I could say I hate Barry Bonds.

But he was one of the greatest players of all time.  I have to be honest about that.  And when someone goes to the HOF to see this designation of the greatest players of all time, I think it is historically accurate to have him included, because he was.  I also would have no problem with his plaque saying he was a total asshole that was one of the players of the era to be most linked to steroids. 

Edited January 28, 2021 by Dtwncbad

[Lou]

I didn't say assholes don't belong in the HOF. 

[Dtwncbad]

1 hour ago, happybat4 said:

I honestly don't know how someone can argue Schilling is not a HOF pitcher.

If there is any synchronicity in the universe. . . some historically great tweeter will be denied being inducted into the Twitter HOF because he pissed some people off on the field in his Tuesday night men's softball league.

[Tank]

32 minutes ago, happybat4 said:

It's possible nobody gets elected next year as well.

arod and big papi are on the ballot for the first time. no way arod gets in (right now), but it'll be interesting to see how the voters view david ortiz. he put up decent numbers but the guy was awfully clutch. don't know if that'll be enough to get him in. plus, i think he was one that was mentioned in the mitchell report as a cheater.

[Dtwncbad]

1 minute ago, Lou said:

I didn't say assholes don't belong in the HOF. 

OK, what percentage of pitchers that Bonds faced were juiced?  We don't know.  We can guess.  My point is it I just don't think it is a low number.

Steroids were most life-changing to the marginal players.  For the worst players, it could be the difference at the time between being demoted to AAA or being good enough to hold down a bullpen spot and land a three year $2 million life-changing contract.  OK players could be better than OK.  And decent players could be good.  Etc.  I personally think it was really widespread.

So its just kind of tough for me to view Bonds as digging into the batter's box with an unfair advantage when he was very likely facing an equally juiced pitcher.

One of the almost magical qualities of steroids is how quickly it helps your muscles recover.  Starting pitchers could very well throw more pitches and still be fresh for their next turn without a drop in velocity or spin.  Bullpen guys could go three nights in a row instead of two, etc.

This science was pretty advanced.  There is no way anyone is going to convince me that steroids wasn't MORE prevalent on the pitching side.  Those are the players that would most benefit from the recovery magic of steroids.

So Bonds was cheating against pitchers cheating.  It absolutely sucks.  But that's what I think was happening.

Simply food for thought, would we get a more accurate look at Bonds ability against his peers in that era if he was not on steroids but facing all these steroids pitchers who would have an exclusive advantage against him?

Again, I am too wordy.  I am not trying to change your mind at all.  I am just sharing my perspective.

[Lou]

2 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

OK, what percentage of pitchers that Bonds faced were juiced?  We don't know.  We can guess.  My point is it I just don't think it is a low number.

Steroids were most life-changing to the marginal players.  For the worst players, it could be the difference at the time between being demoted to AAA or being good enough to hold down a bullpen spot and land a three year $2 million life-changing contract.  OK players could be better than OK.  And decent players could be good.  Etc.  I personally think it was really widespread.

So its just kind of tough for me to view Bonds as digging into the batter's box with an unfair advantage when he was very likely facing an equally juiced pitcher.

One of the almost magical qualities of steroids is how quickly it helps your muscles recover.  Starting pitchers could very well throw more pitches and still be fresh for their next turn without a drop in velocity or spin.  Bullpen guys could go three nights in a row instead of two, etc.

This science was pretty advanced.  There is no way anyone is going to convince me that steroids wasn't MORE prevalent on the pitching side.  Those are the players that would most benefit from the recovery magic of steroids.

So Bonds was cheating against pitchers cheating.  It absolutely sucks.  But that's what I think was happening.

Simply food for thought, would we get a more accurate look at Bonds ability against his peers in that era if he was not on steroids but facing all these steroids pitchers who would have an exclusive advantage against him?

Again, I am too wordy.  I am not trying to change your mind at all.  I am just sharing my perspective.

Ok 

[Junkballer]

1 hour ago, Dtwncbad said:

OK, what percentage of pitchers that Bonds faced were juiced?  We don't know.  We can guess.  My point is it I just don't think it is a low number.

Steroids were most life-changing to the marginal players.  For the worst players, it could be the difference at the time between being demoted to AAA or being good enough to hold down a bullpen spot and land a three year $2 million life-changing contract.  OK players could be better than OK.  And decent players could be good.  Etc.  I personally think it was really widespread.

So its just kind of tough for me to view Bonds as digging into the batter's box with an unfair advantage when he was very likely facing an equally juiced pitcher.

One of the almost magical qualities of steroids is how quickly it helps your muscles recover.  Starting pitchers could very well throw more pitches and still be fresh for their next turn without a drop in velocity or spin.  Bullpen guys could go three nights in a row instead of two, etc.

This science was pretty advanced.  There is no way anyone is going to convince me that steroids wasn't MORE prevalent on the pitching side.  Those are the players that would most benefit from the recovery magic of steroids.

So Bonds was cheating against pitchers cheating.  It absolutely sucks.  But that's what I think was happening.

Simply food for thought, would we get a more accurate look at Bonds ability against his peers in that era if he was not on steroids but facing all these steroids pitchers who would have an exclusive advantage against him?

Again, I am too wordy.  I am not trying to change your mind at all.  I am just sharing my perspective.

Circumstantial evidence suggests that doping was much more prevalent on the hitters side, if only for the ratio of hitters to pitchers exposed as users.  But you're right, we don't know, which makes it conjecture.  We do know that particular people did knowingly opt in to using substances that were banned.  The statement, "So Bonds was cheating against pitchers cheating" is false in that Bond WAS cheating, and an unknown, likely small, percentage of the pitchers he faced were juiced too.  Just as a murderer isn't absolved by the supposed crimes committed by his victim, nor is he absolved by the consistency or lack thereof of the local police in their commitment to enforce the law, Bonds and other known juicers aren't absolved by the existence of other players that cheated like he did.

[ten ocho recon scout]

2 hours ago, Dtwncbad said:

I think the better, more unemotional view on steroids, to me, comes down to two things:

1). It is almost certain (I would even remove the word "almost") that these steroid hitters were facing a massive number of juiced pitchers, and the juiced pitchers were facing juiced hitters.  At some point it is simply algebra.  It cancels itself out of the equation.

2). Steroids was deliberately ignored at that time by the whole institution of the game because the institution of the game was benefitting from what was going on.  it sure seems cheesy for the institution of baseball to WANT all this to happen and then pretend they didn't and try to scapegoat a few individual players to save face.

I would never say that steroids was not "cheating."  But I will it was so widespread that it is impossible to conclude that any one player had an "unfair advantage" over everyone else they were playing against, and I would also say baseball had not problem with the "cheating" at the time.

So given that, I can't intellectually singularly put myself in the camp of thinking "We have to deny these cheaters from being in the HOF."

It sucks, but it is simply what baseball chose to allow at that time. . . before they decided to pretend they didn't.  I am almost amused by the concept of the institution of baseball itself being "punished" by putting all these "cheaters" in the HOF so that the institution of baseball will permanently lay in the bed they made.

Kind of my take, too

 

If im viewing any guy like bonds against his peers, i figure that he not only was facing juiced pitchers, but still light years away from a million juiced hitters. Im sure thousands of dudes that took the same steroids never made it past A ball. So steroids didnt make bonds a beast. He was a superstar without the needle.

That said, the issue i do have is his numbers. (Or anyone like him). For him to pass aaron, mays, etc, there is no denying its tainted. 

Not only the advantage of gaining muscle, to help with power, but longevity. My understanding is that HGH is like a fountain of youth. That, while also running muscle steroids, is a huge factor on why guys like him played for so long.

The game has changed.... pitchers got better. So has scouting, defensive shifts, etc. But look at albert. And mcab. Not just their skills eroding, but their bodies breaking down.

When you contrast that with guys like aaron, mays, mantle etc... the guys bonds, arod, etc, are lumped in with, then you have to acknowledge its all tainted. 

Ive mentioned on here before knowing some players. When you know some guys, you meet tons of others. In my travels, ive come across a good amount of those badass dudes from the steroid era, who are now in their 40s and 50s. And one thing really stands out.... they are not only much smaller now, but look very old. Like they aged 20 years in the 10 since they retired. So when you look at pics of them in their late 30s to today, in their late 40s, its night and day.

This tells me they didnt look good in their 30s because of their gym and diet routine... but their HGH routine... which they stopped using at retirement.

 

[ten ocho recon scout]

2 hours ago, Lou said:

I didn't say assholes don't belong in the HOF. 

I think theres actually a tab for that on pornhub.

I mean, i heard there is from somebody. I havent seen it myself.

[ten ocho recon scout]

35 minutes ago, Junkballer said:

Circumstantial evidence suggests that doping was much more prevalent on the hitters side, if only for the ratio of hitters to pitchers exposed as users.  But you're right, we don't know, which makes it conjecture.  We do know that particular people did knowingly opt in to using substances that were banned.  The statement, "So Bonds was cheating against pitchers cheating" is false in that Bond WAS cheating, and an unknown, likely small, percentage of the pitchers he faced were juiced too.  Just as a murderer isn't absolved by the supposed crimes committed by his victim, nor is he absolved by the consistency or lack thereof of the local police in their commitment to enforce the law, Bonds and other known juicers aren't absolved by the existence of other players that cheated like he did.

I think its important to mention here that different steroids do different things. I think its likely that hitters used more, not just amount of hitters, but steroids themselves. Hitters wanted big muscles, to hit for power.

Pitchers, on the other hand, didnt need big muscles. So if say they just ran HGH... for recovery.... my understanding is they still dont test for that. And HGH, unless you overdo it and grow a bonds head, isnt going to stand out in your physique. 

 

[happybat4]

2 hours ago, Tank said:

arod and big papi are on the ballot for the first time. no way arod gets in (right now), but it'll be interesting to see how the voters view david ortiz. he put up decent numbers but the guy was awfully clutch. don't know if that'll be enough to get him in. plus, i think he was one that was mentioned in the mitchell report as a cheater.

He was on the list of players that tested positive.

[T.G.]

1 hour ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

I think theres actually a tab for that on pornhub.

I mean, i heard there is from somebody. I havent seen it myself.

[Dtwncbad]

2 hours ago, Junkballer said:

Circumstantial evidence suggests that doping was much more prevalent on the hitters side, if only for the ratio of hitters to pitchers exposed as users.  But you're right, we don't know, which makes it conjecture.  We do know that particular people did knowingly opt in to using substances that were banned.  The statement, "So Bonds was cheating against pitchers cheating" is false in that Bond WAS cheating, and an unknown, likely small, percentage of the pitchers he faced were juiced too.  Just as a murderer isn't absolved by the supposed crimes committed by his victim, nor is he absolved by the consistency or lack thereof of the local police in their commitment to enforce the law, Bonds and other known juicers aren't absolved by the existence of other players that cheated like he did.

I would have to go back and check every available testing data but I know for sure that a number of times I reviewed testing data that came out to see how prevalent it was among pitchers.  Whenever I did this, there were always more hitters testing positive than pitchers.  However pitchers typically make up only 40% of a roster so if 60% of the positive tests were hitters then it was equally prevalent.  Again I didn’t keep spreadsheets or anything buy I recall having long conversations on the old Angel message boards pointing out that while the raw counting number was more hitters, there were many groups of tests that clearly showed that it was actually more statistically prevalent among pitchers.

And it was home run records that were falling and obvious huge muscles in the batters box, so that is where all the attention went.

I personally believe is is very safe to say it was quite widespread among pitchers.

[Pancake Bear]

Bonds, Clemens, and Schilling would all be an easy yes from me. Strictly based on what they did on the field (and in the former two, allowing for steroid help), they all easily make it. To me, roids are only relevant if their case is borderline.

I probably vote for Rolen. Andruw Jones is really close. Longevity hurts Jones. He was really good for a few years, and then just fell off. 

A few others I'd consider, but don't know if I'd vote for: Kent, Wagner, McGwire. McGwire's overall numbers are borderline, which, with roid use makes me lean no. On the other hand, he did have the single season HR record for a bit, which is impressive, but he almost certainly doesn't get there without roids, so I think he'd be probably end up as a no.

[happybat4]

1 hour ago, Pancake Bear said:

Bonds, Clemens, and Schilling would all be an easy yes from me. Strictly based on what they did on the field (and in the former two, allowing for steroid help), they all easily make it. To me, roids are only relevant if their case is borderline.

I probably vote for Rolen. Andruw Jones is really close. Longevity hurts Jones. He was really good for a few years, and then just fell off. 

A few others I'd consider, but don't know if I'd vote for: Kent, Wagner, McGwire. McGwire's overall numbers are borderline, which, with roid use makes me lean no. On the other hand, he did have the single season HR record for a bit, which is impressive, but he almost certainly doesn't get there without roids, so I think he'd be probably end up as a no.

No Visquel? War definitely hurts him.