Bonds Clemens and Sosa on HOF ballot

[joelsabi]

Any guesstimates on the percentage of vote they each get for their first year?

[xpress34]

11% for Sosa

9% (or less) for Clemens because of his attitude towards Congress (and anyone else) who disagreed with him.

IMHO

Smitty

[gingi79]

Clemens was an amazing potential HOFer pre-steroid years. 25% for him.
Sosa was not with the exception of his magical late 90's seasons and the steroids will keep him low. McGwire should be doubling his percentage.

Anyone who followed MLB in the late 70's early 80's knows Jim Rice was HATED by the press and even he eventually made the Hall. Bonds won't make it or be close now but he will one day. Unfortunately.

[godwulf]

Bonds won't make it or be close now but he will one day.

I hope you're wrong about the second part.

[trsent]

I still don't get it.

When these guys were playing we all knew and accepted they were using steroids. The public knew it. The press knew it. The owners knew it and didn't stop it because the side effects were not known as they are today.

It was part of the game for a period of time. I don't understand who is being punished and why. It was widespread and the owners didn't test for it. They didn't want to stop it. They loved the press at the time so they supported it.

Now we look back as if they were criminals. The sport as a whole let it happen and now it is fully tested for and illegal. End of story.

Put the best players from this era in the Hall of Fame and tell your children why their records are tainted but it isn't going to change history.

I'm amazed all the players who abused drugs and didn't play better we don't care about. Only the ones who succeeded. The dead ball era. The all-white era. The steroids era. All part of history. Forget about it, put the record holders in the Hall and thanks for teaching us about the abuse of drugs being bad for the game.

[gingi79]

I still don't get it.

When these guys were playing we all knew and accepted they were using steroids. The public knew it. The press knew it. The owners knew it and didn't stop it because the side effects were not known as they are today.

It was part of the game for a period of time. I don't understand who is being punished and why. It was widespread and the owners didn't test for it. They didn't want to stop it. They loved the press at the time so they supported it.

Now we look back as if they were criminals. The sport as a whole let it happen and now it is fully tested for and illegal. End of story.

Put the best players from this era in the Hall of Fame and tell your children why their records are tainted but it isn't going to change history.

I'm amazed all the players who abused drugs and didn't play better we don't care about. Only the ones who succeeded. The dead ball era. The all-white era. The steroids era. All part of history. Forget about it, put the record holders in the Hall and thanks for teaching us about the abuse of drugs being bad for the game.

I'd respectively disagree Joel. If this were the late 80's then they didn't know better. The late 90's? Everyone knew. You are right though, owners, players, sports writers, fans no one cared they were juicing.

I do think the fact you mention the dead ball era and the segregation era makes a valid point. Every sport goes through rule changes and modifications which greatly alter stats and scores and players should be judged by their contributions to the game at the time and place they played. 500 HRs or 3000 Hits meant HOF induction no matter what. Now anyone joining those clubs between 1998 and 2007 come with a predetermined steroid asterisk, no matter what. The fact is it seems every top level player was using something levels the field no? So if we judge them by their (also juicing) competitors, wouldn't that mean they were the best players of their generation and therefore worthy of induction into the Hall?

[joelsabi]

I still don't get it.

When these guys were playing we all knew and accepted they were using steroids. The public knew it. The press knew it. The owners knew it and didn't stop it because the side effects were not known as they are today.

It was part of the game for a period of time. I don't understand who is being punished and why. It was widespread and the owners didn't test for it. They didn't want to stop it. They loved the press at the time so they supported it.

Now we look back as if they were criminals. The sport as a whole let it happen and now it is fully tested for and illegal. End of story.

Put the best players from this era in the Hall of Fame and tell your children why their records are tainted but it isn't going to change history.
.
I'm amazed all the players who abused drugs and didn't play better we don't care about. Only the ones who succeeded. The dead ball era. The all-white era. The steroids era. All part of history. Forget about it, put the record holders in the Hall and thanks for teaching us about the abuse of drugs being bad for the game

what i dont get is the writers who are eligible to vote must have ten years of reporting experience. therefore, they were witnesses to the whole steroid development and said nothing against it at the time. yet these same writers who wrote about the "heroics" of the home run chases of mcgwire and sosa are now taking a strong stance against these players. sometime i wish that the writers would get a clue and use some context in their voting decisions.

[3arod13]

I still don't get it.

When these guys were playing we all knew and accepted they were using steroids. The public knew it. The press knew it. The owners knew it and didn't stop it because the side effects were not known as they are today.

It was part of the game for a period of time. I don't understand who is being punished and why. It was widespread and the owners didn't test for it. They didn't want to stop it. They loved the press at the time so they supported it.

Now we look back as if they were criminals. The sport as a whole let it happen and now it is fully tested for and illegal. End of story.

Put the best players from this era in the Hall of Fame and tell your children why their records are tainted but it isn't going to change history.

I'm amazed all the players who abused drugs and didn't play better we don't care about. Only the ones who succeeded. The dead ball era. The all-white era. The steroids era. All part of history. Forget about it, put the record holders in the Hall and thanks for teaching us about the abuse of drugs being bad for the game.

Agree! Setting aside that Arod was one of them; this isn't about me agreeing because I'm an Arod fan. Can't stand the thought he used! Actually pisses me off, because the player that he was, he didn't need it. However, this just goes to show that even the top players didn't care they had the ability, they still were doing it to be even better.

There were were 104 players on the list from 2003, and we only know of a small number of those players. Who knows who else was on that list, and how many more were doing it, but I'm sure many more. Even today players are still using and getting caught. There will be some that we don't know about that used, who could or will get into the HOF.

The era was what it was, and that shouldn't be forgotten. However, too many players during this era, that we don't know about, were also using. It wouldn't be fair to punish those we know of, and yet, let others that we don't know of slip on by.

I'm not for what occurred during that era, but many knew, let it continue, and after it all came to the surface, are playing stupid and letting those that we do know of, pay the price for everyone.

Ok, that all I have to say about that!

[trsent]

what i dont get is the writers who are eligible to vote must have ten years of reporting experience. therefore, they were witnesses to the whole steroid development and said nothing against it at the time. yet these same writers who wrote about the "heroics" of the home run chases of mcgwire and sosa are now taking a strong stance against these players. sometime i wish that the writers would get a clue and use some context in their voting decisions.

Amen to that on a Saturday morning.

When Mac and Sam and Barry and Jose were knowingly abusing the writers didn't write about how they were abusing the game and how they shouldn't be HOF elgible. They, like many of us thought it was just part of a new society. Right or wrong that's how it was.

[trsent]

I'd respectively disagree Joel. If this were the late 80's then they didn't know better. The late 90's? Everyone knew. You are right though, owners, players, sports writers, fans no one cared they were juicing.

I do think the fact you mention the dead ball era and the segregation era makes a valid point. Every sport goes through rule changes and modifications which greatly alter stats and scores and players should be judged by their contributions to the game at the time and place they played. 500 HRs or 3000 Hits meant HOF induction no matter what. Now anyone joining those clubs between 1998 and 2007 come with a predetermined steroid asterisk, no matter what. The fact is it seems every top level player was using something levels the field no? So if we judge them by their (also juicing) competitors, wouldn't that mean they were the best players of their generation and therefore worthy of induction into the Hall?

You disagree, respectfully, and then start to sway a little my way.

It's hard to accept but it was just a rough patch in an ever evolving game.