Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

[gr18]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

What does "integrity for the game" mean?

To have the love and passion for the sport as to not degrade himself and therefore the sport itself.

Does anyone actually think he would do that?I mean we don't know anything for sure about any player because we don't follow them 24/7 but there's no viable proof or anything of substance to make a claim that he ever used PEDs anymore than Derek Jeter or anyone else for that matter.

[TripleCrown9]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

To have the love and passion for the sport as to not degrade himself and therefore the sport itself.

Does anyone actually think he would do that?I mean we don't know anything for sure about any player because we don't follow them 24/7 but there's no viable proof or anything of substance to make a claim that he ever used PEDs anymore than Derek Jeter or anyone else for that matter.

Not many people have played 2,632 straight games. If you choose to believe that he did that without taking anything, more power to ya.

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

How about we use innocent until proven guilty (or at least until implicated in some substantial way beyond message board levels of proof)?

I think it's a very bad position to take when people assume anyone that ever did anything unique statistically in this game must've cheated to accomplish it--or, at least, must've cheated harder than everyone else who was also cheating to accomplish the same feat(s).

I miss the old days of the Steroid Era where we waited for test results, data, witnesses, and reports before starting to fling poo in no direction in particular.

[Jr.]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

How about we use innocent until proven guilty (or at least until implicated in some substantial way beyond message board levels of proof)?

I think it's a very bad position to take when people assume anyone that ever did anything unique statistically in this game must've cheated to accomplish it--or, at least, must've cheated harder than everyone else who was also cheating to accomplish the same feat(s).

I miss the old days of the Steroid Era where we waited for test results, data, witnesses, and reports before starting to fling poo in no direction in particular.

I guess it depends if you consider "greenies" (amphetamines) PEDs? Because I'm pretty sure every player in the league up until the early 2000s when MLB started testing for them was popping those before games.

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

I guess it depends if you consider "greenies" (amphetamines) PEDs? Because I'm pretty sure every player in the league up until the early 2000s when MLB started testing for them was popping those before games.

Old timers will say that "greenies" were everywhere, but you kind of run into the "if absolutely everyone was taking them, then nobody was" problem. I mean if everyone was taking amphetamines before the year 2000, then why didn't everyone start 2,632 straight games? Why didn't everyone hit 756 career homers? Why didn't everyone strike people out like Koufax? If amphetamines was the reason, that is.

The reason that steroids was the scourge that it was is because it was selective--some guys did it, many more did not. I think most people have a problem with the inequity of the situation rather than really caring about so and so's blood chemistry.

[Sportsforever]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

Old timers will say that "greenies" were everywhere, but you kind of run into the "if absolutely everyone was taking them, then nobody was" problem. I mean if everyone was taking amphetamines before the year 2000, then why didn't everyone start 2,632 straight games? Why didn't everyone hit 756 career homers? Why didn't everyone strike people out like Koufax? If amphetamines was the reason, that is.

The reason that steroids was the scourge that it was is because it was selective--some guys did it, many more did not. I think most people have a problem with the inequity of the situation rather than really caring about so and so's blood chemistry.

Wait...so the "everyone was doing it" argument is fine with greenies? If greenies/amphetamines help (they do, or they wouldn't have been used), than they absolutely contributed to the records. Is Aaron able to play as often for as long and hit 756? Is Ripken able to play every night for 16 years? Of course, then we ask when did greenies begin? Did Gehrig have access? Should his numbers be looked at different than Ripken's?

From my reading/studying, baseball players (actually, athletes) have been attempting to get an edge on the competition since they started playing baseball. The first mention of PED's is found in the 1890's...the New York Giants had a trainer on the team who was injecting players with a special strength concoction. Whether it worked or not no one knows, but the players expressed that it gave them confidence, etc.

I guess I get tired of the 'steroid era' being treated differently than the rest of baseball history...

[Jr.]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

Old timers will say that "greenies" were everywhere, but you kind of run into the "if absolutely everyone was taking them, then nobody was" problem. I mean if everyone was taking amphetamines before the year 2000, then why didn't everyone start 2,632 straight games? Why didn't everyone hit 756 career homers? Why didn't everyone strike people out like Koufax?

The reason that steroids was the scourge that it was is because it was selective--some guys did it, many more did not. I think most people have a problem with the inequity of the situation rather than really caring about so and so's blood chemistry.

Well before testing for steroids it was rumored that they were rampant, too. If you're willing to cede the use of amphetamines because not everyone had the same stats, I think you have to have the same mindset about PEDs because we know plenty of guys that took them that didn't produce like others that took them.

Seems like a double-standard.

This is the whole thing about the PED scandal and the HOF. We don't know for sure who all took steroids and who didn't. Some think nearly everyone did, others think it wasn't as widespread. You either have to ban them all or ban none of them. Amphetamines gave guys energy when they didn't have it. Would Cal have been able to break the streak without them? I'd guess not. Would his hits on a Tuesday day game in July after a night game have gone away if he wasn't taking them? Who knows, but if you've tried to take BP when you're exhausted vs when you're brimming with energy, you know how the ball comes off the bat differently.

It's impossible to state how much someone's production was caused by a PED vs. their natural ability. Greenies were more accepted, but who really knows how much they improved someone's performance on a given day.

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

OK, so according to some of you guys let's just assume that everyone is guilty of everything without any real proof and then no records are sacred. And somehow this is an enlightened position to take because...reasons. Got it.

It's a little troubling that people are assuming that Ripken for a fact did take amphetamines and they helped him do everything, when there's absolutely no data to suggest that he did...or they did. He may well have taken them, but my objection is that it's entirely speculation and not based on any piece of reality that we know about. Yet, we are already debating it here like there's some actual substance to it.

For the record, though, I do think there's a distinction to be made between something that everyone was using ("greenies" for example) and something that only some were (steroids for example). Give all MLB players aluminum bats and it would suck for the sport, but at least it would be fair. Give [enter made up number less than 100% here] of MLB players an aluminum bat and it's no longer fair. You also have to account for what was legal/illegal in the sport at the time. But, how about we wait for someone to accuse Cal Ripken Jr. (or anyone else) of actually doing something before assuming he did.

EDIT:

Spoiler

On the other hand, go ahead and accuse Cal of being a terrible color commentator because he sucks at that.

[Jr.]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

For the record, though, I do think there's a distinction to be made between something that everyone was using ("greenies" for example) and something that only some were (steroids for example).

This is the only interesting part to me. I tend to believe that steroid use was much more widespread than you do, so I relate it more to the use of amphetamines.

That doesn't mean no records are sacred. It means that every player, to me, should only be judged by their production, because it's impossible to know what impact PEDs had on their numbers. Did Andy Pettite's use of steroids impact his numbers more than (insert player here) that used amphetamines? Both certainly improved performance, albeit in different ways, but to what degree? Why is it assumed that steroids provided this huge enhancement to production that amphetamines or whatever else didn't?

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

This is the only interesting part to me. I tend to believe that steroid use was much more widespread than you do, so I relate it more to the use of amphetamines.

That doesn't mean no records are sacred. It means that every player, to me, should only be judged by their production, because it's impossible to know what impact PEDs had on their numbers. Did Andy Pettite's use of steroids impact his numbers more than (insert player here) that used amphetamines? Both certainly improved performance, albeit in different ways, but to what degree? Why is it assumed that steroids provided this huge enhancement to production that amphetamines or whatever else didn't?

After living through The Steroid Era and reading a ton about it (like most of us posting in this forum I'd imagine), I share the feeling that steroids were pervasive, but I'd be surprised if most players (>50%) used. I think getting your balls shrunk and/or raging is a good enough deterrent for a lot of dudes.

Any account of old timers and uppers always goes like this: there were bowls of greenies out in every clubhouse and people just dug in with their whole hand (certainly sounds embellished). There was no taboo about it. With steroids, the whole thing was more secretive and therefore it was probably less widespread/accepted. More based on having a special access to certain things not sitting in bowls in the clubhouse for the taking.

There's no conclusion to be had in the debate about what helped who more because the substances/doses/human subjects are too variable for there to even be any available data let alone being able to analyze it.

I would just rather accusations and implications go the normal route. An investigative journalist digs something up, a spurned former associate stabs someone in the back, or Jose Canseco tells me it's true. Call me old fashioned.

[Sportsforever]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

OK, so according to some of you guys let's just assume that everyone is guilty of everything without any real proof and then no records are sacred. And somehow this is an enlightened position to take because...reasons. Got it.

It's a little troubling that people are assuming that Ripken for a fact did take amphetamines and they helped him do everything, when there's absolutely no data to suggest that he did...or they did. He may well have taken them, but my objection is that it's entirely speculation and not based on any piece of reality that we know about. Yet, we are already debating it here like there's some actual substance to it.

For the record, though, I do think there's a distinction to be made between something that everyone was using ("greenies" for example) and something that only some were (steroids for example). Give all MLB players aluminum bats and it would suck for the sport, but at least it would be fair. Give [enter made up number less than 100% here] of MLB players an aluminum bat and it's no longer fair. You also have to account for what was legal/illegal in the sport at the time. But, how about we wait for someone to accuse Cal Ripken Jr. (or anyone else) of actually doing something before assuming he did.

EDIT:

Spoiler

On the other hand, go ahead and accuse Cal of being a terrible color commentator because he sucks at that.

I think you're getting caught up on the Ripken thing...I'm only bringing him up because you mentioned his record, but it's a general thing. I'm asking why ANY records set in an era when almost everyone (and they've admitted it...Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, etc, have all said they took amphetamines) was taking amphetamines are considered fine/sacred/whatever, but the steroid era is different. Every player had access to steroids, had the choice of doing them or not...same with amphetamines. The entire league wasn't doing amphetamines, but a lot of them were. The entire league wasn't doing steroids, but a lot of them were. So why the double standard when it comes to steroids?

Personally, I think the way the media has turned on players, painted them as villains, etc, has gone a long way to shaping our lens of this era. These players weren't any different than any player from other eras...

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

I think you're getting caught up on the Ripken thing...I'm only bringing him up because you mentioned his record, but it's a general thing. I'm asking why ANY records set in an era when almost everyone (and they've admitted it...Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, etc, have all said they took amphetamines) was taking amphetamines are considered fine/sacred/whatever, but the steroid era is different. Every player had access to steroids, had the choice of doing them or not...same with amphetamines. The entire league wasn't doing amphetamines, but a lot of them were. The entire league wasn't doing steroids, but a lot of them were. So why the double standard when it comes to steroids?

Personally, I think the way the media has turned on players, painted them as villains, etc, has gone a long way to shaping our lens of this era. These players weren't any different than any player from other eras...

I disagree that every player had access to steroids. I also disagree with equating everything about amphetamines to everything about steroids. This is more a rhetorical device than anything.

I also think that in some people's minds, amphetamines is kinda like being really amped up on coffee whereas taking anabolic steroids is a totally different kind of body metamorphosis. They are different substances and, theoretically, have different effects. I'm ok with people treating them differently.

[Sportsforever]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

I disagree that every player had access to steroids. I also disagree with equating everything about amphetamines to everything about steroids. This is more a rhetorical device than anything.

I also think that in some people's minds, amphetamines is kinda like being really amped up on coffee whereas taking anabolic steroids is a totally different kind of body metamorphosis. They are different substances and, theoretically, have different effects. I'm ok with people treating them differently.

This might be true, but why are they banned then? If they are essentially coffee, they'd still be legal and offered in clubhouses.

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

This might be true, but why are they banned then? If they are essentially coffee, they'd still be legal and offered in clubhouses.

The coffee lobby is more powerful than the speed lobby? The DEA doesn't care about hunting down shipments of coffee beans? Coffee is still legal? Take your pick. The "War on Drugs" happened since greenies were popular; amphetamines being controlled substances has a lot to do with it most likely.

[Sportsforever]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

The coffee lobby is more powerful than the speed lobby? The DEA doesn't care about hunting down shipments of coffee beans? Coffee is still legal? Take your pick. The "War on Drugs" happened since greenies were popular; amphetamines being controlled substances has a lot to do with it most likely.

I want to make sure I understand this then; your point of view is that baseball was "clean" and "pure" up until the steroid era?