If Jim Rice can’t crack the Hall, it makes you wonder how the scribes will judge players from the so-called steroid era, many of whom will become eligible for induction in the coming years.

Why would one make you wonder about the other? I don't see the connection.

"If I can't sell a lot of pickles, it makes me wonder how good I would be at reading books."

All of this talk about the Hall of Fame and "the steroid era" has really given me a sour taste on the HoF. I couldn't really care less anymore. All I know is that when I'm talking baseball 30 years from now, I'll look back on Barry Bonds as one of the greatest baseball players ever, and Roger Clemens as one of the greatest pitchers ever. Why do we put so much stock into what the BBWAA and HoF think?

I think the BBWAA and HoF lose all credibility if Bonds and Clemens aren't put in there on the first ballot.

I think the BBWAA and HoF lose all credibility if Bonds and Clemens aren't put in there on the first ballot.
Page 1 of 1 pages

I can see your point with Bonds and Clemens, as they were definite hall of famers before their alleged PED use. But what's your stance on more controversial candidates like McGwire, Palmeiro and Sosa?

How will the Hall of Fame look on baseball's steroid era? With the same unblinking clarity of vision they've always used, of course.

Think Herbert Lom in the 1970s "Pink Panther" sequels.

But what's your stance on more controversial candidates like McGwire, Palmeiro and Sosa?

Palmeiro, yes.
McGwire, yes.
Sosa, debatable.

The BBWAA have been even tougher on Jim Rice,

If the BBWAA was being tough on Rice he would already be off the ballot like Whitaker

more controversial candidates like McGwire, Palmeiro and Sosa?

What proof is there that Sosa even belongs in this list?

Think Herbert Lom in the 1970s "Pink Panther" sequels.

"It's Barry Bonds! . . . Kill him!"

What proof is there that Sosa even belongs in this list?

Uh oh, proof is a dangerous word to throw around in a steroids thread.

It seems Sosa is lumped into this group for a couple reasons.

One, he got huge in the 1990s. Whether this was PEDs, a heavy workout regimen, major-league meal money, or some combination thereof is unclear.

Two, he's guilty by association. He raced McGwire for the title in 1998, and the two were the poster boys for the new era where 60 HR seasons were commonplace.

Three, he had his lawyer talk for him in front of Congress on a day when every media member and anyone else who cared to watch was looking for any reason to label any of the players testifying a juicer.

Think Herbert Lom in the 1970s "Pink Panther" sequels.


"It's Barry Bonds! . . . Kill him!"

"Why don't you let us kill Bonds, boss?"
"Because you wouldn't stand a chance!"
"He can't be that good!"
"Good? Good?! Bonds is not good! He is terrible! He is the worst! There is no man like him, anywhere in the world! Compared to Barry Bonds, that ray gun is only a water pistol!"

Uh oh, proof is a dangerous word to throw around in a steroids thread.

It's OK. He's a lawyer.

one of the more feared hitters of the 1970s and 80s,

They said it! They said it again!

Here's a prediction: Whether or not Bonds or Clemens gets into the HOF won't have a 1% effect on HOF attendance, once induction day is over with. I wouldn't vote for them, but if they got in, so be it. But the HoF isn't going to lie awake nights fretting over boycotts on either side of the question. And the writers are going to vote their convictions, just like they always have. And as they should.

And anyway, we all know that Bonds is already in the Hall of Fame in all his immortal splendor. So what's the fuss about?

And anyway, we all know that Bonds is already in the Hall of Fame in all his immortal splendor. So what's the fuss about?

Yes, indeed. Thank God that we have an artifact in the Coop that provides a balanced view and will provoke balanced discussion.

Better than nothing, Robin. Do you think that the ball won't provide lots of discussion?

And better than the juicer himself. But I'm willing to let the writers sort that out and let the boycotts take care of themselves. Five years down the road should provide enough perspective for most of them to come to a balanced conclusion, even if some of us might not agree with it.

I'm willing to let the writers sort that out and let the boycotts take care of themselves. Five years down the road should provide enough perspective for most of them to come to a balanced conclusion, even if some of us might not agree with it.

You say "enough perspective for most of them to come to a balanced conclusion, even if some of us might not agree with it." I say "enough getaway time to shovel dirt over their filthy tracks, covering up their own central role in the PED explosion, and piously singing loud hymns with every shovelful."

To-may-to, to-mah-to.

Better than nothing, Robin. Do you think that the ball won't provide lots of discussion? But I'm willing to let the writers sort that out and let the boycotts take care of themselves. Five years down the road should provide enough perspective for most of them to come to a balanced conclusion, even if some of us might not agree with it.

Old ground. You have more faith in the collective wisdom of the BBWAA than I do, and if the ball is in there, then there should be a big display about the other sides of the story and a video of Larry Starr talking about that meeting he described, which, amazingly, was left out of the Mitchell Report.

You say "enough perspective for most of them to come to a balanced conclusion, even if some of us might not agree with it." I say "enough getaway time to shovel dirt over their filthy tracks, covering up their own central role in the PED explosion, and piously singing loud hymns with every shovelful."

To-may-to, to-mah-to.

There should also be a way for HoF visitors to read the text of Tom Verducci's 1998 baseball preview in SI.

I'm just waiting for the steroid vote in a few years. We're getting first timers Bonds, Clemens, Sosa plus non-accused Biggio and Schilling plus probable leftovers McGwire and Palmeiro all on the same ballot. There are 7 near locks pre-steroids but just 2 who will get the needed support most likely while the rest get the 'McGwire vote' of around 25-30%.

Mix in other first timers like David Wells (230+ wins) and other potential holdovers like Fred McGriff, Juan Gonzalez, Larry Walker, Kevin Brown, Jack Morris, Tim Raines (sadly could still be sitting around), Alan Trammell, Dale Murphy, and others this could be the ballot that cleans out a lot of guys the wrong way (sub 5%) and elects almost no one (I think Biggio will make it).

The HOF vote will become a joke if this results in the mess that it easily could (ie: no one able to be voted in, many qualified candidates disappearing).

Better than nothing, Robin. Do you think that the ball won't provide lots of discussion? But I'm willing to let the writers sort that out and let the boycotts take care of themselves. Five years down the road should provide enough perspective for most of them to come to a balanced conclusion, even if some of us might not agree with it.

Old ground. You have more faith in the collective wisdom of the BBWAA than I do, and if the ball is in there, then there should be a big display about the other sides of the story and a video of Larry Starr talking about that meeting he described, which, amazingly, was left out of the Mitchell Report.

There should also be a way for HoF visitors to read the text of Tom Verducci's 1998 baseball preview in SI.

You surely know that you're beating a straw horse here. You know that I'd be more than glad to see any of these other displays right alongside the asterisk ball. As far as I'm concerned, they can give Dial himself a rent-free display table with an bottomless barrel of Beck's to offer Bonds's side of the story to anyone who'll listen.

-------------

You say "enough perspective for most of them to come to a balanced conclusion, even if some of us might not agree with it." I say "enough getaway time to shovel dirt over their filthy tracks, covering up their own central role in the PED explosion, and piously singing loud hymns with every shovelful."

And Gonfalon, you also know that I'm not in favor of any sort of coverup of any investigation into the owners' role in the steroid era. I'm not exactly a charter member of the Bud Selig Chowder and Marching Society any more than you're the President of the Barry Bonds Fan Club.

You surely know that you're beating a straw horse here

Well, yes, in that YOU have enough perspective to get all that, but to me, the ball helps to keep the focus on BONDSBONDSBONDSBADBADBAD for the fans et al at large. I think we need a more complex narrative. We are arguing about institutional issues more than we are arguing with each other.

Your Dial scenario is kind of funny--but the point is is that is a throwaway joke, and about as likely to happen as my Larry Starr video. The ball is in the HoF.

The HOF vote will become a joke if this results in the mess that it easily could (ie: no one able to be voted in, many qualified candidates disappearing).

Finally clearing the way for Steve Garvey to roar back into the national spotlight and enter the Hall of Fame by unanimous acclamation!

If the Hall goes from being about baseball's greatest players to being about really good players who have never been suspected of using PEDs, it's going to become a joke. No Bonds, no Clemens, no McGwire, no Sosa, no Palmeiro, no Ivan Rodriguez, no Sheffield, etc.... It will have ceased to be about being able to play baseball and will have become about being able to remain above suspicion.

I'd bet there is already at least one steroid user in the Hall. It would be fun to have someone who's already in confess and have a big orgy of hand-wringing over whether he should be kicked out.

As far as I'm concerned, they can give Dial himself a rent-free display table with an bottomless barrel of Beck's to offer Bonds's side of the story to anyone who'll listen.

This is totally unrealistic. Dial drinks Budweiser.

Well, yes, in that YOU have enough perspective to get all that, but to me, the ball helps to keep the focus on BONDSBONDSBONDSBADBADBAD for the fans et al at large. I think we need a more complex narrative. We are arguing about institutional issues more than we are arguing with each other.

I guess that just as I have faith that most people in general are bright enough to understand a goddam New Yorker cartoon, they're also bright enough to know that the asterisk ball wasn't put there by the Hall of Fame as the final word on the subject.

Your Dial scenario is kind of funny--but the point is is that is a throwaway joke, and about as likely to happen as my Larry Starr video. The ball is in the HoF.

I suppose that an appropriate answer to the asterisk ball would be for Lisa to create an enormous piece of folk tapestry depicting all 762 of Barry Bonds's home runs, each embroidered on a still-beating heart. I'm sure that the Hall of Fame might find a place for that. She might call it the Shroud of BALCO.

One view of the bottom line is that you're correct: The ball is in the HOF, and Budchugging Chris* isn't. But just as the asterisk wasn't placed on that ball until Mark Ecko put up the cash and had the imagination to do it himself, Barry Bonds's admirers are going to have to figure out some crowd-attracting way of presenting the "other" side of the Bonds story, if they feel in their heart of hearts that he's being given a raw deal. The ball is in their court.

* I should have known this, considering who the Mets' beer sponsor is....

If the Hall goes from being about baseball's greatest players to being about really good players who have never been suspected of using PEDs, it's going to become a joke. No Bonds, no Clemens, no McGwire, no Sosa, no Palmeiro, no Ivan Rodriguez, no Sheffield, etc.... It will have ceased to be about being able to play baseball and will have become about being able to remain above suspicion.

Overall, I agree with this assessment. Now, if the player has tested positive--the Palmeiro special--then I say ban him.

then there should be a big display about the other sides of the story

What other side?

Debating Bonds eligibility sans steroids is like debating the Vietnam war sans LBJ.

Well, yes, in that YOU have enough perspective to get all that, but to me, the ball helps to keep the focus on BONDSBONDSBONDSBADBADBAD for the fans et al at large.

As it should. Considering Bonds eligibility by deliberately forgetting the steroids is equivalent to considering Joe Jackson without the betting scandal. Bonds' cheating is central to his career, so it needs to be central to the consideration of his election.

Kevin, there were a lot of players of that time who were involved in gambling rumors. Tris Speaker and Ty Cobb in particular. They would be the equivalent of Bonds, Sosa, McGwire today, in that there were well-known credible reasons to think they cheated, but no actual EVIDENCE. And as such, it would have been irresponsible to disqualify them just because of the gamblers they hung out with, the rumors spread by other players and managers, the unilateral way in which Commissioner Landis dismissed the allegations, etc.

Well, there is with Bonds so I don't understand your point.

I suppose that an appropriate answer to the asterisk ball would be for Lisa to create an enormous piece of folk tapestry depicting all 762 of Barry Bonds's home runs, each embroidered on a still-beating heart. I'm sure that the Hall of Fame might find a place for that. She might call it the Shroud of BALCO.

The mockery actually helps make my case, I think. Again, you like this because it taunts Bonds in public, he can't do anything about it, and that pumps your nads. Fine. But it has nothing to do with balance or a complete historical record. As said, it creates imbalance and an incomplete record.

But just as the asterisk wasn't placed on that ball until Mark Ecko put up the cash and had the imagination to do it himself, Barry Bonds's admirers are going to have to figure out some crowd-attracting way of presenting the "other" side of the Bonds story, if they feel in their heart of hearts that he's being given a raw deal. The ball is in their court.

The put-up-or-shut-up taunting line of argument has never been persuasive, and the canonizing of Ecko as a pop-art wizard is a bit reductionist and highly subjective. It is not persuausive in this case because putting the ball there takes a juvenile, alebit somewhat clever, prank, and turns it into an op-ed piece. If you want "balance", then you should immediately write the HoF and DEMAND that all stuff related to the '98 HR chase and any display related to McGwire, Canseco, Clemens et al have asterisks on it as well. Otherwise, you are just giving fodder to those who reduce your position to "Bonds-hater."

What other side?

Debating Bonds eligibility sans steroids is like debating the Vietnam war sans LBJ

.

You're missing the point, as you generally do since you hate Bonds so much. If you want people to know the whole steroids story and take your side, then you want it all out there. If you want to be a bobo for Selig, as you generally have been in these discussions, keep trashing Bonds.