Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
not to get on my soap box again but, if they're letting any player from the steroid era in the HOF they need to let all of the best players from the era in the HOF
not to get on my soap box again but, if they're letting any player from the steroid era in the HOF they need to let all of the best players from the era in the HOF
that includes Bonds and Clemens
Because we are not allowed to use our intelligence to discriminate between those who were caught and those for whom there is no evidence of use?
What a stupid poll. Of course he'll get into the Hall of Fame! His defense isn't good so because of that it probably won't be a unanimous selection, but his postseason accomplishments will be enough to get him in, yet alone the 3700+ him. Not only will he easily make it to Cooperstown, he'll be a sure fire first ballot hall of famer as well.
Spoiler
I will say this however. Not to take anything away from Jeter he was a great player but being in New York probably slightly overrated him just a little. if he plays in Houston or Seattle or something he's probably a Craig Biggio type: not as much notice on the national level as much on the regional level.
Undoubtedly being a Yankee overrated him. His consistently high batting average and propensity for postseason glory would make him a lock no matter the team, still.
Because we are not allowed to use our intelligence to discriminate between those who were caught and those for whom there is no evidence of use?
Craig Biggio says Hi,
for just the 2nd time in my 40 years of watching baseball a member of the 3000 hit club didn't go in 1st ballot. the other was Pete Rose
I have nothing against Jeter he's a tremendous ball player and he deserves to be in the hall
Canseco said 85% of the big leaguer's were juicing in the 90's. 85%
Was Jeter one of them? I don't know? was Biggio? I don't see one as more likely than the other.
How about Bagwell and Frank Thomas
Bud Selig gave them 3 months notice prior to the 2003 season that every player was going to be tested and if 5% or more tested positive then they would start drug testing. thats how the 102 names came about, how stupid do you have to be to flunk that test.
safe to say there would have been a lot more tarnished reputations if they just went ahead and tested them.
when you can't say with any certainty who was clean and who wasn't, either let them all in or none of them in
I think Jeter's defense keeps the vote from being unanimous..
No way.... I admit as his career progressed he regressed at the position but he still won 5 gold gloves... only 3 other players at SS won more than that.
He'll challenge the all-time votes record in my opinion... I think he beats it.
when you can't say with any certainty who was clean and who wasn't, either let them all in or none of them in
Which course of action are you advocating? Let them all in or keep them all out?
It is actually too late for the latter, Alomar, Thomas, Maddox and Glavine are PEDs era players who have been enshrined.
That leaves you with advocating letting them all in.
I do not see the wisdom nor the necessity of behaving as though we are helpless in this matter and must make it a black/white, either/or proposition. Your system would either deny enshrinement to those who played clean because there were those who did not, or enshrine those who we know with certainty did not play clean because otherwise we cannot enshrine anyone who did play clean.
How is that better than blocking those that we know were PEDs users, or even blocking as well those for whom there are reasonable grounds to suspect, while not blocking those for whom we have no particular reason to suspect other than they were there during the time a lot of players were using?
Let us take Greg Maddox as an example. Did he use? We cannot be certain, but we know he never failed a drug test, there was never a time when he suddenly showed up at camp with a radically altered physique, there are no sudden spikes in his performance, and his aging decline pattern was completely within normal expectations.
By your reasoning, because Canseco and Ramirez and Bonds et al used PEDs, then we must so strongly suspect Maddox of also being a user that despite the absence of any specific evidence that he was, he must be treated the same as the ones who we know for sure were cheaters. In what manner is that fair to Maddox?
The other half of your argument would say that because we must enshrine guys who left behind no evidence of any cheating, we must also enshrine those for whom there is no doubt of malfeasance.
Why are we required to behave so foolishly?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
