So David Ortiz, admitted steroid user

[Gophers1992]

The only justification for leaving Bonds and Clemens out would be the character clause, due to some of their off the field behavior. I think that's a slippery slope to get into, but voters have that option.

Writers trying to do their moral finger wagging in regards to PEDs is just stupid though.

 

[short ornery norwegian]

I thought the big boost was the body is stronger and heals quicker - increasing longevity ergo productivity.

Bingo. Over a 162-game season, players accumulate injuries, aches and pains. the PED user heals sooner, and is able to have longer and harder workouts with quicker recovery time, building muscle mass more quickly. by the end of the season, the PED user has a significant competitive advantage over the 'clean' player.

Plus, the added strength helps turn a fly out into a double off the wall, and the warning track out becomes a HR into the 3rd row.

Ortiz was named in the initial round of "survey" testing in 2003. But he never tested positive the rest of his career when there was a more robust and widespread testing program. Plus, he is perceived as a good guy. As opposed to Bonds who was an a-hole.

As far as Bonds, that is the real tragedy. if he never touched the stuff, Bonds is a 1st-ballot HOF, no question. with the Pirates, he was a 5-tool player. Hit, run, throw, defense. Had a year with 33 HR and 52 SB. But he got jealous of the attention the HR hitters were getting, and so he turned to the juice to compete.

 

[Fleckoff]

Sosa had nowhere near the career that Bonds and Clemens did. Sosa would be a borderline HOF case without the steroid BS, Bonds and Clemens would be no doubters.

Sosa hit 600 homeruns, if he was clean or not caught, he's first ballot. Crazy thing with Bonds is when he started taking Steroids in 1999, he already had HOF numbers, he was only player to hit over 400 homers and have 400 Stolen bases at the time, he could have retired after 1998 and still got in.

 

[Fleckoff]

The only justification for leaving Bonds and Clemens out would be the character clause, due to some of their off the field behavior. I think that's a slippery slope to get into, but voters have that option.

Writers trying to do their moral finger wagging in regards to PEDs is just stupid though.

Ty Cobb, First class, anything about character goes out the window once you let that guy in

 

[Gophers1992]

Sosa hit 600 homeruns, if he was clean or not caught, he's first ballot. Crazy thing with Bonds is when he started taking Steroids in 1999, he already had HOF numbers, he was only player to hit over 400 homers and have 400 Stolen bases at the time, he could have retired after 1998 and still got in.

Sosa was a terrible defender, a poor baserunner, and for much of his career had an underwhelming OBP. There's more to evaluating a player than just raw power.

 

[short ornery norwegian]

The only justification for leaving Bonds and Clemens out would be the character clause, due to some of their off the field behavior. I think that's a slippery slope to get into, but voters have that option.

Writers trying to do their moral finger wagging in regards to PEDs is just stupid though.

That's the crux of the matter. The voting instructions for members of the BBWAA:

Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

Yes, some writers choose to ignore those guidelines, or pay less importance to them. But under those guidelines, the writers clearly have the option to take those matters into account, or give more weight to them.

Look at Curt Schilling. He was never tied to PED's and spoke out against them.
Over 3,000 career K's. 11-2 record in postseason games. On stats alone, a solid candidate.
But Schilling was widely disliked by a lot of players and writers during his career. and after retiring, he turned into a right-wing provocateur with a laundry list of comments that many people found offensive. he also collects WWII memorabilia, including Nazi uniforms. his mouth kept him out of the HOF.

 

[Gophers1992]

Ty Cobb, First class, anything about character goes out the window once you let that guy in

Agreed, that's the problem with the character clause. Then again our society is a bit more evolved than it was when Cobb was elected. But you're right in that if we want to go down that route, it opens a big can of worms.

 

[Gophers1992]

That's the crux of the matter. The voting instructions for members of the BBWAA:

Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

Yes, some writers choose to ignore those guidelines, or pay less importance to them. But under those guidelines, the writers clearly have the option to take those matters into account, or give more weight to them.

Look at Curt Schilling. He was never tied to PED's and spoke out against them.
Over 3,000 career K's. 11-2 record in postseason games. On stats alone, a solid candidate.
But Schilling was widely disliked by a lot of players and writers during his career. and after retiring, he turned into a right-wing provocateur with a laundry list of comments that many people found offensive. he also collects WWII memorabilia, including Nazi uniforms. his mouth kept him out of the HOF.

Yeah with Schilling it's obvious why he is kept out, and I'm fine with it.

With Bonds and Clemens I just suspect that voters are looking at PEDs more so than their ugly personal lives. I could be wrong though.

 

[Spaulding!No!]

We’re talking softball, Mattingly and Canseco….

 

[Fleckoff]

Sosa was a terrible defender, a poor baserunner, and for much of his career had an underwhelming OBP. There's more to evaluating a player than just raw power.

Not saying you're wrong, but nobody who was clean and hit more than 500 homeruns has been left out. Hell if Defense mattered Mike Piazza would never sniff the HOF, Did Big Papi even pick up a glove in Boston when it wasn't Interleague play?

 

[Ope3]

Sosa hit 600 homeruns, if he was clean or not caught, he's first ballot. Crazy thing with Bonds is when he started taking Steroids in 1999, he already had HOF numbers, he was only player to hit over 400 homers and have 400 Stolen bases at the time, he could have retired after 1998 and still got in.

Sosa also was caught using a corked bat, which right or wrong some connected to the game took a bigger issue than the steroids.

 

[Gophers1992]

Not saying you're wrong, but nobody who was clean and hit more than 500 homeruns has been left out. Hell if Defense mattered Mike Piazza would never sniff the HOF, Did Big Papi even pick up a glove in Boston when it wasn't Interleague play?

Piazza is an iffy HOF case as well, as is Ortiz IMO. Sosa probably would have been elected, but voters should get smarter about how they evaluate guys.

 

[Gophers_4life]

Except for the ball that was going 330 feet and caught is now going 380 and landing in the stands.

Fenway (Ortiz) is 302ft down the right field line.

Does a HR count if it was only hit 330ft and would have been caught in another ballpark?

And except for the fact the bat is a little quicker.

Take any hitter in the game, and magically speed up their bat 10%.

They strike out. Their timing is off.

Again, it takes immense talent and countless hours of practice to get your swing correct in terms of timing and mechanics.

And what about all the things you can't teach, like having an instinct (or through film study) of a pitcher's tendencies?

And except for the fact that steroids allow your body to recover quickly and stay strong for all 162.

There are no legal substances, or improved diets, or recovery regimens that allow a body to recover more quickly than if they hadn't been taken/done?

What is the maximum allowed "legal rate of recovery"? When is the line crossed?

 

[Gophers1992]

Fenway (Ortiz) is 302ft down the right field line.

Does a HR count if it was only hit 330ft and would have been caught in another ballpark?


Take any hitter in the game, and magically speed up their bat 10%.

They strike out. Their timing is off.

Again, it takes immense talent and countless hours of practice to get your swing correct in terms of timing and mechanics.

And what about all the things you can't teach, like having an instinct (or through film study) of a pitcher's tendencies?


There are no legal substances, or improved diets, or recovery regimens that allow a body to recover more quickly than if they hadn't been taken/done?

What is the maximum allowed "legal rate of recovery"? When is the line crossed?

It's pretty simple, if steroids didn't work, nobody would take them. Are you really trying to say that improved bat speed would actually be worse for a major league hitter?

Now, do I agree with using them to keep guys out of the hall of fame, absolutely not.

 

[Wally]

Thus steroid bs sucks. It's not helping the value of my Rodger Clemons rookie card....

 

[Gophers_4life]

It's pretty simple, if steroids didn't work, nobody would take them. Are you really trying to say that improved bat speed would actually be worse for a major league hitter?

Now, do I agree with using them to keep guys out of the hall of fame, absolutely not.

If they can't learn the new timing for the improved bat speed, absolutely it could hurt.


To your first sentence, yes of course you're correct there. But what is "work"? What is the goal?

"It's for more distance when the bat connects" --> doesn't lifting weights, for a guy who didn't lift much before (think skinny guy from Puerto Rico), achieve the same relative increase in strength? But lifting weights isn't outlawed.

"It's to recover faster" --> doesn't eating right (say some newfangled vegan diet), getting 8-10 hrs sleep, meditation, rehab stimulation, hydro pools, massage, etc. etc. etc., for a guy who never did much of that before, achieve the same relative improvement in recovery ability? But none of those things are outlawed.


Seems very arbitrary to outlaw some, but not others, provided that all players have equal access.

 

[kg21]

Fenway (Ortiz) is 302ft down the right field line.

Does a HR count if it was only hit 330ft and would have been caught in another ballpark?


Take any hitter in the game, and magically speed up their bat 10%.

They strike out. Their timing is off.

Again, it takes immense talent and countless hours of practice to get your swing correct in terms of timing and mechanics.

And what about all the things you can't teach, like having an instinct (or through film study) of a pitcher's tendencies?


There are no legal substances, or improved diets, or recovery regimens that allow a body to recover more quickly than if they hadn't been taken/done?

What is the maximum allowed "legal rate of recovery"? When is the line crossed?

ortiz pulled the ball right down the right field line? I guess I didn't watch him close enough as that's not what I remember. Also, half the games are played in other ballparks.

Hey, if you think he wasn't doing roids, it's time to stop drinking this early on a Friday.

 

[Gophers1992]

If they can't learn the new timing for the improved bat speed, absolutely it could hurt.


To your first sentence, yes of course you're correct there. But what is "work"? What is the goal?

"It's for more distance when the bat connects" --> doesn't lifting weights, for a guy who didn't lift much before (think skinny guy from Puerto Rico), achieve the same relative increase in strength? But lifting weights isn't outlawed.

"It's to recover faster" --> doesn't eating right (say some newfangled vegan diet), getting 8-10 hrs sleep, meditation, rehab stimulation, hydro pools, massage, etc. etc. etc., for a guy who never did much of that before, achieve the same relative improvement in recovery ability? But none of those things are outlawed.


Seems very arbitrary to outlaw some, but not others, provided that all players have equal access.

Your bolded I absolutely agree on. I am not at all a fan of outlawing guys for PEDs, when everyone had access and there were no rules around them. We are on the same page there.

You suggesting that increased bat speed could hurt a player is absolutely absurd, and the rest of your post you don't seem to grasp that injury recovery and increased strength are major benefits. Yes weight lifting, nutrition, and sleep help, but PEDs boost all of that as well.

I don't care whether Ortiz juiced or not, I really don't, but saying that it doesn't help a guy is absurd.

 

[Gophers_4life]

Your bolded I absolutely agree on. I am not at all a fan of outlawing guys for PEDs, when everyone had access and there were no rules around them. We are on the same page there.

You suggesting that increased bat speed could hurt a player is absolutely absurd, and the rest of your post you don't seem to grasp that injury recovery and increased strength are major benefits. Yes weight lifting, nutrition, and sleep help, but PEDs boost all of that as well.

I don't care whether Ortiz juiced or not, I really don't, but saying that it doesn't help a guy is absurd.

I'm not saying they don't help. As you correctly pointed out: if they didn't help, people wouldn't do them.

I'm not saying that increased bat speed isn't likely to help. It probably does help, so long as a guy can correct his timing to take advantage of the increased speed. Again, if it was more likely to hurt, they probably wouldn't do it.

What if a scientific study showed that working out 3x a week for a year with a weighted bat, increased bat speed by 15%? Should working out with weighted bats be outlawed? And so on, for the rest of my arguments. They just show that, and you seemed to agree, making the use of particular substances against the rules, seems arbitrary.


At the end of the day, I just don't really see the problem with at least some subset of these PEDs. They're not "cheating", if anyone can use them, if they choose. You still have to work your ass off, to be elite.

They should not be against the rules. If a player chooses to put his own personal health at risk, that should be their right. But frankly, I think a lot of the health risks of PEDs are overblown and stem from excessive use/abuse, as opposed to smart, controlled cycles of use.

 

[Gophers1992]

I'm not saying they don't help. As you correctly pointed out: if they didn't help, people wouldn't do them.

I'm not saying that increased bat speed isn't likely to help. It probably does help, so long as a guy can correct his timing to take advantage of the increased speed. Again, if it was more likely to hurt, they probably wouldn't do it.

What if a scientific study showed that working out 3x a week for a year with a weighted bat, increased bat speed by 15%? Should working out with weighted bats be outlawed? And so on, for the rest of my arguments. They just show that, and you seemed to agree, making the use of particular substances against the rules, seems arbitrary.


At the end of the day, I just don't really see the problem with at least some subset of these PEDs. They're not "cheating", if anyone can use them, if they choose. You still have to work your ass off, to be elite.

They should not be against the rules. If a player chooses to put his own personal health at risk, that should be their right. But frankly, I think a lot of the health risks of PEDs are overblown and stem from excessive use/abuse, as opposed to smart, controlled cycles of use.

I'm not trying to argue against use of PEDs, nor do I believe in banishing guys from the hall for using them. My only disagreement with you is on whether or not increased bat speed is an advantage (it is). A legal advantage, and one I'm not against, but it is in fact an advantage.