Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
The crowded ballot probably isn’t helping him any
It's probably not hurting him any, either. People who didn't vote for him chose not to vote for him because they think it would be wrong to do so. Nobody left Barry Bonds off their ballot because they thought Lee Smith or Larry Walker was better.
...I struggle with the idea that some of the best players of this generation might never be enshrined in Cooperstown. I question whether that is right for the fans of those players, right for the Hall, right for the sport. But in the end, each voter must simply decide what he or she believes.
I hate when some in favor of Bonds’ and Clemens’ candidacies disdainfully describe voters like myself as “gatekeepers of morality.”
Or the BBWAA could meet, decide upon a position one way or the other, and put an end to this nonsense.
No simple answer to this question
Many of the gatekeeper voters denying Barry Bonds Hall Of Fame entry would have they themselves taken a magical, healing, not-tested-for-in-their-workplace elixir if it made them better at their jobs, especially if lesser talents were getting the glory and money."
Why can't they just arrange the plaque room in chronological order to begin with?
personally, i think a proper solution would be to have a special wing in cooperstown
I don't want a separate wing because there would only be a handful of people in it, so what's the point?
This isn't even a serious debate for anyone who has ever played the game at a high level.
"For me, it’s about the podium; I can’t get past the idea of seeing Bonds on the podium."
but I also happen to know that a whole lot of people who played the game at the highest level disagree with me.
And his most notable achievement is already in the Hall of Fame, so what's the problem?
It only hurts their "credibility" if there's widespread ignorance as to why certain players have been excluded, either that or widespread disagreement about the exclusions. The only people I've heard complaining about "credibility" are those who simply don't agree with the exclusions, and are using that word as a weapon.
The world won't end if they all got in**, but it would send a message that the players who didn't use steroids were essentially chumps.
**And unlike some people, mainly certain writers---I'm not talking about Primates in this case---I try to distinguish between innuendo and convincing evidence. You haven't heard me calling for the exclusion of Sosa or Bagwell or Clemens.
It's only inconsistent if you don't distinguish steroids from other forms of drug use and "cheating". But that's what the entire argument has always been about, hasn't it?
Once you accept the distinction between acts that besmirch the game on the field and those that speak poorly of the people off the field, then you can understand and accept why it's not "hypocritical" to vote against Barry Bonds ....
Fine, but isn't the increased severity of steroid use already factored in with the increased length of suspension?
**In the case of Anson, I can appreciate the argument that he was a prime instigator in Jim Crowing baseball back in 1887, But several generations worth of owners and commissioners after Anson had it within their power to negate his actions, and for 58 years not one of them chose to do so
It's only inconsistent if you don't distinguish steroids from other forms of drug use and "cheating". But that's what the entire argument has always been about, hasn't it? I get it that many people here ... but the whole "inconsistency" argument is largely circular.
I don't think there's any ignorance over why these guys are excluded. But doesn't inconsistency (the HOF has already elected drug users and "cheaters") and hypocrisy (these guys were branded as hero's at the time and the league/fans/media were happy to sit back and enjoy the ride) hurt an institutions credibility as well?
As I've said before, if steroids (or HGH) were administered to players on the DL under the exclusive supervision of MLB approved, team-independent doctors, I'd have no problem with steroids, because then they'd fall into the category of greenies and Tommy John surgery.
I agree. Once MLB comes out and says this is the punishment schedule: "50 games, etc." Then dont they thereby rule out any further punishment in a logical-legal realm it would, presumably.
I've yet to see any serious evidence that greenies can enhance a well rested baseball player's natural talent beyond what he was born with and was able to develop independent of those pills.
Both sides of the argument are circular, which is my point: Both sides of the argument demand the acceptance of the arguer's premise. Which of course is why both sides wind up talking past each other. Each side's premise leads to a perfectly reasonable conclusion, IF you accept the premise.
I think that the current (or "steroids era") set of owners DID stick their collective heads in the sand about this issue. I've never said otherwise. I've also said that in cases where active collaboration was obvious (see Steinbrenner, George: Giambi contract), I view it as a HoF disqualifier. But I don't think that excuses the players.
wouldn't call someone who valued their long term health over money and fame a chump.
While I can only speak for myself, I think that this is at the heart of every argument that distinguishes steroids from greenies.
I won't even bother to ask for any statistical evidence of such enhancement, because there isn't any such evidence, conclusive or otherwise. It's pure assertion.
I wouldn't call someone who valued their long term health over money and fame a chump. Everyone had the same opportunities, and they all made their choices one way or the other.
baseball player's natural talent
Why not take the group from the world's strongest man competition and put them in a home run hitting contest? See if a musclebound freak can even make contact with batting practice pitching, let alone major league game caliber pitching. I think this would prove emphatically that sheer strength alone does not make you a home run hitter.
4) Bonds was the best hitter in baseball before he began juicing.
He was the best hitter in baseball in 1990. It's highly unlikely he was juicing then.
There was also an obvious, secular break in his HR rate and BB rate after 1998, the date commonly understood to be when he started juicing.
Then what are scouts measuring? What does it mean to be a five tool player? Do a player's accomplishments prior to his ingestion of various PEDs not give us a reasonable benchmark of what he's capable of producing? Does the fact that every year produces some stunning "surprises" and "breakthroughs"---before Bonds, always produced by players under 35---mean that there are no benchmarks in any player's career to go against?
Because there's no reason to think he was
he wasn't that big
More broadly speaking, the anti-anti's "Nyah-nyah-nyah-NYAH-nyah, you can't prove it" games aren't particularly worthy of the brain cells of serious people and I therefore don't waste many on them.
Year Age HR/PA BB/PA ISO1986 21 0.03 0.13 0.191987 22 0.04 0.09 0.231988 23 0.04 0.12 0.211989 24 0.03 0.14 0.181990 25 0.05 0.15 0.261991 26 0.04 0.17 0.221992 27 0.06 0.21 0.311993 28 0.07 0.19 0.341994 29 0.08 0.16 0.341995 30 0.05 0.19 0.281996 31 0.06 0.22 0.311997 32 0.06 0.21 0.291998 33 0.05 0.19 0.311999 34 0.08 0.17 0.362000 35 0.08 0.19 0.382001 36 0.11 0.27 0.542002 37 0.08 0.32 0.432003 38 0.08 0.27 0.412004 39 0.07 0.38 0.452005 40 0.10 0.17 0.382006 41 0.05 0.23 0.282007 42 0.06 0.28 0.29
The question isn't, in a vacuum, can amps "enhance performance"?; it's "Did amps as used by baseball players in the 60s and 70s enhance their performance"?
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (1 members)
Page rendered in 1.0352 seconds, 59 querie(s) executed