I just read this post by a dude named Jeff Swanson. One of the best Facebook posts I have ever read.

 

 

 

The HOF is a museum. Items/information of significance to any particular era should be preserved and displayed. MLB recognizes and accepts the stats of all players as part and parcel of MLB records. No players proven OR suspected of using PEDs has been outright banned from baseball. If the stats of alleged PED using players are a fraud, the entire league is a fraud. The fans paid mega-millions of bucks to see those players and the league eagerly accepted those dollars. That gives complete validity to the whole "steroid era". MLB validated such behavior by making billions of dollars off of it. The league, the owners, the players - all players - profited greatly from the steroid use, even those players who didn't use PEDs during that era. The fans didn't come out to see Marvin Bernard play centerfield for the Giants, they came to see Barry Bonds. Without the draw of the "stars" the mediocre players would not have fared as well as they did.

 

 

The HOF is a museum. Show us the best "art".

There is a Hall of Fame Museum and there is "the shrine". I'm still undecided as to whether or not guys like Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens should be admitted to the shrine. However, the argument is easily made that both of them would have qualified without PEDs.

 

That being said, it became apparent to me that something was up when Brady Freaking Anderson hit 50 homers in a season.

There are probably too many of the Brady Anderson examples to mention but another one that jumped out at me during that era was Brett Boone. In 5 years in Cincy he hit 70 Hrs and drove in 346 runs. From 2001-2004 with Seattle he hit 120 HRs and drove in 448 runs with his monster year 2001 of 37-141 and .331. Now I know he will never sniff the HOF but if Brett Boone could put up those kind of numbers who else like him wouldn't have been willing to take a chance to put more money in their pockets?

There are probably too many of the Brady Anderson examples to mention but another one that jumped out at me during that era was Brett Boone. In 5 years in Cincy he hit 70 Hrs and drove in 346 runs. From 2001-2004 with Seattle he hit 120 HRs and drove in 448 runs with his monster year 2001 of 37-141 and .331. Now I know he will never sniff the HOF but if Brett Boone could put up those kind of numbers who else like him wouldn't have been willing to take a chance to put more money in their pockets?

 

We will probably never know just how prevalent it was. Guys suddenly turned into the Incredible Hulk overnight and virtually everyone turned the other cheek.

There is a Hall of Fame Museum and there is "the shrine". I'm still undecided as to whether or not guys like Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens should be admitted to the shrine. However, the argument is easily made that both of them would have qualified without PEDs.

 

That being said, it became apparent to me that something was up when Brady Freaking Anderson hit 50 homers in a season.

 

I know how you feel Papa. I too felt that way but with MLB making tons of money on the enhanced talents of those players, and knowing full well they were juiced, this holier than thou stance they prop up with the HOF is just a big damn lie. I would love for professional sports to be "untainted", but it probably never has been.

There is a Hall of Fame Museum and there is "the shrine". I'm still undecided as to whether or not guys like Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens should be admitted to the shrine. However, the argument is easily made that both of them would have qualified without PEDs.

 

That being said, it became apparent to me that something was up when Brady Freaking Anderson hit 50 homers in a season.

 

I am not sure Clemens makes the HOF without steroids.

I say put em all in.

Put them all in!

I am not sure Clemens makes the HOF without steroids.

 

Unless you're saying he would be injured all the time, I don't buy this at all. Clemens was dominant and a clear HOFer, as was Bonds.

The HOF is different than MLB, isn't it? Just because MLB looked the other way because it was good for business does not mean the HOF should do the same IMO. I don't think obvious cheats like Bonds and Clemens should be in.

 

I do agree the HOF runs the risk of being looked at as sort of a joke when some of the greatest players to ever wear a uni are not in. BTW, Bonds was a great player but would not be anywhere near the all time home run leader without steroids.

There are probably too many of the Brady Anderson examples to mention but another one that jumped out at me during that era was Brett Boone. In 5 years in Cincy he hit 70 Hrs and drove in 346 runs. From 2001-2004 with Seattle he hit 120 HRs and drove in 448 runs with his monster year 2001 of 37-141 and .331. Now I know he will never sniff the HOF but if Brett Boone could put up those kind of numbers who else like him wouldn't have been willing to take a chance to put more money in their pockets?

 

Just compare a picture of Boone in a Reds jersey vs. Mariners jersey. The difference is crazy.

Unless you're saying he would be injured all the time, I don't buy this at all. Clemens was dominant and a clear HOFer, as was Bonds.

 

Yep. Clemens already had won 3 Cy Youngs, an MVP, and nearly 200 wins before it was universally accepted that he started using. Considering he still likely would have pitched another 5-7 years, he likely still would have accumulated HOF worthy stats.

Bonds, Clemens, McGwire should all be in and they should have been in on the 1st ballot.