|
Post by Brett on Jan 25, 2013 10:11:15 GMT -8
We can put this at the top of the 'Threads Intended for 2 Weeks Ago List,' but I'd like to see what the group thinks about this year's HOF vote: First, a show of hands...who feels that Craig Biggio was a better player than Bonds, Clemens, Bagwell, or Piazza? Now, there are many ways to look at this. If PED's were not an issue, I would vote for Biggio, Clemens, Bagwell, Bonds, Piazza, McGriff, McGwire, Sosa, Palmeiro, Raines, and Edgar hands down. The only problem with that is voters can only place 10 names on their ballot at a maximum. What happens next year when Maddux, Glavine, Frank Thomas, and Jeff Kent go on the ballot? That is one of the issues I think should be addressed first. No maximum names on a ballot. It is pointless. Now, the reason why nobody was voted in is based on PEDs, no doubt. How does the HOF address this? Vote in nobody from now on? I feel pretty certain that Maddux and Glavine will be locks next year, and possibly Thomas too. But how much of that is based on the perception that they never used? Is that fair to them and others? Their numbers alone are staggering and Hall worthy...but so are Bonds', Clemens', Sosa's etc...seems to be a slippery slope there. Do you feel the Hall needs to change their criteria based on the era we are in, or should they stick to the way they have voted and change nothing?
|
|
|
Post by Brett on Jan 30, 2013 16:56:56 GMT -8
Cmon guys...gimme something...
|
|
|
Post by swingbuilder on Jan 31, 2013 19:13:11 GMT -8
Was Rose better than Biggio?
Was Shoeless Joe?
If they don't get in then neither should the PED's.
The only people who should vote are the members of the Hall of Fame and one broadcaster for each team but that broadcaster must have 20 years as a broadcaster.
No media and no sports writers should have a vote.
Only a Hall of Famer knows the real value of what the Hall of Fame stands for and what it took to get there.
|
|
|
Post by doubleduece on Feb 1, 2013 7:44:33 GMT -8
what numbers can be trusted since the early 80s. the guys who played it clean are the ones who should really be pissed. what if there were 50-100 guys on mlb rosters that the enhancements made just good enough? that would be 50-100 guys who were clean that never got the chance. it seems obvious that its still not out of the game. bad message being sent to kids now days.
|
|
|
Post by Brett on Feb 1, 2013 9:13:55 GMT -8
Was Rose better than Biggio? Was Shoeless Joe? It doesn't matter if Biggio was better than them. 3,000 hits = HOF, right? Now do we mark Biggio down as a user, claim him clean because his name never came up, or punish him because of the era he played? Who is defined as a PED user? Only those who tested positive, those who were tied to it in some way, or everyone who played in the era? So let me get this right - The Hall of Famers now, the ones who were voted in by the media, are the only ones who know what the Hall of Fame stands for? And they should be the ones to vote, even though they wouldn't be there without the media? Additionally, you say that a broadcaster with 20 years of experience should have a vote but no media should have a vote. Aren't sportscasters part of the media? I get it, I think the HOFers should have a vote and there should be changes to who can vote from the media, but taking all media out isn't what I would do. First, I would take away the limit of only 10 players on the ballot. Give all HOFers a vote. Any baseball broadcaster with 20 years of Major League service gets a vote. Any baseball writer with 20 years of Major League service and still currently writing for baseball get a vote. Keep 75% of the vote as the number. What do you think the criteria should be for induction? Putting aside who should vote, what is a statement that can be made for what constitutes a Hall of Famer?
|
|
|
Post by Brett on Feb 1, 2013 9:22:27 GMT -8
what numbers can be trusted since the early 80s. the guys who played it clean are the ones who should really be pissed. what if there were 50-100 guys on mlb rosters that the enhancements made just good enough? that would be 50-100 guys who were clean that never got the chance. it seems obvious that its still not out of the game. bad message being sent to kids now days. Agree that the message is bad, but I don't think it is a reflection of this generation being any different than the last. It is simply a reflection of what was available to the individuals in this era. Had the players in the 40s, 50s, or 60s had these things at their disposal they would have used as well, IMO. As for clean, what constitutes clean? Greenies have been around for decades. Steve Carlton was practically having seizures on the mound when he was dominating hitters. I would be very skeptical of those who throw stones when they did not play in an era where these substances were available to them.
|
|
|
Post by swingbuilder on Feb 4, 2013 9:18:26 GMT -8
If you tested positive you are a PED user.
Was Rose and Shoeless Joe the only two players to ever gamble on the game while in the game? Really!
If Rose and Shoeless Joe don't get in then neither should any PED user who was caught and that would include any player that tested positive in the initial drug test done by the MLB.
Did Greenies enhance performance? Hit ball harder, farther and throw ball hard and longer.
No writer should get a vote. Only broadcasters with 20 years service or more.
Thats right, you got it right. The current HOFers vote. That were voted in by guys who will no longer get to vote. The sports caster is not a writter for a media outlet. He is employed by the club.
|
|
|
Post by Brett on Feb 4, 2013 9:43:05 GMT -8
If you tested positive you are a PED user. Did Bonds, Clemens, Piazza, Biggio, Bagwell, McGwire, or Sosa test positive? Do we have anything confirmed about the 103 who tested positive initially other than A-Rod? I think both should be in...FWIW. You're (and please note the correct usage of you're vs. your) damn right they enhanced performance. Why else would someone use them? Why are they still used today? I don't see how a broadcaster versus a sportswriter with the same amount of experience has any more right to vote. I also don't see how just because someone is employed by a MLB team makes them more deserving of a vote. 20 years and still active covers the amount of time for eligible players and ensures a fresh, up-to-date view of what is deserving while balancing the experience needed to make a decision like this. JMO.
|
|
|
Post by swingbuilder on Feb 4, 2013 17:05:55 GMT -8
Study up on Greenies.
It's a forum replied to from a phone or some other device. I could care less how I use UR, your, you're.
|
|
|
Post by Brett on Feb 4, 2013 17:21:36 GMT -8
I would suggest you do the same if you honestly think they do not enhance performance. Why else would a player take them? Amphetamine: It is a psychostimulant drug of the phenethylamine class that produces increased wakefulness and focus in association with decreased fatigue and appetite.Hmm...increased wakefulness and focus along with decreased fatigue? You're right, that wouldn't help a players performance at all. Shake yourself. You have made it clear that you could care less...doesn't make you look any more intelligent though.
|
|
|
Post by swingbuilder on Feb 4, 2013 20:36:29 GMT -8
Your're not so intelligent yourself Brett. I suppose your text are intelligent complete sentences with proper punctuation. We live in a texting world Brett. On my phone when I respond to this forum it does so in text form. Enough said....MOVE ON!!!
Now to your Greenies comments.....
I know ex players who would take them on west coast swings ONLY as far back as the 70's. Are Greenies listed as a PED?
Wakefulness, Focus to do what Brett? Hit a ball farther, harder. Decressed fatigue and appetite to better pitch. Not sleeping for 8 days straight. Hardly would be something that would help a player perform BETTER. Not eating for days at a time, yep that would make a player play much better. Pitch better, hit better, run better.
Was it listed as a PED? Is there a test to determine who took Greenies? Were Greenies against the rules of MLB?
The tangents you jump off on. How about talk hitting for once in your life.
Players took them in the 50's, 60's and 70's to deal with jet lag. To deal with time changes and climate changes. To deal with travel and to deal with the late hours they kept from other interest.
I know, you honestly think players in those era's took them for the same reason players took PED's. SHAKE YOURself!
|
|
|
Post by Brett on Feb 4, 2013 21:30:36 GMT -8
Now to your Greenies comments..... I know ex players who would take them on west coast swings ONLY as far back as the 70's. Are Greenies listed as a PED? Ask Carlos Ruiz and the Phillies if they are... If they weren't taking them, they would be less focused and more tired...but I'm sure their performance would be the same... Again, Shake Yourself. Were steroids before the early 2000s? Did that make them okay to use before then? Wow...I guess you lost me when you posted the armless painter. As I said before, players then would have used (steroids & HGH) just as much as players now had it been available to them. The players of those eras are placed on a pedestal because of the era they played in, not because they were made of a different moral fiber than those of today.
|
|
|
Post by swingbuilder on Feb 5, 2013 5:21:29 GMT -8
The armless painter lost you? Now now, you were lost well before that and in more ways than one.
|
|
|
Post by Brett on Feb 5, 2013 7:58:16 GMT -8
The armless painter lost you? Now now, you were lost well before that and in more ways than one. Okay SB...way to address the facts I put out for you. Aren't you the one that talks about having to deal with 90-plus with late movement? I guess added focus wouldn't help in dealing with that... Listen, it makes perfect sense why players take greenies. 162 games, day games after night games, cross country travel - guys are dragging and need a pick-me-up to lock in for the next three hours. I remember 'Monster Days' when I was playing. Night game followed by a 10 hour bus ride and a day game the next day...drink a Monster and go get 'em. Players wouldn't take Greenies if they didn't work...just like steroids. They are a PED. They are banned in baseball. There is a reason why so many players say they have ADD now so they can get Adderall. I think the fact they are banned now should be considered when voting on the players of today. There are PED users in the Hall of Fame, so I think all should be careful when they get on their high horse about this generation.
|
|
|
Post by mudvnine on Feb 5, 2013 9:54:10 GMT -8
Does Bonds, Clemens, Piazza, Biggio, Bagwell, McGwire, Sosa, Rose, Shoeless Joe, etc. meet the above definition?
1.) Known or talked about by many people? Yes. 2.) Especially on account of notable achievements. Yes.
IMO yes, they should be in.
|
|