Who doesn't vote for Ripken?

[pg86]

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

I read the article and understand that, but it's twisted logic. Ripken was a HoF'er by 1993, which is when this guy claims is the start of the "steroid era". Plus, Ripken is not in the hall for his bat, he's there for his glove and for his ironman consistency (which is damn near impossible on the roids because it tends to makes you more injury prone). It's just ludicrous to lump Ripken in with players like Mcgwire, who get Hall-talk because of what they did after 1993.

I agree Ripken Jr Was not on roids look at the guy! I really hate yahoo sports They ruin stuff all the time this guy is a hater

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by pg86

I agree Ripken Jr Was not on roids look at the guy! I really hate yahoo sports They ruin stuff all the time this guy is a hater

Yahoo! Sports isn't to blame here. There merely reporting what this voter from the Daily Southtown paper planned on doing.

[jdlea]

Originally Posted by jsarno

Thank you for clarifying. I think I saw the DiMaggio section taking 3 years to get in and I assumed the rest were talking about how many years it took too. I misunderstood.
Fact is, McGwire should be in the hall. He almost single handedly brought baseball back from the grave. He admitted to using performance enhancing drugs when no one was whispering a word, but the key is, it was LEGAL performance enhancing drugs. How is this McGwire's fault? If it's do to the speculation of steroids, well, then Bonds should be stripped of all his stats since I don't think there is a single soul that is more guilty of steroids in baseball than Bonds. The only thing missing is the blood test or his admission, everything else is common knowledge.

I'd have to agree. Early on, I was a defender of Barry Bonds. It has become clear, however, that he probably did use performance enhancing drugs and I don't buy for one second that he did so unknowingly. However, I think if you try to keep him out and McGwire out then that sets a dangerous precedent. I think you then have to take the approach of this guy who won't vote anyone from this era into the hall. However, if that's the case, do you just close the doors and say that no one else will go in, ever? That, IMO, is not the solution either.

Like I said, I think you have to put guys in and put an asterisk by their name and then at the bottom of the plaque clearly state: "Played in the steroids era" or "Performance (probably) aided by steroids." That said, a guy like Rafael Palmeiro should never go in. Having been a fan of his when I was a kid, I thought there was no way he ever used steroids and when he went in front of congress and defiantly waved his finger at that panel claiming he never did, I was proud of him. However, he went on, the next season! to test positive for performance enhancing drugs and was subsequently suspended. He's a guy with 3000 hits and 500 home runs, it would be tough, under my logic, to keep him out, but I would. I can't say I think that's fair, I just don't feel like anyone else ever defraud me (or the American public) quite the way he did.

Now, as I said, I read Jose Canseco's book. While I wouldn't have lent much credence to it before, he definitely said some interesting things. He said he taught McGwire about steroids in Oakland, Pude, Raffy and Juan Gonzalez about them in Texas and when he went back to Oakland he injected Giambi and had conversations about it with Tejada. He also said there was a pitcher in Tampa that I can't remember. Now, that's a list of some big name guys. It's hard for me to believe him, but it's also very hard to completely write him off. I say, let the whole lot of them in and put it on their plaque: "Performance more than likely aided by the use of steroids."

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by jdlea

I'd have to agree. Early on, I was a defender of Barry Bonds. It has become clear, however, that he probably did use performance enhancing drugs and I don't buy for one second that he did so unknowingly. However, I think if you try to keep him out and McGwire out then that sets a dangerous precedent. I think you then have to take the approach of this guy who won't vote anyone from this era into the hall. However, if that's the case, do you just close the doors and say that no one else will go in, ever? That, IMO, is not the solution either.

Like I said, I think you have to put guys in and put an asterisk by their name and then at the bottom of the plaque clearly state: "Played in the steroids era" or "Performance (probably) aided by steroids." That said, a guy like Rafael Palmeiro should never go in. Having been a fan of his when I was a kid, I thought there was no way he ever used steroids and when he went in front of congress and defiantly waved his finger at that panel claiming he never did, I was proud of him. However, he went on, the next season! to test positive for performance enhancing drugs and was subsequently suspended. He's a guy with 3000 hits and 500 home runs, it would be tough, under my logic, to keep him out, but I would. I can't say I think that's fair, I just don't feel like anyone else ever defraud me (or the American public) quite the way he did.

Now, as I said, I read Jose Canseco's book. While I wouldn't have lent much credence to it before, he definitely said some interesting things. He said he taught McGwire about steroids in Oakland, Pude, Raffy and Juan Gonzalez about them in Texas and when he went back to Oakland he injected Giambi and had conversations about it with Tejada. He also said there was a pitcher in Tampa that I can't remember. Now, that's a list of some big name guys. It's hard for me to believe him, but it's also very hard to completely write him off. I say, let the whole lot of them in and put it on their plaque: "Performance more than likely aided by the use of steroids."

When did the "steroid era" begin? 1998? Bonds' numbers prior to that seem pretty Hall worthy. Plus, why should he punished for baseball's error in not dealing with this over the past decade?