McGwire Admits To Steroid Use (Finally)
- Thread starter Javery
- Start date
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='dmaul1114']Hopefully owning up to it will get him in the Hall. He cheated, but so many did during the steroid era that no one should be kept out of the Hall of Fame because of it IMO.[/QUOTE]
Wait, we're supposed to think they stopped using?
Wait, we're supposed to think they stopped using?
[quote name='dmaul1114']Hopefully owning up to it will get him in the Hall. He cheated, but so many did during the steroid era that no one should be kept out of the Hall of Fame because of it IMO.[/QUOTE]
Should the Black Sox be allowed in then? Even though, no one is from the 'roid era is technically banned from the HoF.
Should the Black Sox be allowed in then? Even though, no one is from the 'roid era is technically banned from the HoF.
[quote name='mykevermin']Wait, we're supposed to think they stopped using?[/QUOTE]
Many less use now for sure, with drug testing being pretty prevalent (and random now).
[quote name='Kilraven']Should the Black Sox be allowed in then? Even though, no one is from the 'roid era is technically banned from the HoF.[/QUOTE]
That's a bit different as it's one team that cheated and got banned, vs. the steroid era where god knows how many players were juicing and only a few we'll ever know for sure did. Thus it doesn't make sense to exclude the few who got caught.
Though I do think the Black Sox players who had careers warranting it should be in their (with note of their scandal and an exhibit on it). Pete Rose should be in as well.
The hall is to recognize the greatest players by their on field performance. If their career stats warrant it, they should be in, and if there's some scandal mention it to them and tie them to it for eternity as well as recognizing their outstanding play.
Many less use now for sure, with drug testing being pretty prevalent (and random now).
[quote name='Kilraven']Should the Black Sox be allowed in then? Even though, no one is from the 'roid era is technically banned from the HoF.[/QUOTE]
That's a bit different as it's one team that cheated and got banned, vs. the steroid era where god knows how many players were juicing and only a few we'll ever know for sure did. Thus it doesn't make sense to exclude the few who got caught.
Though I do think the Black Sox players who had careers warranting it should be in their (with note of their scandal and an exhibit on it). Pete Rose should be in as well.
The hall is to recognize the greatest players by their on field performance. If their career stats warrant it, they should be in, and if there's some scandal mention it to them and tie them to it for eternity as well as recognizing their outstanding play.
[quote name='specialk']Wonder if you just wake up and think..."Well today's the day. I think I'll tell the truth."[/QUOTE]
He's the Cards new hitting coach, so there was no way he could hide from the media any more like he has for the past few years.
So he had little choice but to come out and get it over with, or he'd get hounded relentlessly when spring training started.
He's the Cards new hitting coach, so there was no way he could hide from the media any more like he has for the past few years.
So he had little choice but to come out and get it over with, or he'd get hounded relentlessly when spring training started.
[quote name='dmaul1114']That's a bit different as it's one team that cheated and got banned, vs. the steroid era where god knows how many players were juicing and only a few we'll ever know for sure did. Thus it doesn't make sense to exclude the few who got caught.
Though I do think the Black Sox players who had careers warranting it should be in their (with note of their scandal and an exhibit on it). Pete Rose should be in as well.
The hall is to recognize the greatest players by their on field performance. If their career stats warrant it, they should be in, and if there's some scandal mention it to them and tie them to it for eternity as well as recognizing their outstanding play.[/QUOTE]
True, but Shoeless Joe and co, merely threw a series (arguably, even to this day) in what was an attempt to assuage the piss-poor pay they received as ballplayers. A few games marring what was some historic careers.
What did Bonds, McGuire, Sosa, and the rest bring? It can be argued their entire careers are nothing more than a facade. Except maybe Bonds, as a Pirate he was pretty much steroid-free (just look at his scrawny ass in those years) and had played exceptionally well. However, the use of steroids explicably altered their on-field performance. While I agree it's unjust that the less noticeable may get off scot-free and into the HoF, I can't see rewarding the most egregious of abusers simply because there was so many.
Though I do think the Black Sox players who had careers warranting it should be in their (with note of their scandal and an exhibit on it). Pete Rose should be in as well.
The hall is to recognize the greatest players by their on field performance. If their career stats warrant it, they should be in, and if there's some scandal mention it to them and tie them to it for eternity as well as recognizing their outstanding play.[/QUOTE]
True, but Shoeless Joe and co, merely threw a series (arguably, even to this day) in what was an attempt to assuage the piss-poor pay they received as ballplayers. A few games marring what was some historic careers.
What did Bonds, McGuire, Sosa, and the rest bring? It can be argued their entire careers are nothing more than a facade. Except maybe Bonds, as a Pirate he was pretty much steroid-free (just look at his scrawny ass in those years) and had played exceptionally well. However, the use of steroids explicably altered their on-field performance. While I agree it's unjust that the less noticeable may get off scot-free and into the HoF, I can't see rewarding the most egregious of abusers simply because there was so many.
n8rockerasu
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 52 (100%)
[quote name='Kilraven']True, but Shoeless Joe and co, merely threw a series (arguably, even to this day) in what was an attempt to assuage the piss-poor pay they received as ballplayers. A few games marring what was some historic careers.
What did Bonds, McGuire, Sosa, and the rest bring? It can be argued their entire careers are nothing more than a facade. Except maybe Bonds, as a Pirate he was pretty much steroid-free (just look at his scrawny ass in those years) and had played exceptionally well. However, the use of steroids explicably altered their on-field performance. While I agree it's unjust that the less noticeable may get off scot-free and into the HoF, I can't see rewarding the most egregious of abusers simply because there was so many.[/QUOTE]
This is a really hard argument to make. Before you attribute a player's entire career to his steroid usage, you have to LEGITIMATELY recognize what was gained by the use of the drug. Cheating is cheating. Yes. No doubt. But was the player a great player BECAUSE he took steroids? Did it enhance his hand/eye coordination, or his reaction time, to be able to hit the ball more squarely? Did it enhance his vision and his plate discipline?
If you don't break down the actual benefit that was gained from taking the drug (in the most prominent cases, hitting the ball farther and recovering from injury quicker), you cannot quantify the player's "worth" without showing a blatant bias. And as dmaul mentioned, this doesn't even take into account the sheer number of players who were doing it and the plausibility of them effectively canceling each other out (ie. Roger Clemens pitching to Mark McGwire, as I've said numerous times..but you won't hear many media outlets bring up that point).
In the end, we'll never truly know what percentage of baseball players were taking PEDs. As it stands, it could be anywhere from 15% to 90%. The only ones we can hold accountable are the ones who get caught. Just like with the Black Sox...and just like Pete Rose. If you think they were the only ones doing something wrong during those times, you're dreaming.
What did Bonds, McGuire, Sosa, and the rest bring? It can be argued their entire careers are nothing more than a facade. Except maybe Bonds, as a Pirate he was pretty much steroid-free (just look at his scrawny ass in those years) and had played exceptionally well. However, the use of steroids explicably altered their on-field performance. While I agree it's unjust that the less noticeable may get off scot-free and into the HoF, I can't see rewarding the most egregious of abusers simply because there was so many.[/QUOTE]
This is a really hard argument to make. Before you attribute a player's entire career to his steroid usage, you have to LEGITIMATELY recognize what was gained by the use of the drug. Cheating is cheating. Yes. No doubt. But was the player a great player BECAUSE he took steroids? Did it enhance his hand/eye coordination, or his reaction time, to be able to hit the ball more squarely? Did it enhance his vision and his plate discipline?
If you don't break down the actual benefit that was gained from taking the drug (in the most prominent cases, hitting the ball farther and recovering from injury quicker), you cannot quantify the player's "worth" without showing a blatant bias. And as dmaul mentioned, this doesn't even take into account the sheer number of players who were doing it and the plausibility of them effectively canceling each other out (ie. Roger Clemens pitching to Mark McGwire, as I've said numerous times..but you won't hear many media outlets bring up that point).
In the end, we'll never truly know what percentage of baseball players were taking PEDs. As it stands, it could be anywhere from 15% to 90%. The only ones we can hold accountable are the ones who get caught. Just like with the Black Sox...and just like Pete Rose. If you think they were the only ones doing something wrong during those times, you're dreaming.
[quote name='Kilraven']
What did Bonds, McGuire, Sosa, and the rest bring? It can be argued their entire careers are nothing more than a facade. Except maybe Bonds, as a Pirate he was pretty much steroid-free (just look at his scrawny ass in those years) and had played exceptionally well. However, the use of steroids explicably altered their on-field performance. While I agree it's unjust that the less noticeable may get off scot-free and into the HoF, I can't see rewarding the most egregious of abusers simply because there was so many.[/QUOTE]
It just that I honestly believe that probably well over 50% of players in that area were using performance enhancing drugs. So you had juiced up hitters hitting record home runs off of juiced up pitchers etc.
I view the hall of fame as more of a baseball museum than some huge honor type of thing (it's both of course), and feel it would be a shame for future generations to not be able to see things about the great players of the mid 80s to mid 2000s because of steroids.
Just have an exhibit about the steroid era, make note of who admitted use in their plaques etc. IMO.
What did Bonds, McGuire, Sosa, and the rest bring? It can be argued their entire careers are nothing more than a facade. Except maybe Bonds, as a Pirate he was pretty much steroid-free (just look at his scrawny ass in those years) and had played exceptionally well. However, the use of steroids explicably altered their on-field performance. While I agree it's unjust that the less noticeable may get off scot-free and into the HoF, I can't see rewarding the most egregious of abusers simply because there was so many.[/QUOTE]
It just that I honestly believe that probably well over 50% of players in that area were using performance enhancing drugs. So you had juiced up hitters hitting record home runs off of juiced up pitchers etc.
I view the hall of fame as more of a baseball museum than some huge honor type of thing (it's both of course), and feel it would be a shame for future generations to not be able to see things about the great players of the mid 80s to mid 2000s because of steroids.
Just have an exhibit about the steroid era, make note of who admitted use in their plaques etc. IMO.
n8rockerasu
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 52 (100%)
Also, posting this like I do in any steroid discussion, because in my opinion, it's the best "solution" anyone is ever going to come up with.
[quote name='n8rockerasu']If you don't break down the actual benefit that was gained from taking the drug (in the most prominent cases, hitting the ball farther and recovering from injury quicker), you cannot quantify the player's "worth" without showing a blatant bias.
...In the end, we'll never truly know what percentage of baseball players were taking PEDs. As it stands, it could be anywhere from 15% to 90%. The only ones we can hold accountable are the ones who get caught.[/QUOTE]
Therein lies the problem: bias and the definition of "unfair advantage". Regardless of the belief of counteraction, it can also be shown to benefit others: walk Bonds because he hits a ton, two on, one out, and the next batter gets a chance at some damn nice RBIs. However, it's why my main argument is on overlooking the guilty based on the possibly high percentage of abusers. I can't tenably convince anyone that a juiced-up pitcher doesn't negate a juiced-up batter (even if I do believe it). But why should I try? I'd rather focus on the few culpable players with skewed HoF numbers - use changed how they played. To what extent? I can't care, because we'll never know for certain.
Nonetheless, I do like dmaul's point:
...In the end, we'll never truly know what percentage of baseball players were taking PEDs. As it stands, it could be anywhere from 15% to 90%. The only ones we can hold accountable are the ones who get caught.[/QUOTE]
Therein lies the problem: bias and the definition of "unfair advantage". Regardless of the belief of counteraction, it can also be shown to benefit others: walk Bonds because he hits a ton, two on, one out, and the next batter gets a chance at some damn nice RBIs. However, it's why my main argument is on overlooking the guilty based on the possibly high percentage of abusers. I can't tenably convince anyone that a juiced-up pitcher doesn't negate a juiced-up batter (even if I do believe it). But why should I try? I'd rather focus on the few culpable players with skewed HoF numbers - use changed how they played. To what extent? I can't care, because we'll never know for certain.
Nonetheless, I do like dmaul's point:
bread's done