Quote:
Originally Posted by miked
I agree that those guys should be viewed with trepidation (though I would argue that Clemens a likely user was not tied to any BALCO case or similar). But writing off a whole generation because of some self-righteous view on the possibility of steroids, while ignoring potential performance enhancing of other generations (and not even being consistent with it) is just downright asshatish, not a principled stand.
You can not vote Maddux for a stupid reason like nobody should be unanimous, but to implicate him and Glavine (who never appeared on any reports, never was even remotely tied) because Sosa, Bonds, and Mac juiced is annoying and the main reason writers probably shouldn't vote.
|
What SHOULD voters do then? Does the fact that the players fought against drug testing for years, and that the owners didn't really oppose that fight mean that voters are required to just ignore the whole issue and pretend it never happened? Part of the advantage of human voters is that there really is no one "correct" way to look at this (it's not like there could ever be one universal consensus about how players should be valued and how steroids should be considered), so players have to convince enough of a group of voters who have a huge variety of perspectives on this to get in.