[2013] MLB Hall of Fame. Who Would you vote for?

[FedEx227]

This is almost worse...so are you saying that Palermo's numbers are worse than guys like Biggio and Raines? REALLY?

Not at all. We have a limit of 10, so I picked guys I wanted to get in. Biggio probably remains on the ballot so I could swap him out for someone but I didn't because he's just as worthy. Raines is fading fast and he deserves to be in.

 

[FirstTimer]

Well that's an unprecedented viewpoint!

That's not how every justice system ever has worked.

Then again in most justice systems the perpetrators themselves usually don't have collective bargaining power allowing them to not be arrested/interviewed/tested for the crime and also not allowing themselves to be punished for it.

I somehwat see your point(and just disagree with the logic behind it) but to me you're kind of throwing your hands up and saying "Welp Mac was never caught and never punished" the policy had no teeth. MLB should have done more"..and it kind of ignores the huge fact that players like Mac were the ones blocking testing and punishment to begin with it. It wasn't solely a MLB Front Office issue.

 

[FedEx227]

Speaking of, you going to show us your real poll or just continue be a total shithead in regards to everyone else's opinions?

 

[FirstTimer]

Speaking of, you going to show us your real poll or just continue be a total shithead in regards to everyone else's opinions?

I did.

 

[FedEx227]

Then again in most justice systems the perpetrators themselves usually don't have collective bargaining power allowing them to not be arrested/interviewed/tested for the crime and also not allowing themselves to be punished for it.

I somehwat see your point(and just disagree with the logic behind it) but to me you're kind of throwing your hands up and saying "Welp Mac was never caught and never punished" the policy had no teeth. MLB should have done more"..and it kind of ignores the huge fact that players like Mac were the ones blocking testing and punishment to begin with it. It wasn't solely a MLB Front Office issue.

Yes, but MLB was reactionary. The big issue to me lies with MLB's real lack of effort in stopping it. Steroids were beginning to gain a lot of steam in the 70s, there's no reason for testing to begin in the early 2000s.

I get what you're saying, I really do, but it should've never come to that. If the MLB was serious about stopping it and saw it as a serious threat to the integrity of the game, they would've done more to stop it before it got out of control. Instead, they came up with a "please stop" punishment while they collectively bargained it in reaction to the outbreak. Steroids didn't come out of nowhere, they had been in sports and were tested in sports years before they really exploded onto the MLB scene.

I'm also of the mindset that steroids don't have as much of an impact as we all seem to believe. Yeah, they help keep you healthy. Yeah, they help you train more. They don't make you an elite level, HOF talent. Nobody on my ballot or your ballot became HOFers strictly on the basis of steroids. They were all incredible baseball players. They had incredible hand-eye coordination. They had incredible technique, intelligence to recognize pitches, etc.

In a Hall of Fame filled with guys who used the "trendy" PED of the day, filled with guys who stood for the continuation of the color barrier, guys who played before other races were allowed to play, guys who beat their wives and went into the crowd to beat up handicapped people, I just don't feel comfortable leaving out elite-level talent because they used a drug.

 

[FedEx227]

I did.

Your post came in later not you.

 

[FirstTimer]

Yes, but MLB was reactionary. The big issue to me lies with MLB's real lack of effort in stopping it. Steroids were beginning to gain a lot of steam in the 70s, there's no reason for testing to begin in the early 2000s.

I get what you're saying, I really do, but it should've never come to that. If the MLB was serious about stopping it and saw it as a serious threat to the integrity of the game, they would've done more to stop it before it got out of control. Instead, they came up with a "please stop" punishment while they collectively bargained it in reaction to the outbreak. Steroids didn't come out of nowhere, they had been in sports and were tested in sports years before they really exploded onto the MLB scene.

I'm also of the mindset that steroids don't have as much of an impact as we all seem to believe. Yeah, they help keep you healthy. Yeah, they help you train more. They don't make you an elite level, HOF talent. Nobody on my ballot or your ballot became HOFers strictly on the basis of steroids. They were all incredible baseball players. They had incredible hand-eye coordination. They had incredible technique, intelligence to recognize pitches, etc.

In a Hall of Fame filled with guys who used the "trendy" PED of the day, filled with guys who stood for the continuation of the color barrier, guys who played before other races were allowed to play, guys who beat their wives and went into the crowd to beat up handicapped people, I just don't feel comfortable leaving out elite-level talent because they used a drug.

IMO Mac doesn't become a HOF'er w/o roids. Same with a guy like Sosa, or Raffy. But they aren't on my ballot so I somewhat see the point.

 

[FedEx227]

Mac is an interesting argument in regards to that since he is suspected to have used his entire career. I can see the argument in that.

 

[FirstTimer]

Mac is an interesting argument in regards to that since he is suspected to have used his entire career. I can see the argument in that.

Mac admitted he used them basically his entire career.
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20100122&content_id=7955290&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb

 

[FedEx227]

Fair enough, what do you think Mac numbers would have been without steroids and what would be your basis for coming to that conclusion?

 

[FirstTimer]

Fair enough, what do you think Mac numbers would have been without steroids and what would be your basis for coming to that conclusion?

Honestly, hard to say. Throw out the entire "it helps you hit home runs" thing for the moment: By Mac's own admission he used them to stay healthy. If he couldn't stay healthy without them it would have bee impossible/improbable for him to stay on the field enough to put up the numbers he did in St Louis, or even in Oakland.

No trying to dodge the question but it's kinda tough to give a specific answer when Mac basically said he used them to stay on the field and not be on the DL. I would think by his own logic if he was on the DL he wouldn't have been able to put up any numbers.

Start cutting out large chunks of his post 93-94 campaigns..(when Mac started to break down) and assume he used them only to stay on the field...no way he's making the HOF based on his 87-93 then a bunch of injury riddled down years after that.

 

[FedEx227]

That's a fair argument. It's one of the arguments that you can absolutely, 100% make in regards to the benefit of steroids. It also begs the question of why people get so freaked out if, as you admitted, it was only something to keep him healthy and on the field.

To me, that's the same argument as Greenies. It helped you get on the field when you may have otherwise not.

 

[Senser81]

Honestly, hard to say. Throw out the entire "it helps you hit home runs" thing for the moment: By Mac's own admission he used them to stay healthy. If he couldn't stay healthy without them it would have bee impossible/improbable for him to stay on the field enough to put up the numbers he did in St Louis, or even in Oakland.

No trying to dodge the question but it's kinda tough to give a specific answer when Mac basically said he used them to stay on the field and not be on the DL. I would think by his own logic if he was on the DL he wouldn't have been able to put up any numbers.

Start cutting out large chunks of his post 93-94 campaigns..(when Mac started to break down) and assume he used them only to stay on the field...no way he's making the HOF based on his 87-93 then a bunch of injury riddled down years after that.

Yeah, thats my point about Mac specifically and also in response to FedEx saying that steroids don't help with endurance. In cases like McGwire, it helped him remain healthy. I think thats also true of all the pitchers who took steroids...they didn't really take them to throw faster or something like that, they took them so their arms would stay in one piece.

 

[FedEx227]

Which is absolutely reasonable, but really begs the question of why they receive so much scorn versus other PEDs that were used for the same benefit.

 

[Senser81]

To me, that's the same argument as Greenies. It helped you get on the field when you may have otherwise not.

But if Greenies had the same impact as steroids, we wouldn't have noticed these statistical "outliers". I also disagree that steroids were only something to keep him healthy and on the field...his HR rate also increased, regardless of games played.

 

[FedEx227]

I think you and I can both agree that Greenies were a bit more prevalent. I'm guessing there wasn't an entire coffee pot filled with steroids in every locker room for 50 years.

And as I said, it's very short sighted to simply attribute the increase in HRs to steroids only. Extra Innings by BP does a great job of laying out every one of the factors that led to the late 90s and early 2000s being a ridiculously high run-environment. Steroids were apart of that puzzle, but it's just naive to think they were the only factor.

 

[Senser81]

I think you and I can both agree that Greenies were a bit more prevalent.

But were they as impactful as steroids? I think the obvious answer is "no", just from looking at the statistics. But there might have been people significantly smarter than me that did some study that showed Steve Garvey would have batted .125 with 2 HRs every year without stimulants.

 

[FirstTimer]

That's a fair argument. It's one of the arguments that you can absolutely, 100% make in regards to the benefit of steroids. It also begs the question of why people get so freaked out if, as you admitted, it was only something to keep him healthy and on the field.

To me, that's the same argument as Greenies. It helped you get on the field when you may have otherwise not.

Not sure I want to get into it but I'm firmly in the camp that steroids help you hit homeruns by increasing your strength, etc. So that's where I think they differ from greenies.

 

[FirstTimer]

I think you and I can both agree that Greenies were a bit more prevalent. I'm guessing there wasn't an entire coffee pot filled with steroids in every locker room for 50 years.

And as I said, it's very short sighted to simply attribute the increase in HRs to steroids only. Extra Innings by BP does a great job of laying out every one of the factors that led to the late 90s and early 2000s being a ridiculously high run-environment. Steroids were apart of that puzzle, but it's just naive to think they were the only factor.

I'm not arguing they were but as Senser alludes to I think they were more impactful than greenies and perhaps even more than the other factors.

 

[FedEx227]

But now we're on a sliding scale of evolving drugs. At the time, greenies were the drug of choice and the best thing available. You can argue in retrospect they didn't have as much impact, but I'd venture to guess at the time, compared to nothing they had a pretty awesome impact.

If guys get on some stupid awesome stem cell whatever in the next 10 years, do steroids suddenly become okay?