Kansas Crimson

pdub wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 4:18 pm Problem is, some of those guys were not cheating...when the others were ( steroids ).

Not a fan of rewarding cheating.
Some people are.

Then you need to simply toss all results from...what, about 1980-2015?

No.

pdub wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 11:09 amNo.

I think you have to assume that players of each and every type were using. Meaning, juiced pitchers were throwing to juiced hitters, who hit ground balls at juiced second basemen who tried to throw out juiced pinch runners.

It just needs to be a marker of the era, not unlike how we regard the dead ball era, or the pre-integration era.

It's just a quality of the era.

But there are likely several players of each and every type that were not using. And good ones.
If a player gets away with it and ends up in the HOF, that's on their conscience.
You punish the players who get caught. And you don't reward them either.

Not a fan of rewarding cheating.
Some people are.

Banned substances list also has some arbitrariness to it, and across time.

Everyone was and is trying to find that line. Whit Merrifield all of the sudden starts smashing the ball--maybe (big maybe) his flintstone vitamins are ok now, but in 5 years' time?

There are lines for everything.
The players we are talking about had secret operations on how to obtain illegal drugs to help their performance on the field - it wasn't as if they were unbanned at the time, they were banned in the 80s or early 90s.

I'd pass on them if I had a vote.

pdub wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 12:05 pm There are lines for everything.
The players we are talking about had secret operations on how to obtain illegal drugs to help their performance on the field - it wasn't as if they were unbanned at the time, they were banned in the 80s or early 90s.

I'd pass on them if I had a vote.

That's fine, but it's silly. There is zero chance that every player you think was clean, was in fact clean. Zero.

But, the head in the sand approach is an approach.

There is not a zero chance.
That is very silly.

A low low chance ( key word every ) yes.
But what about Ken Griffey?

Yeah, I believe there were a lot of clean players, even today especially in football, about as much as I believe Kurtis Townsend would never get wrapped up in something shady.

If there is ill intent by all and no competitive advantage, then I don't see the results as being tainted. The League and players have manipulated different shit at every point in history to try and give someone an advantage. It's the steroid era and not the "certain steroid players."

If I was a teacher and I found 70% of the class cheated on the test, I would punish those particular students, not the students who didn't cheat. And if was a principal of that school, the grade they got before cheating in that class would not apply towards the honor roll.

pdub wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 12:21 pm There is not a zero chance.
That is very silly.

A low low chance ( key word every ) yes.
But what about Ken Griffey?

Oh grow up. ZERO chance.

What about Griffey? Awesome player, couldn't shake chronic soft tissue injuries after putting on weight? That Griffey?

pdub wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 12:28 pm If I was a teacher and I found 70% of the class cheated on the test, I would punish those particular students, not the students who didn't cheat. And if was a principal of that school, the grade they got before cheating in that class would not apply towards the honor roll.

In that case it's probably a matter of looking in the mirror (as baseball had to do, and largely did).

Sure.
Look in the mirror - for the future of the school.
That doesn't change the fact that they wouldn't be in the honor roll case in the school's halls.

I dunno.

Sometimes I'm more bothered by Tony Gwynn gaining 60 lbs of fat over his career than the guys who took PEDs to get better.

Hell, it's debatable which of those is the worse example foe kids.

I am with Fish on this one. It wasn't just a couple of folks. Baseball is about reflexes anyway.

Wut?

Just saying you can juice, but reaction time, joints, eyesight, mattered more.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 11:45 am

pdub wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 11:09 amNo.

I think you have to assume that players of each and every type were using. Meaning, juiced pitchers were throwing to juiced hitters, who hit ground balls at juiced second basemen who tried to throw out juiced pinch runners.

It just needs to be a marker of the era, not unlike how we regard the dead ball era, or the pre-integration era.

It's just a quality of the era.

This. The Hall of Fame is full of players who were using amphetamines, threw spit balls and cheated in a wide variety of means. This asinine focus on virtuosity to get into the MLB HoF is just ridiculous. Voting should be taken out of the hands of the current voters and moved to a panel of former players. The list of absurd takes as to why certain lock first ballot HoF players didn't get 100% of the vote should have been enough to end this idiotic system they have now.

The difference between the dead ball era or the pre-integration were that those were the rules at the time ( and the latter being an awful rule obviously ).

These players broke the rules that were in place.
They were keeping the steroids a secret for a reason.
If it was all legal and then after they were done playing it was made illegal, for sure, vote them in.

I am not a fan of rewarding cheating.
Some people are.

For me, it's not even about 'rewarding'

In salary alone

Barry Bonds was "rewarded" with $192M
Mark McGwire was "rewarded" with $75M
Sammy Sosa was "rewarded" with $127M
Roger Clemens was "rewarded" with $160M
Manny Ramirez was "rewarded" with $234M
Alex Rodriguez was "rewarded" with $455M

But yeah, let's get bent out of shape because they don't get a plaque is a museum. Which, I've been to, it's a middle of the road museum is shithole town.