HOF Ballot Announced: Liars, Cheaters, and Scumbags Included

[Lip Man 1]

Appropriate...no? LOL.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...,5399024.story

Lip

[Hendu]

Originally Posted by spawn

So what you're saying is you think they should get in because there is no conclusive evidence that they cheated? Well, you can have them. At least the BBWAA doesn't agree with your assessment. Smaller parks and body armour don't account for a complete body transformation. I don't need any lawyers to tell me what my eyes can readily see.

I still say the HOF voting is a joke, but if they keep these clowns out, I'm ok with that.

Well you were saying that what the players were doing was illegal and I was just pointing out that it wasn't as simple as that.

And do you really want the BBWAA making HOF decisions based on eye tests? These are the same writers who would see a player arrive to spring training with 30lbs more muscle, and write a glowing article about their off-season workout routine. They were complicit in the explosion of the steroid era.

Going back to cocaine - should Tim Raines get the same treatment as the steroids group? How many bases did that extra boost help him steal? The cocaine didn't hamper his performance; as Oil Can Boyd said, it was the lifestyle and the lack of sleep from partying all night that hampered performance. Cocaine was the only thing that kept those players going.

[spawn]

Originally Posted by Hendu

Going back to cocaine - should Tim Raines get the same treatment as the steroids group? How many bases did that extra boost help him steal? The cocaine didn't hamper his performance; as Oil Can Boyd said, it was the lifestyle and the lack of sleep from partying all night that hampered performance. Cocaine was the only thing that kept those players going.

How can you state positively that it didn't hamper his lifestyle? What frame of reference are you going by? Raines said his cocaine habit didn't help his stats. Also, he was 23, admitted his drug use, and got treatment for it. His stats dropped in '82, and at the end of the season he sought treatment for his addiction. So, no, I don't think he should get the same treatment as the steroid group. It's apples to oranges.

[Hendu]

Originally Posted by spawn

How can you state positively that it didn't hamper his lifestyle? What frame of reference are you going by? Raines said his cocaine habit didn't help his stats. Also, he was 23, admitted his drug use, and got treatment for it. His stats dropped in '82, and at the end of the season he sought treatment for his addiction. So, no, I don't think he should get the same treatment as the steroid group. It's apples to oranges.

You can't really say (some of) his stats dropped in '82 without giving a frame of reference. In '81 he played 88 games; '82 was his first full season with 156 games played. He also had 647 AB in '82 - by far the most in his career. That's a pretty big jump in workload. Of course Raines would say that drugs didn't help his stats...it's an easy excuse. Of note in that article was the mention that he stopped drinking too. Like Oil Can, he probably went out drinking all night and then needed cocaine to prop him up to play next day's game.

Sure, amphetamines are a recreational drug (with major benefits to performance in the right doses) while steroids are performance enhancers only. But it's more like a green apple to a red apple comparison rather than apples to oranges. It's still illegal, and it's still cheating. The character clause keeps getting brought up as the reason these players aren't getting in - how can that clause be ignored for a player who was high during games?

Don't get me wrong - I love, love Tim Raines. My favorite Sox player in the 90s after Frank. On the other hand, I think Barry Bonds was the one who ruined a baseball era. He just took the PED use too far; if he hadn't been so obvious about it and putting up Nintendo numbers, Congress probably wouldn't have gotten involved thus embarrassing the sport. So sometimes I feel torn about this issue, but sick of doing mental gymnastics about what type of cheating is acceptable and what kind isn't, whose body types or numbers look suspicious, etc.

I keep saying this - somebody, whether it's the Commissioner or the Hall of Fame itself, needs to give some type of guidance on this issue. For example, any player named in the Mitchell Report, or any player who tested positive after testing was implemented is not eligible for the Hall. Or they are eligible, but PEDs will be mentioned on their plaque. Or they'll get a smaller plaque. Anything.

[chicagowhitesox1]

Originally Posted by Hendu

You can't really say (some of) his stats dropped in '82 without giving a frame of reference. In '81 he played 88 games; '82 was his first full season with 156 games played. He also had 647 AB in '82 - by far the most in his career. That's a pretty big jump in workload. Of course Raines would say that drugs didn't help his stats...it's an easy excuse. Of note in that article was the mention that he stopped drinking too. Like Oil Can, he probably went out drinking all night and then needed cocaine to prop him up to play next day's game.

Sure, amphetamines are a recreational drug (with major benefits to performance in the right doses) while steroids are performance enhancers only. But it's more like a green apple to a red apple comparison rather than apples to oranges. It's still illegal, and it's still cheating. The character clause keeps getting brought up as the reason these players aren't getting in - how can that clause be ignored for a player who was high during games?

Don't get me wrong - I love, love Tim Raines. My favorite Sox player in the 90s after Frank. On the other hand, I think Barry Bonds was the one who ruined a baseball era. He just took the PED use too far; if he hadn't been so obvious about it and putting up Nintendo numbers, Congress probably wouldn't have gotten involved thus embarrassing the sport. So sometimes I feel torn about this issue, but sick of doing mental gymnastics about what type of cheating is acceptable and what kind isn't, whose body types or numbers look suspicious, etc.

I keep saying this - somebody, whether it's the Commissioner or the Hall of Fame itself, needs to give some type of guidance on this issue. For example, any player named in the Mitchell Report, or any player who tested positive after testing was implemented is not eligible for the Hall. Or they are eligible, but PEDs will be mentioned on their plaque. Or they'll get a smaller plaque. Anything.

This is how I feel too, I wish Selig would deal with the steroid/hall of fame issue instead of treating it like the called allstar game in 02 or 03. It is nice that they are finally testing HGH though. I'll be interested in Bautistas and Encarncion's numbers this year.

I'm not saying he should force voters to vote but at least take some responsibility on the issues.

[Paulwny]

Originally Posted by chicagowhitesox1

This is how I feel too, I wish Selig would deal with the steroid/hall of fame issue instead of treating it like the called allstar game in 02 or 03. It is nice that they are finally testing HGH though. I'll be interested in Bautistas and Encarncion's numbers this year.

I'm not saying he should force voters to vote but at least take some responsibility on the issues.

The HOF isn't owned or operated by MLB. Selig has no say in how the HOF operates or who is selected into the HOF.

[chicagowhitesox1]

Originally Posted by Paulwny

The HOF isn't owned or operated by MLB. Selig has no say in how the HOF operates or who is selected into the HOF.

Your right but I just wish he wouldn't be so wishy washy with the issue.

[TDog]

Originally Posted by Hendu

...
The outdated and often ignored character clause. The HOF isn't only about the numbers, but it's about 90% about the numbers. Bonds and Clemens aren't outright banned from the HOF like Rose and Shoeless Joe, so they will get in eventually. Even many of this year's no voters have conceded that point.

The character clause isn't ignored and it isn't outdated. It is the foundation of the Hall of Fame. There are no thresholds that players need to reach to get into the Hall of Fame. Some have extrapolated numbers based on numbers that Hall of Fame inductees have reached. But if you are looking at numbers in isolation and out of context, you are ignoring baseball.

Jim Rice is more worthy of the Hall of Fame than Barry Bonds. Really, if Jim Rice had Bonds' pharmacist, for lack of a better word, he may Aaron's record before Bonds had the opportunity. (Aaron said in the late 1970s that he believed Rice had a great chance to break his record, but as sometimes happens with careers, and may have happened in Bonds' career if he had stayed clean, Rice's numbers didn't meet early expectations.

For Bonds, Sosa, Clemens et. al. to get into the Hall of Fame, the public perception of their character will have to drastically improve. It isn't enough to say that there are people who are scum in the Hall of Fame so let's put more scum in. The public didn't believe Ty Cobb was scum when he was voted into the Hall of Fame, and likely wasn't nearly as bad a character has Al Stump portrayed him to be (for Al Stump's fame and profit). It would be like saying, and this isn't in any way political because the moral foundation for slavery is not currently a controversial political issue, because Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner we shouldn't care if future presidents harbor racial prejudices.

You could say that Ty Cobb was a bad person because he invested in Coca-Cola, which included cocaine as an ingredient, although Coca-Cola was coke-free by the time Cobb invested. But cocaine was legal at the time, so it really doesn't matter.

As long as fans don't respect the accomplishments of these notorious players, their numbers are irrelevant. And they aren't getting into the Hall of Fame.

[chicagowhitesox1]

Originally Posted by TDog

The character clause isn't ignored and it isn't outdated. It is the foundation of the Hall of Fame. There are no thresholds that players need to reach to get into the Hall of Fame. Some have extrapolated numbers based on numbers that Hall of Fame inductees have reached. But if you are looking at numbers in isolation and out of context, you are ignoring baseball.

Jim Rice is more worthy of the Hall of Fame than Barry Bonds. Really, if Jim Rice had Bonds' pharmacist, for lack of a better word, he may Aaron's record before Bonds had the opportunity. (Aaron said in the late 1970s that he believed Rice had a great chance to break his record, but as sometimes happens with careers, and may have happened in Bonds' career if he had stayed clean, Rice's numbers didn't meet early expectations.

For Bonds, Sosa, Clemens et. al. to get into the Hall of Fame, the public perception of their character will have to drastically improve. It isn't enough to say that there are people who are scum in the Hall of Fame so let's put more scum in. The public didn't believe Ty Cobb was scum when he was voted into the Hall of Fame, and likely wasn't nearly as bad a character has Al Stump portrayed him to be (for Al Stump's fame and profit). It would be like saying, and this isn't in any way political because the moral foundation for slavery is not currently a controversial political issue, because Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner we shouldn't care if future presidents harbor racial prejudices.

You could say that Ty Cobb was a bad person because he invested in Coca-Cola, which included cocaine as an ingredient, although Coca-Cola was coke-free by the time Cobb invested. But cocaine was legal at the time, so it really doesn't matter.

As long as fans don't respect the accomplishments of these notorious players, their numbers are irrelevant. And they aren't getting into the Hall of Fame.

I've had a few drinks tonight but cmon you must have had at least 20 beers.

[Hendu]

Originally Posted by Paulwny

The HOF isn't owned or operated by MLB. Selig has no say in how the HOF operates or who is selected into the HOF.

True, it's not a direct affiliate of MLB but if Selig banned players from baseball they wouldn't appear on the ballot. Otherwise, Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe would have gotten more consideration.

Originally Posted by TDog

The character clause isn't ignored and it isn't outdated.

Yes on both counts. Firstly, reporters no longer have gentleman's agreements to hide the dark sides of players. And with social media, we have more access to players than at any point in the history of MLB. Josh Hamilton, for example, can't go to a bar without somebody reporting it, whereas Mickey Mantle was able to play games while drunk or Babe Ruth popped into bars in between double headers and nobody made a big fuss.

Secondly, other than this steroids issue, who has been kept out of the HOF due to the character clause? Rose and Jackson don't count as they both have lifetime bans. Tim Raines probably gets in eventually despite playing an entire season with vials of cocaine in his back pocket...

[Bob Roarman]

The notion of character is a joke. Never mind Tim Raines and his cocaine, there's a whole generation's worth of players, and Hall of Fame players, whose careers were fueled by amphetamines. People can dodge that all they want by trying to put in on some kind of different imaginary tier of "cheating", but it existed and there they are in the Hall. That so called foundation has been sullied for decades.

[sox1970]

Originally Posted by Bob Roarman

The notion of character is a joke. Never mind Tim Raines and his cocaine, there's a whole generation's worth of players, and Hall of Fame players, whose careers were fueled by methamphetamine. People can dodge that all they want by trying to put in on some kind of different imaginary tier of "cheating", but it existed and there they are in the Hall. That so called foundation has been sullied for decades.

The blue stuff?

[SI1020]

In the late 60's and the decade of the 70's it seemed that drugs were everywhere. Not just pot, the most widely used, but a wide assortment. Into the 1980's cocaine was seen as hip and chic among even many professionals. Baseball players certainly weren't immune from all of this. I actually attended one session of the baseball cocaine trial in Pittsburgh in 1985. Now I personally was never into that scene but I witnessed the sometimes devastating effects the drug culture had on many of my contemporaries. No, I'm not a doctor or health care professional but I think it is pretty safe to say that long term use of amphetamines of any kind is NOT a performance enhancer. A short term boost that will help you show up and complete your task? Yes, I'll go with that, but there comes a point where use is absolutely devastating to the mind and body. Nobody here ever knew what we used to call a speed freak? Now I do not wish to excuse use of "greenies" the "red juice" or whatever brand of upper some players used. I just have a really big problem with comparing them to the designer steroids that some of the biggest stars in the game were using in the 90's and 00's. It's like comparing a fly to an elephant. The whole thing is sordid and unfortunate. Now some are casting aspersions on an old timer like Hank Aaron and the recently retired Frank Thomas, two who I will go out on a limb and say were clean. Perhaps in the years and decades to come some intrepid investigative journalists will reveal to us the true extent all drugs and PED's in baseball dating back to the 1960's.

[spawn]

Originally Posted by SI1020

In the late 60's and the decade of the 70's it seemed that drugs were everywhere. Not just pot, the most widely used, but a wide assortment. Into the 1980's cocaine was seen as hip and chic among even many professionals. Baseball players certainly weren't immune from all of this. I actually attended one session of the baseball cocaine trial in Pittsburgh in 1985. Now I personally was never into that scene but I witnessed the sometimes devastating effects the drug culture had on many of my contemporaries. No, I'm not a doctor or health care professional but I think it is pretty safe to say that long term use of amphetamines of any kind is NOT a performance enhancer. A short term boost that will help you show up and complete your task? Yes, I'll go with that, but there comes a point where use is absolutely devastating to the mind and body. Nobody here ever knew what we used to call a speed freak? Now I do not wish to excuse use of "greenies" the "red juice" or whatever brand of upper some players used. I just have a really big problem with comparing them to the designer steroids that some of the biggest stars in the game were using in the 90's and 00's. It's like comparing a fly to an elephant. The whole thing is sordid and unfortunate. Now some are casting aspersions on an old timer like Hank Aaron and the recently retired Frank Thomas, two who I will go out on a limb and say were clean. Perhaps in the years and decades to come some intrepid investigative journalists will reveal to us the true extent all drugs and PED's in baseball dating back to the 1960's.

Excellent post. Bravo, sir. Bravo.

[Hendu]

Originally Posted by SI1020

In the late 60's and the decade of the 70's it seemed that drugs were everywhere. Not just pot, the most widely used, but a wide assortment. Into the 1980's cocaine was seen as hip and chic among even many professionals. Baseball players certainly weren't immune from all of this. I actually attended one session of the baseball cocaine trial in Pittsburgh in 1985. Now I personally was never into that scene but I witnessed the sometimes devastating effects the drug culture had on many of my contemporaries. No, I'm not a doctor or health care professional but I think it is pretty safe to say that long term use of amphetamines of any kind is NOT a performance enhancer. A short term boost that will help you show up and complete your task? Yes, I'll go with that, but there comes a point where use is absolutely devastating to the mind and body. Nobody here ever knew what we used to call a speed freak? Now I do not wish to excuse use of "greenies" the "red juice" or whatever brand of upper some players used. I just have a really big problem with comparing them to the designer steroids that some of the biggest stars in the game were using in the 90's and 00's. It's like comparing a fly to an elephant. The whole thing is sordid and unfortunate. Now some are casting aspersions on an old timer like Hank Aaron and the recently retired Frank Thomas, two who I will go out on a limb and say were clean. Perhaps in the years and decades to come some intrepid investigative journalists will reveal to us the true extent all drugs and PED's in baseball dating back to the 1960's.

Every drug comes with consequences, even steroids. Speed freak, roid rage, etc. The fact is that players were popping greenies to gain a competitive advantage. Sure, the effect is not the same as steroids but the intent was the same. This is the mental gymnastics I was talking about before where we can excuse one type of cheating but not another.

This interview with Tom House about the drug culture, which included steroids, in the 60s and 70s is eye-opening. "We didn't get beat, we got out-milligrammed. And when you found out what they were taking, you started taking them."