Sound Off: Should Steroid Users Get in the HOF?

[DamnYanks2]

Yes, I’m damn tired of these holier then thou, elitist sports writers. Gurnick is everything wrong with this process, the hall is for the fans not these egostistical hypocrites. The Steroid Era happened whether they like it or not. It's now part of the history of baseball, and to just tell the public to forget about that Era is stupid.

These guys played, and they starred, and guess what, they weren't terrible people like the media would like you to think. They made some grave mistakes, but steroids did not make Barry Bonds into the star athlete he was, he was a five tool player before and an easy hof'er, Roger Clemens was not dominant just because of his fastball. Those two were two of the greatest to play the game with or without steroids.

What's even worse is players like Bagwell and Piazza are getting unfairly treated because they played in that era, even though no evidence has been found, they are getting thrown under the bus too, this is all just so wrong.

[lhslancers]

Quote: Originally Posted by DrJones

The writers (and the Veterans Committee) have no say in the matter. Both have been banned by MLB.

I stand corrected. Funny how the MLB didn't start investigating roid use until Congress stepped in. We all know if they didn't do something anything their monopoly might have been jeopardized.

[Brandon13]

In my opinion you either need to vote in every player who is HOF worthy - regardless of their known/suspected PED use - or keep them all out of the HOF. The risk with the latter is in arbitrarily deeming players clean or dirty based upon little more than, in many instances, a gut feeling. In all likelihood, there either already is a juicer or two in the HOF, or there will be very soon because we just didn't peg those particular guys as PED users. It's also quite possible that a clean and deserving player will be kept out of the HOF (at least for a little while) because of unfounded suspicions by the voters.

I'm not really big on the, "well this guy was a HOFer before he started using PEDs" argument that is sometimes used to differentiate between the HOF worthiness of players like Bonds and Clemens and Palmeiro and Sosa. It's just impossible to play that game and know for certain that you're right. I'm OK with some sort of self-imposed moratorium on voting in known/suspected users, but that doesn't work with the 5% of the vote requirement necessary to remain on the ballot.

So with all that said I guess I'm of the opinion that we need to place votes for players based solely upon their on the field play, and regardless of their status as a PED user.

[DrJones]

Quote: Originally Posted by DamnYanks2

These guys played, and they starred, and guess what, they weren't terrible people like the media would like you to think. They made some grave mistakes, but steroids did not make Barry Bonds into the star athlete he was, he was a five tool player before and an easy hof'er, Roger Clemens was not dominant just because of his fastball. Those two were two of the greatest to play the game with or without steroids.

See, to me that misses the point. It doesn't matter whether Bonds et al are terrible people or not. Professional sports are full of terrible people.

[OSUFan_88]

Ty Cobb is in the HoF, yes? So let's not start the standard of terrible people being in the HoF.

The problem with this whole argument is that some people are too lazy to factor in when steroid use began. In the case of Bonds and Rocket, they were both obviously well established players in the game of baseball and likely HoF players before they took steroids.

Then you have guys like Sammy Sosa and Rafael Palmeiro who quite clearly were great players because they took steroids.

The BBWAA is just too lazy to look deeper and instead just want to give these guys a scarlet letter rather than look past a sin for true greatness. It's stupid, arbitrary and wholly unfair, but then again, that's the HOF selection process.

[DamnYanks2]

Ok no, that's not at all where I was going with the" terrible people" comment. I have no idea how you arrived at that. My point was, baseball writers, the commish, and some fans have this notion that McGwire, Sosa, Bonds, Clemens etc, any steroid user was just a horrible human being.

The media treated these individuals like they were real criminals, and a lot of the public bought it.

[nuke_21]

Yes they should if steroids were not the sole reason they succeeded. Ie. Clemens and Bonds. This is baseball's fault for having no testing. Also, there is no gurantee that everyone in HOF is clean and innocent. Plenty of players used steroids, but most didn't put up HOF numbers.

[Perfect Zero]

I personally think the Hall has outlived its useful life. So many people want the Hall to be so many different things that it will never live up to anybody's expectations. We all have the stats in front of us so we know who was good and who wasn't. The Hall isn't really meant to be about stats anyways or else there would be thresholds to meet. I think it's a non issue.