There is no "steroid question" with Raffy -- he FAILED a drug test. He'll be made an example of and I'm A-OK with that.

 

I should have worded that differently, I suppose. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I was just posing the question.

 

In my opinion, there is no question with any of the four...obviously, Palmeiro's was confirmed, but anyone who uses that defense for Sosa, McGwire and Bonds is just deceiving themselves. I mean Sosa was caught cheating as well with a corked bat...

 

Here's the question(s):

 

Are they going to keep Palmeiro out based on the sole fact that he tested positive for steroids?

 

Or, are they going to hold these "steroid" guys to a higher standard? For example, will 600 HR be the magic number instead of 500? Or, will they have to have some memorable moment on their record, like McGwire breaking Maris's record with a 70 HR season (Sosa would also benefit by being in the chase with McGwire)? Obviously Bonds is in, no matter what...but, do you see what I'm getting at?

Are they going to keep Palmeiro out based on the sole fact that he tested positive for steroids?

 

 

Not to ruin this thread with spill over from the 756 thread, but IMHO there is a big difference between using steroids when they weren't banned and using them when they were. Maybe I'm the Lone Ranger on this one, but that is how I feel. I feel strongly that Raffy will never be elected and his positive drug test will ultimately be the reason. Again, just my opinion.

Koufax is clearly a case where the numbers don't tell the whole story about how dominant he was. Most observers contend he is at worst the second-best pitcher of his era, behind only Bob Gibson. I can only imagine what kind of numbers he would've thrown up if the medical technology available today would've been around in the '60s.

 

And what was it — five no-nos? That's the real number to look at.

I agree with the analysis but some, have used the argument that numbers don't justify being a HOF member and yet, Koufax is but his numbers aren't great, probably not even would get discussion on players like that today. My entire point, is numbers aren't always indicative of talent, ability and HOF selection but have to be considered, without excluding.

 

...and in fact he is, elected in 1972 on the First Ballot.

 

Now I can't take anything K3 says about baseball seriously anymore. Darn it.

....:lol: I was using Koufax, as an example of how "stats" can't always exclude induction, into the HOF. If so, he would have never made it.

 

Hope you were sitting down....

Not to ruin this thread with spill over from the 756 thread, but IMHO there is a big difference between using steroids when they weren't banned and using them when they were. Maybe I'm the Lone Ranger on this one, but that is how I feel. I feel strongly that Raffy will never be elected and his positive drug test will ultimately be the reason. Again, just my opinion.

 

Hey, I'm not arguing. Just asking for thoughts on it. I'm fine either way on Palmeiro, in or out. I respect your opinion on the steroids being banned vs. not being banned, but I don't agree with it.

 

Would you also say that Sosa should be kept out? He was caught with a corked bat.

Hey, I'm not arguing. Just asking for thoughts on it. I'm fine either way on Palmeiro, in or out. I respect your opinion on the steroids being banned vs. not being banned, but I don't agree with it.

 

Would you also say that Sosa should be kept out? He was caught with a corked bat.

Does Palmeiro have HOF stats/credentials....without question, in my book.

 

Will he ever be elected....NO chance, by the HOF voting members.

Hey, I'm not arguing. Just asking for thoughts on it. I'm fine either way on Palmeiro, in or out. I respect your opinion on the steroids being banned vs. not being banned, but I don't agree with it.

 

Would you also say that Sosa should be kept out? He was caught with a corked bat.

 

Sorry, didn't mean to come off like I was trying to "argue." Fair enough on your latter point in the first paragraph.

 

On the "corked bat" issue, honestly, I'm torn. Baseball has long had this *wink wink* approach to some kinds of cheating (spitballs, corked bats, hollow bats, doctoring the baseball, etc), so I'm not entirely sure how to file away the corked bat situation. It is clearly cheating, just as speeding is clearly against the law, but should the punishment be the same as a failed drug test (when thankfully speeders and burglars [i.e.] are given different punishments). I don't think I've developed a hard fast opinion on the whole spit-ball / doctored baseballs / corked bat shenanigans (Bugatti, GT).

I agree with the analysis but some, have used the argument that numbers don't justify being a HOF member and yet, Koufax is but his numbers aren't great, probably not even would get discussion on players like that today. My entire point, is numbers aren't always indicative of talent, ability and HOF selection but have to be considered, without excluding.

 

....:lol: I was using Koufax, as an example of how "stats" can't always exclude induction, into the HOF. If so, he would have never made it.

 

Hope you were sitting down....

 

I agree...I think they should consider more than #'s. My problem is that when they do that, they'll often use that guy's numbers as a base point to make a case for a guy who doesn't deserve it, IMO.

 

Take Koufax, for example. His career numbers aren't necessarily astounding, but he was probably one of the greatest pitchers the game has ever seen. Now, some guy will come along who was a decent pitcher (nowhere near Koufax), stick around long enough to amass some decent career numbers and then use Koufax's stats as an argument saying, "Hey, my career numbers are more than his."

 

I think they should consider the players on an individual basis taking into account several factors, like longevity/injuries, how good at their peak, career stats, etc...and not get too caught up in saying Player B's career stats were better than Player A who is in the hall, therefore Player B should be too. Did that make sense?

Sorry, didn't mean to come off like I was trying to "argue." Fair enough on your latter point in the first paragraph.

 

On the "corked bat" issue, honestly, I'm torn. Baseball has long had this *wink wink* approach to some kinds of cheating (spitballs, corked bats, hollow bats, doctoring the baseball, etc), so I'm not entirely sure how to file away the corked bat situation. It is clearly cheating, just as speeding is clearly against the law, but should the punishment be the same as a failed drug test (when thankfully speeders and burglars [i.e.] are given different punishments). I don't think I've developed a hard fast opinion on the whole spit-ball / doctored baseballs / corked bat shenanigans (Bugatti, GT).

My contention, is no difference in violation of MLB rules. If you throw a spit ball, soap on the pant legs, dunk the bill of the cap in water, emoryboard the seams or cut the leather....it's same as corking, pine tar too high, enhancements. Wrong is wrong and we can't have degrees of wrong. Punishments may differ, but reasoning is the same.

 

I agree...I think they should consider more than #'s. My problem is that when they do that, they'll often use that guy's numbers as a base point to make a case for a guy who doesn't deserve it, IMO.

 

Take Koufax, for example. His career numbers aren't necessarily astounding, but he was probably one of the greatest pitchers the game has ever seen. Now, some guy will come along who was a decent pitcher (nowhere near Koufax), stick around long enough to amass some decent career numbers and then use Koufax's stats as an argument saying, "Hey, my career numbers are more than his."

 

I think they should consider the players on an individual basis taking into account several factors, like longevity/injuries, how good at their peak, career stats, etc...and not get too caught up in saying Player B's career stats were better than Player A who is in the hall, therefore Player B should be too. Did that make sense?

Certainly but some MLB experts and us fans, will argue "his stats soley" and then, say "his career was shortened"....well, it's hard to justify both.

 

Then it becomes, is there a comparison and if he continued playing, along with numbers. HOF nomination and selection, is subjective to the group voting and to those of us, who follow the game. Until they define criteria, clearly outlining, we will have these debates (which I thoroughly enjoy, by the way), as to who can/can't and should/shouldn't.

Raffy tested positve....I would never vote him in.

Sorry, didn't mean to come off like I was trying to "argue." Fair enough on your latter point in the first paragraph.

 

On the "corked bat" issue, honestly, I'm torn. Baseball has long had this *wink wink* approach to some kinds of cheating (spitballs, corked bats, hollow bats, doctoring the baseball, etc), so I'm not entirely sure how to file away the corked bat situation. It is clearly cheating, just as speeding is clearly against the law, but should the punishment be the same as a failed drug test (when thankfully speeders and burglars [i.e.] are given different punishments). I don't think I've developed a hard fast opinion on the whole spit-ball / doctored baseballs / corked bat shenanigans (Bugatti, GT).

 

That's why I think keeping Palmeiro out solely on that failed drug test would be questionable. You open the door for things like that...obviously, corked bats increase your chances of hitting HR's, just like steroids. Nobody knows how long Palmeiro used, just like we don't know how long Sosa used the corked bat...so who benefitted more?

Certainly but some MLB experts and us fans, will argue "his stats soley" and then, say "his career was shortened"....well, it's hard to justify both.

 

Then it becomes, is there a comparison and if he continued playing, along with numbers. HOF nomination and selection, is subjective to the group voting and to those of us, who follow the game. Until they define criteria, clearly outlining, we will have these debates (which I thoroughly enjoy, by the way), as to who can/can't and should/shouldn't.

 

:thumb:

 

I'm not sure they could or should come up with a clearly defined criteria.

:thumb:

 

I'm not sure they could or should come up with a clearly defined criteria.

Which means, they've not a bad job over the years, determing induction....:thumb: and I agree.

 

If criteria was established, if would then tend to be more of "offensive stats" and then Baseball, would be all about generating numbers. I like effort, both in going after everything defensively and running hard, on a groundball to 2B.

 

I'm partial, to those who exhibit passion for the game.

I think the question should be in regard to how many H of F members should not have been elected. If it is truly a hall for the elite, it should be limited to the absolute best who were ever associated with the game. There are too many "good" players in now. It only dilutes the hall to have players who were elected because they were buddies of many who voted. An earlier veterans committee was notorious for this and we ended up with the Lindstroms, Hermans, Doerrs, Kells, Rizzutos, Ferrells, Newhousers, Lemons, and many more less than "great" performers.

 

We don't need to dilute it any further with Lynn, Murphy, Dawson, Rice, Parker, and the many more who don't really measure up.

 

As for Koufax, anyone who is familiar with his accomplishments would never doubt his inclusion. Unfortunately, injuries shortened his career significantly. Of course, his teammate, Drysdale, is another story as is, among others, Senator Bunning.

I think the question should be in regard to how many H of F members should not have been elected. If it is truly a hall for the elite, it should be limited to the absolute best who were ever associated with the game. There are too many "good" players in now. It only dilutes the hall to have players who were elected because they were buddies of many who voted. An earlier veterans committee was notorious for this and we ended up with the Lindstroms, Hermans, Doerrs, Kells, Rizzutos, Ferrells, Newhousers, Lemons, and many more less than "great" performers.

 

We don't need to dilute it any further with Lynn, Murphy, Dawson, Rice, Parker, and the many more who don't really measure up.

 

As for Koufax, anyone who is familiar with his accomplishments would never doubt his inclusion. Unfortunately, injuries shortened his career significantly. Of course, his teammate, Drysdale, is another story as is, among others, Senator Bunning.

HOF is for rewarding MLB players, for there efforts and accomplishments. Different eras and quality of play, size of players and equipment innovation, have taken the game to a new level.

 

An argument could be made, could past players from 40's-60's, even be good players now, much less make the HOF. I don't think their is dilution but obviously, some are better than others.

 

If one is basing off stats, Koufax does not make it in today's time, regardless of how good he was. If your basing it off effectiveness and stuff, without question one of the best LHP of all-time.

 

Seems like many of these, are OF's and played during the same time, that we are discussing. Each solid offensively, had power at times, great arms but perhaps the teams they played for, never achieved greatness....could that be the reason, we're not considering them.

Raffy tested positve....I would never vote him in.

 

 

not picking an arguement but are there any football players that have tested positive for steriods in their HOF?