Quote:
Originally Posted by LivnLegend
My anti-NoCal Giants bias is extremely strong but if Barry Bonds would have just continued in San Francisco as the same skinny-but-ultra-talented kid in Pittsburgh, I'd vote for him. My anti-steroid bias is strong but it's not to say I wouldn't be opposed to Clemens and Bonds being in at a later date. However, if I was a writer who had the power to make a statement, no matter how insignificant it would be, I'd do it this year. It's not an easy decision and it probably would be a short protest. It is hard because we all saw how hard a guy like Clemens worked, how dedicated Bonds was to his game. I think those two, along with Palmeiro and Sosa are my only HOF-caliber roid targets. I don't view era-compatible guys like Piazza and Bagwell or the upcoming Griffey the same way. It's the difference between "I wonder?" and "I know". When there's just no doubt - be it failed test, Mitchell report, and/or too many reliable witnesses - they fall in the latter category.
|
I tried to vote with strictly on field performance. Thats why I have Clemens, Bonds and Palmeiro on the list. I can't say for sure some guys did and some guys didn't use. I don't want to reward some guys because they didn't get caught and punish those who did in a "guilty only because they were caught" situation. I also fault mlb for the issuse more than I fault the players for hugging gray areas to get a competitve advantage. The criteria I use is: were they significantly better then their peers? In the case of Bonds, Clemens and Palmeiro I believe the answer to be yes. In the case of Sosa, while he did have some monster years, his average slash line wasn't nearly as impressive. Other than a couple peak years, I don't believe he was significantly better than his counterparts in the outfield so I left him off the ballot. I'm cubs fan and I do have a soft spot for the guy as he made some miserable seasons worth watching, but he's a borderline as they come even with his homerun numbers.