So which player got shafted?

[allenreed]

Absolutely agree. In fact, I said so above. That what makes his using so stupid.

[islandboagie]

I don't know know exactly when Bonds started using roids, but my guess is in 1999. If I'm correct, that means he had already achieved the 500/500 mark, which NOBODY in the history of baseball had achieved. Add the gold gloves and the rest of his numbers he had already established himself among a more elite group than the top 50. Perhaps more likely among the top 10, or top 20 conservatively.

Do we again punish another player who belongs in the HOF? I think history has proven that there are plenty of regrets that come with that decision.

[sfgdood]

One groups who's feelings haven't been spoken of here is the players that are in the Hall. They don't want any of the roid boys anywhere near there, and I don't blame them. Why would you want your name and one of your greatest accomplishments sullied by the association of it with cheaters?

Dood - I have heard HOFers fall on both sides on this issue. Many are seeing that the playing field may not have been that unlevel because of the high number of users that have come forward. Others see that the use of substances not banned was nothing more than a player pro-active enough to look for some kind of edge according to the rules at the time. To me, a lot of the HOFers who come out hard against juicers often sound like jealous cackling hens. Kind of like they would have used if it was around in their time but since it wasn't they act all high and mighty. Mike Scmidt, for one, says that he probably would have juiced if it was available in his time.

In terms of greenies, it makes absolutely ZERO difference whether you believe they give as big an advantage as roids and HGH...the fact is it is banned by baseball because it IS, in fact, a PED by baseball's definition. How much it helps is irrelevant. Those that used it are no better than those who juiced with roids and HGH before those substances got banned. To believe differently shows hypocrisy.

I'll say it again. Either kick out all the players that used greenies (and those you merely SUSPECT used them, just as you're keeping out those merely suspected of using roids now) and threw spitballs...or allow those who used roids and HGH before they were banned to be voted in. The voters right now, most of them anyway, are the worst kind of hypocrites.

[sfgdood]

Anne Killion wrote an interesting piece. It questions whether managers from the steroid era deserve to be in the HOF when their success came with at least some help from steroid users. All 3 of the most recent manager inductees--LaRussa, Cox and Torre--would be disqualified under these circumstances. In fact pretty close to all managers in the "steroid era." wouldnt stand a chance. I don't necessarily agree with her but I'm curious what the anti-roids posters think.

[allenreed]

Jan 10, 2014 15:44:47 GMT -5 islandboagie said:

I don't know know exactly when Bonds started using roids, but my guess is in 1999. If I'm correct, that means he had already achieved the 500/500 mark, which NOBODY in the history of baseball had achieved. Add the gold gloves and the rest of his numbers he had already established himself among a more elite group than the top 50. Perhaps more likely among the top 10, or top 20 conservatively.

Do we again punish another player who belongs in the HOF? I think history has proven that there are plenty of regrets that come with that decision.

Allen- Yes. No regrets. Let's do this: We've polled the writers. Let's poll the fans. Then let's poll the players already in the HOF. I'm saying of the latter, only Mays would vote for Barry, or any of the steroid crew.

[allenreed]

Randy, you act as if there was a written rule that said you could use steroids. The rule wasn't written because baseball wasn't smart enough to see it coming. Just like there were no rules against cyberbullying when it started.
I'll ask again. If the players didn't know or think this was wrong, why did they work so hard, even to the point of perjury, to cover it up? Why not say "Hey, these drugs weren't banned. I was just using all the tools that were at my disposal."? Why don't they say it now?
I've never seen any good in rewarding people for cheating, breaking the law, or for being stupid. But that's just me.

Interesting point on the managers though. LaRussa in particular, owes alot of his success to McGwire and Canseco. Torre had Clemens.

[rxmeister]

Allen, I think the reason you don't include greenies as PED's is because they don't alter your body like steroids and HGH do. They're still performance enhancing though. If you're more focused at the plate, you can literally see the pitch better and this gives you an unfair advantage. If you're wondering why Bonds chose to use steroids, Ken Griffey Jr. gave a plausible explanation. If you remember back in the day, the argument used to be about who was the best player in baseball, Bonds or Griffey. Then when the steroids came along, all the discussion was McGwire and Sosa. Griffey said that Bonds told him he was going to start using because he resented others taking the best player in baseball designation from them by artificial means. It bothered Bonds a lot more than it bothered Griffey, who remained clean.

[allenreed]

It's a fine line Mark, don't you think? I've seen people on speed who were anything but focused. I've heard players who used them say it makes you think you're doing better than you are. I'm certainly not condoning their use, but I don't think you can put them anywhere near the same class as steroids.

There was a book that came out about the Bonds adventure called "Game of Shadows". In it, they say that Bonds started using because McGwire broke the single season home run record. He didn't want a "white boy" having the record. Whatever reason he used to justify, he was way out there beyond stupid.

[Rog]

Allen -- The rule wasn't written because baseball wasn't smart enough to see it coming.

Rog -- Which is why players who used steroids before they were banned probably shouldn't be banned from the BASEBALL Hall of Fame themselves. I'm not justifying what the players did. I'm merely stating that baseball shouldn't be punishing them for what they did before baseball stopped turning a blind eye.

If baseball punishes them, it should also punish itself.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2165/which-player-got-shafted#page=2#ixzz2q8jpXtPN

[allenreed]

The players using the roids have punished baseball, and the fans, by besmirching what is a great game. Steroids were illegal by law when they were being used by Bonds and his ilk. Should they be thrown in jail instead of being suspended and excluded from the HOF? Some things are just so wrong, there shouldn't have to be a rule written.

[Rog]

Allen -- The players using the roids have punished baseball, and the fans, by besmirching what is a great game. Steroids were illegal by law when they were being used by Bonds and his ilk. Should they be thrown in jail instead of being suspended and excluded from the HOF? Some things are just so wrong, there shouldn't have to be a rule written.

Rog -- If they besmirched baseball as you say, they should have been written. Such as was the case with the rule against spitballs.

You can't have it both ways, Allen. If they were as egregious against the game as you say, they should indeed have been written, even though you say they didn't need to be.

Baseball was hypocritical, and IMO you are being so as well. Greenies are OK but steroids aren't? In both cases, the players knew they were wrong -- but also knew what they were doing wasn't being closely examined by baseball.

I'm not saying greenies were the same as steroids. What I'm saying is that if one is wrong even if not against the rules of baseball, so is the other. I believe it is your prejudice against players who used steroids that causes you to believe that they should be banned while the players who used greenies shouldn't be.

I like you a lot, Allen, but I see you as being sanctimonious and hypocritical. Let he who is perfect throw the first stone.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2165/which-player-got-shafted#page=2#ixzz2qHim9ipw

[allenreed]

It is written now. Was the rule against spitballs written before anyone ever threw one?Greenies aren't ok, wasn't Tejada suspended for over 100 games for using amphetamines? Greenies aren't going to radically change a player's stats or alter the record book.It's the difference between rolling through a stop sign and running over someone with your car. Greenies are banned, aren't they?

[allenreed]

I think the main factor here is Bonds. Giants fans want to somehow deny that his records are fraudulent, and don't want a black mark struck against his phony records and his time as a Giant. If Bonds hadn't used, I'm sure all of the apologists would look upon the other users with the proper disdain, much as ARod is being looked upon now.

[Rog]

Allen -- It is written now. Was the rule against spitballs written before anyone ever threw one?

Rog -- I believe there are several pitchers in the Hall of Fame who threw spit balls back when they were legal. At least one pitcher in the Hall threw them after they were declared illegal.

Whether the rules against spitballs were written before anyone threw one have little if anything to do with this situation. Maybe Don can answer this: Were spitballs outlawed in part because Carl Mays, who I believe threw one, killed Ray Chapman when he beaned him with a pitch?

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2165/which-player-got-shafted?page=2#ixzz2qOOasZr9

[Rog]

Allen -- I think the main factor here is Bonds.

Rog -- I think you are the one making this about Bonds.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2165/which-player-got-shafted?page=2#scrollTo=18373#ixzz2qOTPmcAU

[allenreed]

Beg to differ. Every year (or at least the last two) everyone here pitches a fit at HOF time when Bonds isn't voted in. We get all the tired arguments about steroids not being banned, how other players were on roids too, etc. etc. etc. Puke! It's all because of Bonds. Again, no Bonds, everyone would agree that roids are a bad thing.

Neifi Perez was another player suspended for using amphetamines.

[Rog]

Allen -- Beg to differ. Every year (or at least the last two) everyone here pitches a fit at HOF time when Bonds isn't voted in



Rog -- Maybe you're right about that. I have mixed feelings about the situation, so I don't really pay much attention.





Actually, you're not right about that. I looked at all the responses on this thread, and not all that much of it concerned Bonds until you got involved.



You realize, I'm sure, that when you say everyone here pitches a fit when Bonds isn't chosen, you are wrong. Right?



There are all kinds of opinions out there about whether and why Bonds and the other steroid-tainted players should be chosen. Yet it seems you would have us believe that your opinion is the only one that counts.



One of the players discussed here has been Frank Thomas. I said he was one of the top hitters to have played the game. There was at least one dissenting opinion.



I stated a handful of facts that backed up my position. I also pointed out that I understood why not everyone agreed with me. We're talking about an OPINION here. I may wonder why others don't value the points I make up as highly as I do, but I do realize I don't have every single answer.



Regarding Thomas as one of the best hitters ever: I think one of the very strongest arguments on his behalf is that he gained more bases at the plate than he made outs there. I'm going to take a look only at the other right-handed hitter I think might be the most likely to have joined him in that regard, but I have a feeling Frank might be the only one.



Looking a little closer without doing all the calculations, I think the group also includes Rogers Hornsby, Jimmie Foxx, Hank Greenberg, Albert Pujols and perhaps Manny Ramirez.



I might have overranked Frank a bit, but he's still a pretty darn good hitter IMO.



But others may look at things differently. I'm pretty strong on bases per out though, and I haven't seen anyone come up with anything that indicates it's not an extremely good way of evaluating hitters. Anyone here want to take a crack at it?



Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2165/which-player-got-shafted#page=2#ixzz2qOk9jMSY

[allenreed]

Wrong. As soon as the votes came in, and Bonds was rightfully excluded, it started.

My opinion isn't the only one that counts, just the one that's right.

You realize that everything after you mentioned Thomas here is superfluous, right?

[islandboagie]

Jan 14, 2014 15:12:39 GMT -5 allenreed said:

Wrong. As soon as the votes came in, and Bonds was rightfully excluded, it started.

My opinion isn't the only one that counts, just the one that's right.

Boagie- Your opinion on steriods is fueled by your hatred of Bonds. If Bonds took greenies you would say anyone who took greenies shouldn't be allowed in the HoF. You have ALWAYS searched for anything to diminish Bonds' legacy.

When I said Melky was juicing you defended him. You have also defended Rickey Henderson numerous times when it's painfully obvious that him and the Oakland A's of the late 80s were juicing more than Tropicana.

And Rog is correct, Bonds wasn't discussed early on in this thread.

[allenreed]

Kind of a chicken-egg thing there Boag. Is my hatred of steroids fueled by Bonds, or is my hatred of Bonds fueled by his fraudulent career due to his steroid use.

What is Bonds' legacy? That he's a steroid cheat? That he's a convicted felon? Tax cheat? Adulterer? Wife and mistress abuser? That he's one of the biggest jerks ever to stride the earth? Bonds ruined his legacy, not I. Right now, Bonds should be known as the greatest player that ever lived. Instead he's looked upon as more of a sad joke than anything else, more of an object of derision. Not many real fans take his baseball records seriously. Certainly not those who vote for HOF.

Don't recall defending Melky, at least not about steroid use. I recall you saying he was a bad influence on Cano, or something like that. I can't stand Rickey Henderson. ( He didn't know who Jackie Robinson was). Totally agree with you on the A's of the late 80s- early 90s. Canseco is another one I despise, and McGwire too for that matter.

I agree on the last as well. As I said, it was when Bonds didn't make the grade again that the whining started.

[sfgdood]

Randy, you act as if there was a written rule that said you could use steroids. The rule wasn't written because baseball wasn't smart enough to see it coming. Just like there were no rules against cyberbullying when it started.

Dood - if there is no rule AGAINST something, how is it right to punish somebody for doing it? You can't retroactively punish a breaker of rules/laws if the rule or law was broken prior to enactment. It's not the player's fault if MLB was behind the biolabs in the recognition of chemical enhancement in athletics.



I'll ask again. If the players didn't know or think this was wrong, why did they work so hard, even to the point of perjury, to cover it up? Why not say "Hey, these drugs weren't banned. I was just using all the tools that were at my disposal."? Why don't they say it now?

Dood - because of the stigma placed on it by the media, whipping fans like you into a frenzy about it...the same media that plays judge and jury over who "deserves" to be kept out of Cooperstown. Not to mention the Feds who act like using PEDs is akin to rape and murder...as if they don't have enough work getting the debt and deficits under control.

It's all a bunch of hypocritical hooey anyway, because players on every team were most likely using at that time. How are we to know what kind of actual advantage was gained? Just because there were no other big media dustups, it would be naive to think that BALCO was the only lab delivering PEDs to ballplayers.





I've never seen any good in rewarding people for cheating, breaking the law, or for being stupid. But that's just me.

Dood - I say cheating should be punished too. So if you're going to punish Bonds for using what he did before it was banned then you also must punish the greenies users and spitball throwers because they were every bit the "cheater" Bonds was.

~Dood

[sfgdood]

You realize, I'm sure, that when you say everyone here pitches a fit when Bonds isn't chosen, you are wrong. Right?

Dood - I don't believe I pitched a fit...merely pointed out the hypocrisy of the voters when they leave Bonds out but embrace greenies users and spitball throwers with open arms.

[Rog]

Allen -- I'll ask again. If the players didn't know or think this was wrong, why did they work so hard, even to the point of perjury, to cover it up? Why not say "Hey, these drugs weren't banned. I was just using all the tools that were at my disposal."? Why don't they say it now?

Dood - because of the stigma placed on it by the media, whipping fans like you into a frenzy about it

Rog -- I'll try to stay out of the Bonds thing, but I can't resist saying that I do have to agree with Allen now. The players knew what they were doing was wrong. And if the morals and ethics clause of Hall of Fame qualification were rigorously upheld, that would likely disqualify the steroids guys from the Hall -- a fate that might happen but in the long run might not.

But the Hall seems to be -- for better or worse -- much more about the caliber of a player's play than about his morals and ethics along the way. The only guys I know who have been blackballed were involved with gambling, which clearly goes against the game more than even steroids.

I think the Hall should be pretty much all about quality of play. The area of steroids is quite murky, and I believe one can make quite a few decent arguments covering the spectrum all the way from throw all the bums even suspected of steroid use out to just go by the quality of play itself.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2165/which-player-got-shafted?page=2#ixzz2qX2wUJUG

[allenreed]

Again, steroids were illegal when Bonds used them. Should he go to jail instead? I'm sure there was no rule banning heroin either, but you don't think there would have been an issue if a player had tested positive for it.

These guys hit it because they knew it was wrong, they knew they were cheating.

Yet again, Greenies don't alter your body or your statistical performance. How do you even judge if these guys are even HOF worthy? Their stats are fraudulent.

Bonds would have been fine if he had not used. It's his own stupidity that caused all this. Yet you never seem to blame Barry.

[allenreed]

There's the rub, Rog. With roids, their quality of play was artificially enhanced.

Paul Hornung, who was suspended a year for betting on NFL games, is in the NFL HOF. Evidently their standards regarding gambling must not be as strict as baseball's.

[sfgdood]

Here's a question I'd like answered from the Anti-Bonds/Clemens/etc group. You seem to be using the argument that since Greenies didn't "help" as much as roids or HGH does, then it's actually acceptable for someone to be in the HOF after using them. Ok, but then why does MLB ban them? Could it be because they actualluy DO enhance performance? Why is it acceptable for HOFers to have used one banned substance but users of another banned substance need to be ostracized and punished? Do you not see the blatant hypocrisy here?

[allenreed]

Do you actually believe greenies help performance as much as steroids? i don't recall Aaron's homer total jumping by thirty in any one year.

You can get greenies in any grocery store and drug store. They're called diet pills. Dexatrim and like that.

Amphetamines are banned because they pose a health risk. Highly addictive, lead to sometimes violent mood swings, messes with your sleep cycle, meeses with your appetite etc. Also, i would imagine MLB banned them because they want to do away with even the appearance of impropriety.

There's just a huge difference in the two, Randy. Can't you see that? It's debatable whether or not greenies even help performance. Steroids? No doubt they enhance performance and radically alter a player's lifetime stats. Should we accept the fraudulent stats of Bonds et al as real, when we know they're not? Is that not punishing the guys who played clean? Admitting guys like Bonds, Sosa, Clemens, etc.? Now that would be hypocrisy.

[sfgdood]

Yeah, that's true...because we all have been debating whether Armando Rios should be let in to the hall, also, right?

[allenreed]

Not sure of your point here, Randy.

[sfgdood]

your point seemed to be that roids/HGH make bad players great all of a sudden, but that greenies are no help at all. Just giving one example--there are plenty more--of a guy who was just as bad with "help" as without them.