Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  


Amanda's got a blog. If blogs could talk, it'd ask you to read it. It might even say "please."

Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: No new Baseball HOFers this year...  (Read 1167 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


  • Initials... OF DOOM!
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 2258
No new Baseball HOFers this year...
« on: January 10, 2013, 04:24:19 PM »

Utter BS. Allow me to explain. According to the Mitchell report, they had very good evidence that players were juicing as early as 1973, yet no baseball writer ever tried to blow the lid off that story until the BALCO scandal in 2003. Many players who played during this period have already been put into the Hall of Fame.

But it gets better. Meet MLB's first juicer, Pud Galvin, who owned up to this as early as 1889. He's the pitcher who held all of Cy Young's records before Cy Young had the career he did, only he doesn't have a snazzy award named after him. When he spoke publicly about it, the press lauded him for it. He also is in the Hall of Fame.

Competitive advantages come in all shapes and sizes, Spitballs (legal until 1920) made the ball move more. The "dead ball era" was actually full of changes in ball design that should have increased hit production, but changes in the foul ball rule (they only became strikes in the early 1900s), Spitballs, and scuff balls allowed pitchers to counter every advantage batters had from the cork center of the ball (first introduced in 1911).

Add to this the height of the pitcher's mound from 1903 - 1968 was,  by rule, 15 inches, but there were no checks and balances to make certain teams held to this height. The old Brooklyn Dodgers were rumored to have had mounds as high as 20 inches, giving pitchers an absolutely unfair advantage, but it wasn't stopped and standardized until the height was lowered to 10 inches in 1968.

Players were popping "greenies" (amphetamines) for a long time (at least as early as the 19850s), mainly as a way to stave off effects of fatigue from traveling, but isn't that, in fact, enhancing the performance a player can bring to a field when using them? Players used the hell out of them until baseball finally got rid of them with the most recent collective bargaining agreement, even though amphetamines have been illegal since 1970. Some say the power drop after this last CBA was signed was more due to the lack of amphetamines than it was lack of steroids.

In addition to this, Maple bats, which weigh more than ash bats, automatically give hitters another advantage in terms of imparting power on the ball. I never remember seeing a broken bat home run until maple bats became the vogue in the early 2000s (no doubt due to Barry Bonds record breaking HR season in 2001). How this can be viewed as anything but performance enhancing is beyond me.

Basically, players, managers, and ownership have been working together for over 120 years to get a leg up on competition, whether legal or not, whether in compliance with the rules or not. Steroids should fit into this same category, IMO. I don't like it. I think they hurt and continue to hurt the game, but the part of the HOF vote that truly pisses me off is people who have never been suspected of juicing are caught up in this (Jeff Bagwell, Mike Piazza) and the BWAA (Baseball Writers Association of America) has taken it upon themselves to "clean up the Hall," even though they themselves are just as guilty of creating an environment where steroid use was ignored.

The writers knew the numbers jumped too much, too fast, for it to simply be an anomaly, yet they ignored all journalistic integrity to ask the obvious question and dig for the answer which was right in front of their faces (lest we forget the bottle of Andro in McGuire's locker that was even commented upon by the press). Ownership was seeing their gate revenues (you need butts in seats for concessions to make money) increase, so they didn't want to confirm what they suspected, instead not even mentioning it. The MLB front office had to know that something was up, yet, due to the number of strikes in the 80s and 90s, they needed the long ball to increase attendance numbers and the summers of 1997 (McGuire vs. Griffey Jr) and 1998 (McGuire vs. Sosa) saw baseball's overall revenues increase. This fact put the MLB front office in the position of needing the extra power in the majors more than the players themselves needed the power numbers.

To sum up, the Hall of Fame is supposed to be about the best players of their generation and, like it or not, many of the best players in the league during the Steroids Era used steroids. One can both have them in the Hall and address the steroids themselves.

imaginary friend

  • Enigmagnetic
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 14913
  • up in flames
Re: No new Baseball HOFers this year...
« Reply #1 on: January 11, 2013, 09:54:10 AM »

don't forget the massive amounts of coke that moved through baseball locker rooms in the '70s and '80s.

yeah, total BS vote. even if you wanted to slam the 'roid monsters, Biggio and Morris still should've gotten in.
Pages: [1]   Go Up