The "Steroids Era"

[psd]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

Agreed. There are the "knowns" among the paranoid and the "knowns" among those with agendas.

There is a ton of evidence against Pudge. Canseco himself admitted he injected Pudge. And as much as everybody hates Jose, every thing he claimed on PED's turned out to be correct. Then you add his non committal response to questions about his use. There are other indications as well. Pudge was one of my favorite players. But I wouldn't vote him in.

Bagwell....the "evidence" against him is that his HR totals jumped when he reached the majors. It may have been larger than you'd expect, but aren't you supposed to improve as you advance through the farm? They are accusing him because no one ever did what he had done.That's not evidence. That's skepticism. Bags should have been in Cooperstown a loooong time ago.

Bagwells totals jumped DRAMATICALLY after 3 years. they doubled. He hit numbers he NEVER hit in the minors. That's not "larger than you expect" That's suspicious. Especially given the era he played in. He may not have. I don't really know. I answered a question I was asked. (Something a lot of people around here won't do.) And as I said, players haven't earned the benefit of the doubt yet.

[CONN CHRIS]

Originally Posted by psd

So let's hear YOUR solution. I love it when people mock and criticize others but offer up absolutely NOTHING of their own. So, lets hear it. Or STFU.

1) stop swearing at people or you'll recieve warnings


2) I don't think a solution is required, you do.


I am not down with the arbitrary lines drawn by those that advocate keeping users and suspected users out that are inevitably drawn. The lines can't be reasonably or fairly drawn.

[The Game]

Originally Posted by CONN CHRIS

What about the Big Hurt's hat size? I am still suspicious.

His hat size hadn't change from 1992 - 2006. If it did after that I can not say but I looked at Thomas hats on Ebay for that time period before, which I posted on this subject in the recent past.

[CONN CHRIS]

Originally Posted by The Game

His hat size hadn't change from 1992 - 2006. If it did after that I can not say but I looked at Thomas hats on Ebay for that time period before, which I posted on this subject in the recent past.

It's a silly line. I don't think he was a steroid user and loved him as a player.

It's just fun to bring up in these arguments because someone always goes out and checks to see if there is a reason to be suspicious of him which helps illuminate the problem with drawing these arbitrary lines over who should be under suspicion and who shouldn't. Either define the era (which can't be definitively done) and bar them all from the hall or stop trying to divine who did and didn't use as a hall of fame criteria. That's my take on it.

[DamPenguin]

psd, I agree with you on most points you are trying to make. I too am suspicious of most if not all players of the steroid era and beyond. But what can be the solution? Would it be right to place all players of that and current era's into a special HOF wing? I don't think that would be right. If someone like say Palmeiro, who was a sure fire hall of famer, doesn't get put in because he popped... well so be it. But as much as I truly believe Bonds, Clemens, etc. used PED's I can't for the life of me be justified for keeping them out (and by the way I'm glad they're not in). Though it may be rare it would be unfair to that one or two guys that didn't use but get a "designation" that they may have.

My best solution would be: Turn the testing over to WADA or what ever third party drug testing agency that is the best we have currently. If someone pops they can be denied entry into the HOF. Those who never officially popped should not be held out.

At least now with Wikipedia, YouTube, etc. if a 100 years from now information of those who we now consider "suspicions" will be readily available to anyone who does two minutes of research on any HOF player they wish. From there let them be the judge based on their own personal morals of what they may think of them.

[cephasjames]

I wrestle with the issue of known cheaters entering the hall: they are known cheaters, after all, on record as having cheated. But the things I struggle with are 1) all through the history of the sport, though wrong at every turn, cheating has happened. And there are those who have cheated, admittedly, who are in the hall. 2) During the so-called steroid era, baseball turned a blind eye to the cheating, thus effectively condoning it, therefore encouraging players to cheat. Now, in hindsight, we want to punish those who were doing what was basically allowed, even if its still cheating.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by cephasjames

I wrestle with the issue of known cheaters entering the hall: they are known cheaters, after all, on record as having cheated. But the things I struggle with are 1) all through the history of the sport, though wrong at every turn, cheating has happened. And there are those who have cheated, admittedly, who are in the hall. 2) During the so-called steroid era, baseball turned a blind eye to the cheating, thus effectively condoning it, therefore encouraging players to cheat. Now, in hindsight, we want to punish those who were doing what was basically allowed, even if its still cheating.

This is basically me in a nutshell. I remember when Craig Biggio got inducted hearing several people suggest he was guilty by association simply because he was on the same team with Bagwell. No proof, but does it matter? It's an ugly mess and the powers that be in baseball have to shoulder a ton of the blame. In some ways maybe we should be thankful Barry Bonds was such an unlikable cat, otherwise who knows if baseball's hierarchy would have ever pulled their heads out of the sand.

[psd]

Originally Posted by DamPenguin

psd, I agree with you on most points you are trying to make. I too am suspicious of most if not all players of the steroid era and beyond. But what can be the solution? Would it be right to place all players of that and current era's into a special HOF wing? I don't think that would be right. If someone like say Palmeiro, who was a sure fire hall of famer, doesn't get put in because he popped... well so be it. But as much as I truly believe Bonds, Clemens, etc. used PED's I can't for the life of me be justified for keeping them out (and by the way I'm glad they're not in). Though it may be rare it would be unfair to that one or two guys that didn't use but get a "designation" that they may have.

My best solution would be: Turn the testing over to WADA or what ever third party drug testing agency that is the best we have currently. If someone pops they can be denied entry into the HOF. Those who never officially popped should not be held out.

At least now with Wikipedia, YouTube, etc. if a 100 years from now information of those who we now consider "suspicions" will be readily available to anyone who does two minutes of research on any HOF player they wish. From there let them be the judge based on their own personal morals of what they may think of them.

I was merely offering a possible solution to a difficult situation. That's all. I was not saying that it would or SHOULD be done. It was just a suggestion. If people don't like or agree with my solution, that's fine. Offer up one of your own if you want, point out it's flaws , offer constructive criticism, but don't mock or make fun of something you have NO solution or answer for either.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by psd

Why would SO many players take something that didn't help?

It isn't solely a question of it actually helping; there is also the important matter of the perception that it helps. See: the Placebo Effect.

Originally Posted by psd

Do you honestly believe hitting 73 home runs is due to better diets and better rest? Steroids will NOT turn a marginal player into a HR superstar, but they WILL turn an already big HR hitter into a much bigger HR hitter. That was proven by the numbers.

And yet no one has come close to hitting 73 home runs since. The highest season total recorded since Bonds' 73 in 2001 is 58, by Ryan Howard in 2006.

Fun fact: according to this book, the product of some twenty years of meticulous research, had Babe Ruth been playing in modern-day parks under current baseball rules back in 1921, he would have hit 104 home runs that season.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by psd

I was merely offering a possible solution to a difficult situation. That's all. I was not saying that it would or SHOULD be done. It was just a suggestion. If people don't like or agree with my solution, that's fine. Offer up one of your own if you want, point out it's flaws , offer constructive criticism, but don't mock or make fun of something you have NO solution or answer for either.

How many times a day would you say you cry your eyes out.. just flat out ball over what you perceive as someone disrespecting you? My guess is 6, but I'm worried that could be low.

[psd]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

It isn't solely a question of it actually helping; there is also the important matter of the perception that it helps. See: the Placebo Effect.

And yet no one has come close to hitting 73 home runs since. The highest season total recorded since Bonds' 73 in 2001 is 58, by Ryan Howard in 2006.
.

They TRIED to cheat. Knowing it would inflate their numbers. But they did it anyways. That's all that matters. Let's just say it didn't help anyone at all. They still tried. The action is what matters. Not the outcome of the action. Someone tries to rob a bank but gets no money, we don't let them walk because they got nothing.

[psd]

Originally Posted by David Watts

How many times a day would you say you cry your eyes out.. just flat out ball over what you perceive as someone disrespecting you? My guess is 6, but I'm worried that could be low.

What would you guess your IQ is, just flat out what you perceive as your intelligence? My guess is 6, but I'm worried that could be high. It would take someone much more than the likes of you to make me cry. I just like to engage in discussion. Debate. With adults. Not just insult someone like a 7 year old. But for some people, that's the only way for them to get involved. They just don't have the brain function to have a debate. So they make fun of and mock. Enjoy your summer, kiddo.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by psd

What would you guess your IQ is, just flat out what you perceive as your intelligence? My guess is 6, but I'm worried that could be high. It would take someone much more than the likes of you to make me cry. I just like to engage in discussion. Debate. With adults. Not just insult someone like a 7 year old. But for some people, that's the only way for them to get involved. They just don't have the brain function to have a debate. So they make fun of and mock. Enjoy your summer, kiddo.

Are you pacing up and down right now stomping your feet and pounding your fist into your palm? Is revenge on your mind. Please tell me the dog and or cat isn't in the room. I worry. I worry.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by psd

I asked what your solution would be then? You didn't answer.

And I certainly wasn't aware that YOUR thoughts & suspicions were the deciding factor. And I don't recall Carlton Fisk suddenly hitting 50 or 60 homers after averaging 17 his career.

Clemens went 20-3 3.51 as a 38 year old in the AL east
Ryan went 10-12 3.80 as a 38 year old in the NL west.
Yup. Exact replica.

Right here dude, you started the snide comments. You just want to play the wounded victim in attempt to earn some pity points.

[darkhorse]

One must admit, psd's points are pitiable.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by psd

Bagwells totals jumped DRAMATICALLY after 3 years. they doubled. He hit numbers he NEVER hit in the minors. That's not "larger than you expect" That's suspicious. Especially given the era he played in. He may not have. I don't really know. I answered a question I was asked. (Something a lot of people around here won't do.) And as I said, players haven't earned the benefit of the doubt yet.

Call it whatever you want. It doesn't make it evidence. That's the point I'm trying to make.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by CONN CHRIS

It's a silly line. I don't think he was a steroid user and loved him as a player.

It's just fun to bring up in these arguments because someone always goes out and checks to see if there is a reason to be suspicious of him which helps illuminate the problem with drawing these arbitrary lines over who should be under suspicion and who shouldn't. Either define the era (which can't be definitively done) and bar them all from the hall or stop trying to divine who did and didn't use as a hall of fame criteria. That's my take on it.

The problem it illuminates is how fake news on the internet maliciously slanders reputations. Nothing is going to prevent people such as yourself from throwing crap at the wall to see if anything sticks.So your argument is people will make up reasons not to vote someone into the Hall. And that has been going on since they built the HOF. Or else, we would have had unanimous selections by now.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by darkhorse

One must admit, psd's points are pitiable.

Non sequitur, but every time I see psd's name, I think Photoshop Document. Probably a consequence of work.

[CONN CHRIS]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

The problem it illuminates is how fake news on the internet maliciously slanders reputations. Nothing is going to prevent people such as yourself from throwing crap at the wall to see if anything sticks.So your argument is people will make up reasons not to vote someone into the Hall. And that has been going on since they built the HOF. Or else, we would have had unanimous selections by now.

I don't think so. People that want to toss or segregate accused or intimated abusers really have no good measuring stick to make that judgment. I'm just pushing back against people that take a hard stance on a vague and unprovable line.

I would love to know who cheated and even more, what impact it had. Unfortunately, I don't know and can't know. Neither can folks like our friend psd here. I understand him though, I was enraged at first that Bonds would overcome a record set by a childhood hero like Hammerin' Hank but have since come to realize the folly in my emotional state over that. Also, I have since learned of the suspected foibles of Hank's era - it's just a situation that we can't fix. Have to live with it or rage against it in vain - I choose to live with it.

[TonyJ]

I picture psd as being permanently nude and red because everyone in the world doesn't agree with each and every one of his opinions.