Why not welcoming Sosa back is bullshit

[brett05]

Again. No one broke 61 on the greenies era. I could see Rose popping them with style of play but it didn’t make him a HR hitter. Even Foster barely broke 50 in that era. Then Mike Schmidt. Another prolific HR hitter from that era. Some say best 3B all time. Never broke 60.

So honestly it is beyond taking some pills to help with getting out there or like the other said on adderal that has shown improved energy. I use 5 hr energy myself and it gets me to work another day.

But it is not going to make you physically stronger like roids has. Which directly ties into power.

Don’t get me wrong it is not going to make a non player into a player but Bonds doesn’t sniff either record clean. And that is what it about.

The issue is you had players taking something in the 80's thru now. Less now, more before. I am ok with those assumptions. Further more, I am ok with the assumption that the height of taking something was right around 2000. And even then we do not have a litany of guys doing extraordinary things. We have a few. Very few. And they are SUPERIOR....I want to say that again...SUPERIOR athletes compared to any era prior. Their conditioning is unmatched. It would be foolish to think the players of today would not break records.

Take McGwire. His HR ratio never really changed in his career. If "something" helped him get bigger, stronger, it did not help him hit more home runs. It did try to help his body heal/recover faster. (sounds a lot like greenies from that respect).

Joe Morgan is wrong. And yes, I think you are indicating he was right.

 

[CSF77]

The issue is you had players taking something in the 80's thru now. Less now, more before. I am ok with those assumptions. Further more, I am ok with the assumption that the height of taking something was right around 2000. And even then we do not have a litany of guys doing extraordinary things. We have a few. Very few. And they are SUPERIOR....I want to say that again...SUPERIOR athletes compared to any era prior. Their conditioning is unmatched. It would be foolish to think the players of today would not break records.

Take McGwire. His HR ratio never really changed in his career. If "something" helped him get bigger, stronger, it did not help him hit more home runs. It did try to help his body heal/recover faster. (sounds a lot like greenies from that respect).

Joe Morgan is wrong. And yes, I think you are indicating he was right.

I really don’t agree because today’s hitters are just as talented and are hitting HR’s at a clip that aligns with the pre roids era.

I believe it started with Oakland in 88 and continued to Tex. Mac kept it up after they split and brought it over to STL with LaRussa (corrupt king himself). By then it started to gain steam and 1998!pushed it to the forefront. Fans were HR happy and the owners turned a blind eye to it.

If Canceo kept his mouth shut then we could still be in that era. But no he wrote a damn book about it and it went to Congressional hearings. Ownership had no choice but to cut ties and find scapegoats.

But this is all water under the bridge. It improves people. It can counter the effects of AIDS. Using steroids is a very controversial subject and honestly I’m not against it if used for the right reasons.

But to say that these juiced players were a cut above wgat came before and what came after? That is slapping many players in their faces.

We saw D.Lee’s production drop after the hearings. Sori’s Production dropped. We have seen pitchers pitching into their 40’s and now losing velocity at 34-36. If Roids was still a game changer Arretta and Darvish would have their 6 year deals fed to them. Now a pitcher on the wrong side of 30 is subject. That was not the case in the previous era.

Like I said there are benifits to using it. But as we have seen it changes the dynamic of the game.

It is what baseball decided to do and I pretty much agree with it. It is all about integrity

 

[CSF77]

But there is a pretty good documentary on the subject. Good watch

 

[brett05]

I really don’t agree because today’s hitters are just as talented and are hitting HR’s at a clip that aligns with the pre roids era.


It is what baseball decided to do and I pretty much agree with it. It is all about integrity

The conditioning is still there, but without something like greenies or roids it's a lot harder to do it over and over again which is why careers are shorter.

Your last line is you agree baseball decided to do it and you agree with them, why not put them in?

 

[CSF77]

The conditioning is still there, but without something like greenies or roids it's a lot harder to do it over and over again which is why careers are shorter.

Your last line is you agree baseball decided to do it and you agree with them, why not put them in?

It is hard to place a player like Bonds next to Ruth or Aaron knowing that he used artificial means to achieve those numbers.

It is about integrity of the numbers not about the benifits using gives. We really don’t know much about it and it is a polarizing subject. One extreme a AIDS surivor counters the deterioration Of his body by using HGH and steroids. Other hand you have Chris Benoit murdering his family and capping himself.

The majority are just gym rats looking for a edge.

But in professional sports it equates it to pro wrestling. No one believes it is real and the new standards would align with that

 

[brett05]

It is hard to place a player like Bonds next to Ruth or Aaron knowing that he used artificial means to achieve those numbers.

It is about integrity of the numbers not about the benifits using gives. We really don’t know much about it and it is a polarizing subject. One extreme a AIDS surivor counters the deterioration Of his body by using HGH and steroids. Other hand you have Chris Benoit murdering his family and capping himself.

The majority are just gym rats looking for a edge.

But in professional sports it equates it to pro wrestling. No one believes it is real and the new standards would align with that

I think you are overplaying the reality of the numbers.
Aaron had greenies and there's no campaign to remove him.
They need to go in. At a minimum it's a museum.

 

[CSF77]

I think you are overplaying the reality of the numbers.
Aaron had greenies and there's no campaign to remove him.
They need to go in. At a minimum it's a museum.

Hank never broke 50 in a year. He sustained his production for 23 years and hit 40 at 39 yo.

Greenies most likely kept players playing longer but it wasn’t giving 3 60 HR seasons or breaking 70.

Honestly they should have supplements allowed that promote sustainable production with out the inhuman results. Nothing wrong with players performing into their 40’s. That has been part of the game and the current era seems lacking there.

Almost feels like players can’t use anything now with out getting a 50 game.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

I think you are overplaying the reality of the numbers.
Aaron had greenies and there's no campaign to remove him.
They need to go in. At a minimum it's a museum.

I don't buy the greenies argument and never will so there is absolutely no use in debating it. That said you did touch on the crux issue to me. If the HoF is a museum dedicated to the history of baseball then everyone, regardless of PEDs, who earned their place by the numbers should go in, albeit with an explanation of the era If instead you believe it to be an elite fraternity of brothers who reached the pinnacle of their sport then they should not, and I believe that to be the Joe Morgan position. I consistently considered it to be the latter up until recently, but far too many people consider it to be the former for me to hold that position any longer.

 

[brett05]

Hank never broke 50 in a year. He sustained his production for 23 years and hit 40 at 39 yo.

Greenies most likely kept players playing longer but it wasn’t giving 3 60 HR seasons or breaking 70.

Honestly they should have supplements allowed that promote sustainable production with out the inhuman results. Nothing wrong with players performing into their 40’s. That has been part of the game and the current era seems lacking there.

Almost feels like players can’t use anything now with out getting a 50 game.

Hank never had a workout regimine like a Zobrist. Again you so underplay health.
There were no inhuman results.

 

[brett05]

I don't buy the greenies argument and never will so there is absolutely no use in debating it. That said you did touch on the crux issue to me. If the HoF is a museum dedicated to the history of baseball then everyone, regardless of PEDs, who earned their place by the numbers should go in, albeit with an explanation of the era If instead you believe it to be an elite fraternity of brothers who reached the pinnacle of their sport then they should not, and I believe that to be the Joe Morgan position. I consistently considered it to be the latter up until recently, but far too many people consider it to be the former for me to hold that position any longer.

IF we ignore greenies we ignore roids, plain and simple. If one is allowed then we comment on them all.

So now if it's elite, I have no issue with that. But then we need to kick a bunch of people out of the Hall like Santo, Rizutto, etc.

 

[CSF77]

An overview of amphetamines and their place in baseball:

HISTORY

Amphetamines were given to members of the U.S. Military in World War II to help them perform their duties. When veterans returned they brought amphetamines with them. It was quickly discovered that they helped performance on athletic fields. Jim Bouton was the first person to shine a light on the use of the drugs with baseball in his book “Ball Four.” Major League Baseball banned 30 stimulants in their drug agreement with the players in November 2005.

EFFECTS

The drugs help players deal with the grind of a 162-game season. They mask fatigue, increase arousal, increase alertness, increase aggressiveness and reaction time. Some players also claim to see the ball better, which may be because of the increased alertness.

RISKS

Amphetamines are addictive and a user can overdose on them. Short-term effects include dizziness, headaches and kidney damage. Use can lead to strokes and seizures. Long-term use can result in paranoia and hallucinations.

“They’re far more risky than steroids,” said Charles Yesalis, an expert in performance-enhancing drugs. “They can stone-cold kill you. It’s far more dangerous. They’re not even in the same room with steroids.”

 

[CSF77]

But Bonds was busted for that in 2007 after the 2005 ban:

Barry Bonds’ reputation as a performance-enhancing drug user grew with a report that he failed a test for amphetamines. Amphetamine use has been common for at least 40 years. They were not banned until last year. Estimates of how many players used them have been as high as 85 percent. The drugs, known as “greenies” or “beans” used to be outwardly available in clubhouses. In recent years, the use has become more hidden. Players have told stories of jars of the stimulants being next to the sunflower seeds and bubble gum.

 

[Adipost]

But Bonds was busted for that in 2007 after the 2005 ban:

Barry Bonds’ reputation as a performance-enhancing drug user grew with a report that he failed a test for amphetamines. Amphetamine use has been common for at least 40 years. They were not banned until last year. Estimates of how many players used them have been as high as 85 percent. The drugs, known as “greenies” or “beans” used to be outwardly available in clubhouses. In recent years, the use has become more hidden. Players have told stories of jars of the stimulants being next to the sunflower seeds and bubble gum.

I wouldn’t be surprised if half of all MLB players have prescriptions for amphetamines. Several doctors have already come out and said they were offered substantial amounts of money to write amphetamine prescriptions for players. Richard Sherman once said that half of all NFL players had prescriptions for amphetamines.

 

[CSF77]

I wouldn’t be surprised if half of all MLB players have prescriptions for amphetamines. Several doctors have already come out and said they were offered substantial amounts of money to write amphetamine prescriptions for players. Richard Sherman once said that half of all NFL players had prescriptions for amphetamines.

They covered it in the hiding part. Think is these guys go through random tests and honestly I don’t know if the can mask it.

 

[Adipost]

They covered it in the hiding part. Think is these guys go through random tests and honestly I don’t know if the can mask it.

Don’t have to mask it if you have a prescription.

 

[brett05]

So from your own posts, greenies are worse and were in rampant use.
The ban didn't happen until 2005. (really it was 2004)

Bonds was never suspended.

 

[CSF77]

So from your own posts, greenies are worse and were in rampant use.
The ban didn't happen until 2005. (really it was 2004)

Bonds was never suspended.

It was from a article from 2007 right after he got caught. End results I didn’t look at.

 

[DanTown]

The purpose of the Hall-of-Fame is to tell the story of the players who played in that era so some eight-year old kid from 2444 can walk in to the HOF and read on a plaque what made Barry Bonds or Hank Aaron or Babe Ruth one of the best players of their generation. The invention of the internet makes the idea of the HOF more novel than needed so writers giving themselves a higher inflated self-worth are acting as the "gate keepers" of history as they see fit. It's bullshit and why if I ever had a child who wanted to go to a HOF, I'd explain to him why he should read dozens of other books and look online for the true history of the game so that when he asked if Ken Griffey Jr was the best OF of his era, I wouldn't have to explain no and tell the story of Barry Bonds.

Hell, it should be there on his plaque in Cooperstown. "Bonds was one of the greatest hitters of all-time in terms of production and OBP and BA but his legacy and accomplishments will always be tainted due to suspected steroid use later in his career".

 

[CSF77]

The purpose of the Hall-of-Fame is to tell the story of the players who played in that era so some eight-year old kid from 2444 can walk in to the HOF and read on a plaque what made Barry Bonds or Hank Aaron or Babe Ruth one of the best players of their generation. The invention of the internet makes the idea of the HOF more novel than needed so writers giving themselves a higher inflated self-worth are acting as the "gate keepers" of history as they see fit. It's bullshit and why if I ever had a child who wanted to go to a HOF, I'd explain to him why he should read dozens of other books and look online for the true history of the game so that when he asked if Ken Griffey Jr was the best OF of his era, I wouldn't have to explain no and tell the story of Barry Bonds.

Hell, it should be there on his plaque in Cooperstown. "Bonds was one of the greatest hitters of all-time in terms of production and OBP and BA but his legacy and accomplishments will always be tainted due to suspected steroid use later in his career".

You are missing the point. Hall of Fame is about immortalizing your time spent as a baseball player.

Anyone can get info on any player but there will always be a nitch for the players that were voted in.

Now arguing the value of sportswriters opinions is a whole another subject. My opinion is the members alive should be the ones casting the vote. Those writers have never been on the field with these guys and honestly have no right to sort them. Any player has access to stats info but the players know what it takes to play at that level.

 

[brett05]

You are missing the point. Hall of Fame is about immortalizing your time spent as a baseball player.

Anyone can get info on any player but there will always be a nitch for the players that were voted in.

Now arguing the value of sportswriters opinions is a whole another subject. My opinion is the members alive should be the ones casting the vote. Those writers have never been on the field with these guys and honestly have no right to sort them. Any player has access to stats info but the players know what it takes to play at that level.

IMO that would be horrible. Whenever voting is turned over in any sport to the players or coaches the bias is off the charts and the value is diminished greatly. How many times have they come out and said they don't have time to follow or research anything more than their job? ALL THE TIME.

You want to add say announcers to the vote? That'd be ok with me.

But let's not forget this is the Baseball Writers Hall of Fame, not MLB's Hall of Fame.