Should PED Users, Pete Rose, and/or Shoeless Joe be in the Hall of Fame?

[Lee]

Who are the one accusing him? Random people on the internet. His career arc is pretty typical of a HOF'er. Great player that is productive into his mid 30's. That is really what separates great players from HOF'ers: longevity.

Those pictures that person used are misleading, that rookie card is from 1991, not 1994. The entire article is either written from ignorance or with a purpose to distort facts and hope people do not take the time to look them up.

There is no magical season where all of a sudden his numbers jump to insane levels. Look at Barry Bonds career, age 36 to 40 his numbers blow up to insane levels. He goes from one of the best players to ever play the game to video game god mode turned on numbers.

I will tell you a 2 time MLB GM and still in baseball as an exec told me in private that they almost all used. I would think he knows more than anyone on here. I think its hypocrisy to not let them in from that era based on PEDs. He agrees with me that baseball knew but allowed it, are you saying my acquaintance was wrong?

 

[LL3]

I will tell you a 2 time MLB GM and still in baseball as an exec told me in private that they almost all used. I would think he knows more than anyone on here. I think its hypocrisy to not let them in from that era based on PEDs. He agrees with me that baseball knew but allowed it, are you saying my acquaintance was wrong?

Yeah! Bonds in particular (because he was such a great player before his "inflation") had bothered me the most....but I have come around to accepting that wide spread PED use was the norm, and that MLB probably encouraged it on a certain level. So be it...I realized it was time to move on for me.

 

[Obscured By Clouds]

I will tell you a 2 time MLB GM and still in baseball as an exec told me in private that they almost all used. I would think he knows more than anyone on here. I think its hypocrisy to not let them in from that era based on PEDs. He agrees with me that baseball knew but allowed it, are you saying my acquaintance was wrong?

My post was about Thome and there being no evidence via investigations or some out of no where jump in production, and that website being extremely misleading via either ignorance or on purpose. You are talking about something completely different.

 

[JDailey23]

Was talking about Mark McGwire

Um, yeah, it's against the rules. Rule 21(d) to be specific.

http://content.mlb.com/documents/8/2/2/296982822/Major_League_Rule_21.pdf

"(2) Any player, umpire, or Club or League official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform, shall be declared permanently ineligible. "

"shall be declared permanently ineligible" Bye Bye Pete Rose, permanently ineligible because you broke the rules. Being the all time hits leader does not make him the exception to the rule, it makes him an idiot.

 

[Obscured By Clouds]

Was talking about Mark McGwire

Forgot he was a coach so assumed Rose. That said, MLB banned steroids in 1991, so yes, it was against the rules.

 

[Lee]

My post was about Thome and there being no evidence via investigations or some out of no where jump in production, and that website being extremely misleading via either ignorance or on purpose. You are talking about something completely different.

Thome used peds, my guy was a scout for the Indians and he told me he did. Maybe not anabolic steroids, but he used banned substances...I went through a list one day....he was completely off record and we talked at kids soccer games, but anyone good practically used some PED, even Lofton. They weren't testing, they didn't care, so of course they are going to do anything they can to get an edge.

Its like Lance Armstrong, sure he used, they all used, anyone good had to use, its that simple.

 

[Lee]

Forgot he was a coach so assumed Rose. That said, MLB banned steroids in 1991, so yes, it was against the rules.

That is probably a rock you don't want to look under because you seem to be more moral about it than most...not saying it is bad, just seems you aren't as forgiving. But they banned it in 91 but didn't test...it was completely wink wink, nudge, nudge. But I assure you almost anyone that made an all-star game used some banned substance.

 

[Derek]

That is probably a rock you don't want to look under because you seem to be more moral about it than most...not saying it is bad, just seems you aren't as forgiving. But they banned it in 91 but didn't test...it was completely wink wink, nudge, nudge. But I assure you almost anyone that made an all-star game used some banned substance.

At least they got out ahead of it and made a rule.

Vince McMahon got indicted in '93 for the rampant steroid use in WWF.

 

[macbdog]

Why does the Hall even exist, anyway? Who are the people who determine Fame in baseball? I think this is the bigger question.

 

[Derek]

Why does the Hall even exist, anyway? Who are the people who determine Fame in baseball? I think this is the bigger question.

For the fans.

The BBWAA votes players in.

 

[macbdog]

For the fans.

The BBWAA votes players in.

And who is the BBWAA? And why do they have this power to determine who the fans are allowed to remember?

 

[Derek]

And who is the BBWAA? And why do they have this power to determine who the fans are allowed to remember?

The Baseball Writers Association of America. There is also the Veteran's committee, which can induct people.

Fans can remember whatever players they want.

The Hall of Fame is simply a museum of baseball, meant to be enjoyed by fans. Pete Rose isn't remembered any less because he's not in the Hall. Fans just don't get to enjoy a Pete Rose section, which is why I said it really only hurts the fans (keeping him out).

 

[Mott the Hoople]

The HOF is restrictive, and it should be. It shouldn't just be a popularity contest to get in. That's why it's special to be inducted.
But there comes a point where you should include players with a "suspicious" past. Let that be part of the story on the plaque.

Otherwise, imagine taking your grandson to the HOF and he asks why Barry Bonds and Roger Clemons aren't there? "Well son, people thought they were cheating, but nobody ever caught them."

 

[JDailey23]

The HOF is restrictive, and it should be. It shouldn't just be a popularity contest to get in. That's why it's special to be inducted.
But there comes a point where you should include players with a "suspicious" past. Let that be part of the story on the plaque.

Otherwise, imagine taking your grandson to the HOF and he asks why Barry Bonds and Roger Clemons aren't there? "Well son, people thought they were cheating, but nobody ever caught them."

In 20 years, kids won’t even know who those men are. That, is the point of not putting them in.
****
Mod edit
****
Despite their importance in telling the story of the game.

 

[Hydroponic3385]

In 20 years, kids won’t even know who those men are. That, is the point of not putting them in. Much like the removal of all the monuments and statues, remove all negative history. Despite their importance in telling the story of the game.

For consistency's sake, let's not get venture towards politics.

@The Human Q-Tip