2015 MLB HOF Inductions

And let's be honest here, greenies are basically the same thing as Adderall...you know, the thing you get suspended for in MLB now.
 
Lareux said:
And let's be honest here, greenies are basically the same thing as Adderall...you know, the thing you get suspended for in MLB now.
Click to expand...

I believe Greenies are a pure form of it......

my argument is that they are both PED, without them those players would have never made it on the field, able to focus better, run faster, stay in shape.. etc etc..
 
Getting 'em on the field to realize God given talent, in a culture of acceptance, ain't the same as enhancement in the dark. Not the same ball park. It's a weak argument, amphetamines.
 
By the 20:20 nonsense, Thomas Jefferson was a racist pig, and the Mick should stand behind Posada.
 
tipyerbartender said:
Getting 'em on the field to realize God given talent, in a culture of acceptance, ain't the same as enhancement in the dark. Not the same ball park. It's a weak argument, amphetamines.
Click to expand...

so lets take your g-d given talent argument....... Brady anderson.. talented enough to hit the ball but not strong enough to have more than 15 homers in a year then boom,, lets hit 50...
 
Yes. Brady Anderson was a fraud. And not a HOFer, with or without his best season. What's your point?
 
"Right, because reading a fastball away or a slider down and in in 1.4 seconds (or being a little quicker to 1B on a pickoff, or able to block out thoughts about your fight with the wife last night, or pick up a slicing line drive off the bat, or locate a very high popup against a white roof) doesn’t require a significant amount of alertness and concentration. You’re totally right. There is no performance enhancement there."
 
tipyerbartender said:
Getting 'em on the field to realize God given talent, in a culture of acceptance, ain't the same as enhancement in the dark. Not the same ball park. It's a weak argument, amphetamines.
Click to expand...

The only problem with this argument is that steroids WERE in a culture of acceptance. Let's stop being so naive...a majority of players were using when Bonds was...easily more than half.
 
MLB ran advertisements themselves portraying their players as the Big League Chew guys for fuck's sake. They portrayed them as cartoonishly huge, jacked up guys who hit bombs. That actually happened.
 
Players who played it straight gripe about steroids, especially the bittermen who played it straight and resent the steroid era, Ken Lofton comes to mind, but there are dozens. I've never read about any old player griping about a contemporary player's use of amphetamines providing an advantage. I've never read that. You'll probably have to google pretty deep.
 
Lareux said:
The only problem with this argument is that steroids WERE in a culture of acceptance. Let's stop being so naive...a majority of players were using when Bonds was...easily more than half.
Click to expand...

I think it was a lot, more than half. I suspect the 90's Indians clubhouse was a pharmacy and a clinic. Thome went from long and lean to country strong overnight. But that's merely suspicion.
 
this all comes down to the ego of the writers who want to think they are mightier than they are.... Writers who leave players off the ballot because they didnt give them an interview once or some other b.s....

Bud Selig turned his back on it because it was in the best interest of the owners and the almighty dollar and the next tv contract, once he got the contracts , expansion and the owners making tons of money,, time to throw those same folks who got em there out with the trash.....
 
tipyerbartender said:
I think it was a lot, more than half. I suspect the 90's Indians clubhouse was a pharmacy and a clinic. Thome went from long and lean to country strong overnight. But that's merely suspicion.
Click to expand...

Right, so it was pretty clearly a culture of acceptance around the league, was it not?
 
Lareux said:
Right, so it was pretty clearly a culture of acceptance around the league, was it not?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't go there. A culture of acceptance wouldn't necessitate two heterosexual men butt naked in a bathroom stall. Culture of convenience and denial, not acceptance. The amphetamines in the candy bowl weren't thought taboo.
 
"PEDs are illegal. Period. Even if baseball didn't prohibit them, they were illegal in the U.S., and they have obviously always constituted cheating.
And let's not forget that the Hall of Fame has a character clause; people who cheat should not be elected. It's as simple as that

This is one of my biggest objections to the arguments against steroid users in the HOF. Pretty much everything you can say about steroids, you can say about amphetamines, which have been a more widespread problem for a longer period of time. Like steroids, amphetamines improve a player's ability. Like steroids, amphetamines were banned by federal law, but not by baseball. Like steroids, amphetamines were not tested for, were used fairly openly, and were to a large extent encouraged by teammates, trainers, etc. And like steroids, amphetamines were frequently used because the player felt he could not complete with other users if he was clean.


Imagine if players who used "greenies" had been excluded from the Hall. How many of the legends of the 60's, 70's, and 80's would have been shut out? Can you imagine the Hall without Johnny Bench? Hank Aaron? Mike Schmidt? Tom Seaver? Joe Morgan? Ozzie Smith?

First off, this was the so-called Culture of Acceptance. Other players knew about it; managers, coaches, and trainers knew about it; owners knew about it; sportswriters knew about it; fans knew about it. Did any of them care? Not particularly. It improved the level of baseball - in particular, it increased home runs - and that was all anybody really cared about. Sure, the owners occasionally mentioned the possibility of testing during talks with the player's union, but beyond the brief mention to make themselves the "good guy," they never pushed the issue at all. When pretty much the entire baseball world looks the other way, who can blame the players for juicing?

And of course, steroids weren't just accepted; they were encouraged. Teammates would push each other to juice. Players who refused might even be shunned for not trying hard enough, not being willing to "take one (shot) for the team." And of course players feared that, if they did not use steroids, they would not be able to compete against opposing juicers, or they might lose their jobs to juicers who were called up from the minors.


And it's not like these are the only great players to ever cheat. Gaylord Perry has always been known as a spitballer. Satchel Paige's famous hesitation pitch was an illegal delivery; with men on base, it would properly be called a balk. Babe Ruth corked his bats. Ty Cobb paid opposing players to throw the game. Pud Galvin, MLB's first 300-game winner, drank a concoction which included Mouse testosterone - an early, experimental precursor to the modern anabolic steroid. And how many fielders slapped their gloves to make umpires think they had the ball? How many runners "shaved" the base, not touching third in order to gain a couple of extra steps when running home? How many pitchers deliberately threw at batters in order to intimidate their opponents? How many hitters clutched their arms in "pain" when a pitch hit their sleeves, trying to get a free base? These players, dishonest one and all, lived by the maxim, "It ain't cheating if you don't get caught." To say that these people didn't cheat, simply because they did not use drugs that had not yet been developed, is outright ludicrous!


From here:
http://readordream.webs.com/baseblog/peds.html
Thought it was a great perspective ..
 
That's why the people who vote are baseball lifers, not scientists. Again, no one who has straddled the "amphetamine era" (if that's a thing) and the steroid era is too worked up about greenies. The only times I've ever seen it come up are when someone gets pissy about Bonds and Clemens, it's like a school yard kid yelling "am not" or "yeah so". Mickey Mantle on amphetamines is not Barry Bonds going from 30 to 70 home runs. Let's be reasonable.
 
TheCashMan said:
"PEDs are illegal. Period. Even if baseball didn't prohibit them, they were illegal in the U.S., and they have obviously always constituted cheating.
And let's not forget that the Hall of Fame has a character clause; people who cheat should not be elected. It's as simple as that

This is one of my biggest objections to the arguments against steroid users in the HOF. Pretty much everything you can say about steroids, you can say about amphetamines, which have been a more widespread problem for a longer period of time. Like steroids, amphetamines improve a player's ability. Like steroids, amphetamines were banned by federal law, but not by baseball. Like steroids, amphetamines were not tested for, were used fairly openly, and were to a large extent encouraged by teammates, trainers, etc. And like steroids, amphetamines were frequently used because the player felt he could not complete with other users if he was clean.


Imagine if players who used "greenies" had been excluded from the Hall. How many of the legends of the 60's, 70's, and 80's would have been shut out? Can you imagine the Hall without Johnny Bench? Hank Aaron? Mike Schmidt? Tom Seaver? Joe Morgan? Ozzie Smith?

First off, this was the so-called Culture of Acceptance. Other players knew about it; managers, coaches, and trainers knew about it; owners knew about it; sportswriters knew about it; fans knew about it. Did any of them care? Not particularly. It improved the level of baseball - in particular, it increased home runs - and that was all anybody really cared about. Sure, the owners occasionally mentioned the possibility of testing during talks with the player's union, but beyond the brief mention to make themselves the "good guy," they never pushed the issue at all. When pretty much the entire baseball world looks the other way, who can blame the players for juicing?

And of course, steroids weren't just accepted; they were encouraged. Teammates would push each other to juice. Players who refused might even be shunned for not trying hard enough, not being willing to "take one (shot) for the team." And of course players feared that, if they did not use steroids, they would not be able to compete against opposing juicers, or they might lose their jobs to juicers who were called up from the minors.


And it's not like these are the only great players to ever cheat. Gaylord Perry has always been known as a spitballer. Satchel Paige's famous hesitation pitch was an illegal delivery; with men on base, it would properly be called a balk. Babe Ruth corked his bats. Ty Cobb paid opposing players to throw the game. Pud Galvin, MLB's first 300-game winner, drank a concoction which included Mouse testosterone - an early, experimental precursor to the modern anabolic steroid. And how many fielders slapped their gloves to make umpires think they had the ball? How many runners "shaved" the base, not touching third in order to gain a couple of extra steps when running home? How many pitchers deliberately threw at batters in order to intimidate their opponents? How many hitters clutched their arms in "pain" when a pitch hit their sleeves, trying to get a free base? These players, dishonest one and all, lived by the maxim, "It ain't cheating if you don't get caught." To say that these people didn't cheat, simply because they did not use drugs that had not yet been developed, is outright ludicrous!


From here:
http://readordream.webs.com/baseblog/peds.html
Thought it was a great perspective ..
Click to expand...


What idiot wrote this?
 
Let's start here.

"Pretty much everything you can say about steroids you can say about amphetamines."

Absolutely true. Can't really argue this point.
 
Pretty much everything you can say about crack, you can say about a donut.
 
TheCashMan said:
pretty much sums it up.....
Click to expand...

Yes, we're getting somewhere. I don't want to liken donuts, as terribly unhealthy as they are, to crack cocaine. Similarly, I'm not going to liken amphetamines to steroids, simply to respect a legacy Roger Clemens tarnished all by himself.

Again, the only people who give a shit about baseball amphetamines are salty about steroids. No one else gives a shit about amphetamines.
 
Lareux said:
It was mentioned in this thread that Piazza has admitted...just looked it up and apparently he has an autobiography coming out soon in which he does admit to using PEDs.

There are also a few articles today about the committee leaving him out this year due to their skepticism that he used PEDs. It's interesting to say the least, for the reasons I have earlier.
Click to expand...

Every item Piazza admits to using he states were available over the counter and completely legal (both criminally and as part of baseball's drug testing). If they ban it after the fact how was he cheating?

tipyerbartender said:
Yes, we're getting somewhere. I don't want to liken donuts, as terribly unhealthy as they are, to crack cocaine. Similarly, I'm not going to liken amphetamines to steroids, simply to respect a legacy Roger Clemens tarnished all by himself.

Again, the only people who give a shit about baseball amphetamines are salty about steroids. No one else gives a shit about amphetamines.
Click to expand...

Then why such a big deal about guys using steroids when they're not banned? Only people I wouldn't vote for who had HOF numbers/eye test are guys who got caught failing a MLB drug test AFTER penalties were in place. Even ARod and Braun didn't fail drug tests ;)
 
Steroids are different, Fondu. With steroids, Mac's in the conversation, without steroids he's Dave Kingman.
 
I'm still pissed off about this 20 years later. You youngsters need perspective.
 
I'm laughing to myself imagining someone getting pissed about some hungover string bean popping a caffeine pill.
 
tipyerbartender said:
I disagree. We're not hanging these guys from a tree on the White House lawn. We're keeping them out of the baseball hall of fame. Bonds and Clemens were locks before they decided to cheat undefeated father time. They're a disgrace. Jack Morris, Kenny Lofton, Sweet Lou, Tim Raines, Curt Schilling … let's put the right guys in first, then we'll worry about the chumps and cheats.
Click to expand...
:cheers3:
 
tipyerbartender said:
That's why the people who vote are baseball lifers, not scientists. Again, no one who has straddled the "amphetamine era" (if that's a thing) and the steroid era is too worked up about greenies. The only times I've ever seen it come up are when someone gets pissy about Bonds and Clemens, it's like a school yard kid yelling "am not" or "yeah so". Mickey Mantle on amphetamines is not Barry Bonds going from 30 to 70 home runs. Let's be reasonable.
Click to expand...

Bonds averaged 38 HRs a season from '93-'99...then hit 49 in '00, 73 in '01 and averaged 51 HRs from 2000-2004 (he may have stopped taking them somewhere in those 5 years, but we can say he used each of the 5 seasons for argument's sake). Sure he inflated his total in those 5 years, it's impossible to see that he didn't, but let's not act as if he wasn't HOF worthy WELL before 2000. Bonds only started taking them after Mac and Sosa put on their shows in '98 and '99....he basically said "I'm the best player in the game, best HR hitter too, I'm not being upstaged by these clowns," and then went and tore shit up while he was using them.

He may have hit 100 if he didn't walk 170+ times that season in 2001 too....but who cares if most of the league was using them, pitchers included? I'm not, and have never said that someone shouldn't be in the HOF because they popped greenies....but it's damn near similar in the way greenies and PEDs were pervasive in the game during their "eras." That's my point in all of this...who fucking cares, most guys were using, and the great players 'rose to the top' of those who were using, when they did use PEDs.

There's obviously a case to be made about some guys who are now borderline HOF guys, and whether or not they would have even been in the HOF conversation if they hadn't used...but that argument can't possibly be for guys like Bonds and Clemens...they were shoe-in first ballot HOFers whether or not they used PEDs.
 
Fondybadger said:
Every item Piazza admits to using he states were available over the counter and completely legal (both criminally and as part of baseball's drug testing). If they ban it after the fact how was he cheating?
Click to expand...

I wasn't saying that Piazza did cheat, I just showed the facts that I found...for some reason though, the committee seems to be holding him under suspicion, which doesn't seem fair to him. Piazza was initially brought up because of that cloud of suspicion, and the fact that if he does get in then you absolutely have to let anyone in who used or was reasonably suspected to have used PEDs.

On a side note though, using the logic that they were 'legal under baseball's drug testing policy,' PEDs were also "legal" under baseball's drug testing policy, so we arrive at they all should be in because it wasn't against the rules (not to mention it was basically encouraged by the league itself, but that's a separate topic that's been brought before). PEDs were 'illegal' criminally, but could also be prescribed by a doctor (especially HGH, but really any steroid or PED), and since the league didn't outlaw them in their CBA how can they possibly punish someone for them? Amphetamines are also illegal, so the same argument applies (it's also maybe why they're brought up so much when discussing PEDs).

Not to mention that the league isn't the police, or the court system, so something being illegal outside of baseball really shouldn't matter much when talking about the HOF...if that were the case, should anyone committed of a felony, or whatever measuring stick someone would like to use, should also be subject to the scrutiny? Someone busted for cocaine should be out of the HOF because cocaine is illegal criminally?

I certainly don't think any of them shouldn't be in the HOF for whatever they used either, I'm just playing devil's advocate and trying to show the poor logic that's being used by the committee these days.
 
Lareux, I appreciate your attention to detail, but amphetamines and beer are a "yeah but" argument. None of Mickey Mantle's sober contemporaries, to my knowledge, have whined about his performance being enhanced. I think that silence speaks volumes.
 
Only guy who ever groused about Mantle was Mr. Coffee himself.
 
tipyerbartender said:
Lareux, I appreciate your attention to detail, but amphetamines and beer are a "yeah but" argument. None of Mickey Mantle's sober contemporaries, to my knowledge, have whined about his performance being enhanced. I think that silence speaks volumes.
Click to expand...

"Amphetamines" isn't my argument though...did you even read what I wrote? For Christ's sake Tip.
 
I did. It was kind of a comprehensive reply to several posts.
 
tipyerbartender said:
I did. It was kind of a comprehensive reply to several posts.
Click to expand...

Several posts of a few posters I guess, because I haven't used the amphetamine argument like you're suggesting. You're saying it's a weak argument because PEDs are better than amphetamines at increasing performance....I'm not disagreeing that PEDs are better, that doesn't even matter in the point about amphetamines though.

All I've said is that the 'PED culture' was similar to what the 'greenie culture' was back in the day....yes, science has gotten better and the way guys were 'cheating' w/o really cheating in the 90s/00s was more effective, but what does that matter? Both 'cultures' were putting something in their bodies that MLB later banned....the HOF committee is now choosing to keep one of those 'cultures' out of the Hall simply because they had better drugs.
 
I think the HOF committee is applying experience, observation, context. These nerds have earned their spurs.
 
It's fun for baseball fans to argue about the HOF. I estimate I wrote 100,000 words in support of Bert Blyleven before he got in. But honestly, if there's a doubt, leave 'em out.
 
tipyerbartender said:
I think the HOF committee is applying experience, observation, context. These nerds have earned their spurs.
Click to expand...

Have you seen a list of the committee? How have, what amounts to, essentially random writers from across the country "earned their spurs?"
 
I haven't. Assumed beat writers from baseball cities. Paul Hoynes types.
 
tipyerbartender said:
I haven't. Assumed beat writers from baseball cities. Paul Hoynes types.
Click to expand...

There's this guy...

Angel M. Prada Affiliation: La Voz Libre

There's also a ton of "honorary members" who may not even watch baseball much anymore but they have a vote and they're in good standing with the committee so they're in.

There's also a 10 vote limit for the committee...each guy can only nominate 10 guys.

http://www.businessinsider.com/mike-piazza-hall-of-fame-voting-rules-2015-1
 
I do think sportswriters should have the say. This isn't a trip to Hawaii.
 
I am a Craig Biggio fan but you are making the hall of fame a joke by having him in it. He was a fairly consistently good player with all the tools.... I don't think he was great ...... and I think you have to be beyond great to get into a hall of fame. I think it cheapens everything.

I am of a mixed mind about the roids and the hall of fame. You cheat, there should be a consequence. On the other hand, I am not so naïve that I don't think a majority of the players during that span were cheating so it was sort of a level playing field in its own way. Bonds, Clemens and Piazza are all time greats, elite and dominant players who were feared and respected by their peers for their ability. In my lifetime, I don't think there was a better player than Bonds. He is a cheating dickhead but at the same time it is hard to wrap my head around Biggio being in the hall of fame when Bonds isn't. I also don't thin McGwire and Sosa are hall of fame material... nor posada. Come on ... Posada? Was he ever considered an elite player of his era? no.

The hall of fame has gone the way of third grade elementary school graduation ceremonies.....
 
I think the baseball HOF has important credentials, people get all crabby about it. Don't take performance enhancing drugs. Don't bet on a game you manage. It's not rocket science.
 
I believe all managers should be required to wager on their teams, in every sport

This Hall of Fame is a joke, amphetamines are performance enhancing, possibly more so than steroids, and the people arguing against PED are likely people who haven't tried PED and aren't qualified to have an opinion

And I absolutely can't stand most of the heroes associated with the steroid era, but this has become garbage regulated by the ignorant
 
kjohnson109 said:
I believe all managers should be required to wager on their teams, in every sport

This Hall of Fame is a joke, amphetamines are performance enhancing, possibly more so than steroids, and the people arguing against PED are likely people who haven't tried PED and aren't qualified to have an opinion

And I absolutely can't stand most of the heroes associated with the steroid era, but this has become garbage regulated by the ignorant
Click to expand...

Ridiculous. So Manny's in, Vizqel is not, Griff is on the fence. We do have eyes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

2daBank
Rest of mlb reg season discussion
2 3 4 5
Replies
232
Views
1K
bulldogs
B
Wiretowire
MLB Tuesday 10/1
Replies
12
Views
165
Paul Patrol
P
B
Arizona owner
Replies
1
Views
56
Teapot9
Teapot9
Wiretowire
MLB Thursday 6/27
Replies
7
Views
164
cashflowmatters
cashflowmatters
Teapot9
Teapot NFL
Replies
0
Views
47
Teapot9
Teapot9
Back
Top