Hall Of Fame Vote

We actually see eye to eye there; I don't want them to be the sole gatekeepers either. We just disagree on the value of a sportswriter's secondary knowledge. But, since we're cool on the panel, that doesn't matter.

Have a good weekend.

It's not moral relativism to point out that determining what is moral vs immoral, right vs wrong, is often complicated in real life as opposed to children's books. I was not equating all of my examples, in fact I think throwing at a batter's head is always wrong in a way that taking PED's isn't. One endangers lives, the latter decision, pre-2004, did not violate baseball's rules. In fact you keep insisting it was "cheating" but there was no rule of baseball that was violated. What is right or wrong in many contexts is a complicated thing.



Abundant food is always at some level a "good". Killing is at some level always a "bad". But the circumstances of the killing determine how much a bad, and it may even be a necessary bad to prevent greater evils. I'm not sure that pointing out that life's nuances apply to baseball history makes one a moral relativist. A moral empiricist maybe, but relativist no. Pointing out that morality is complicated isn't the same thing as saying there are no principles.

The largest point of all here is that what counts as "cheating" is a complicated idea, not a simple one. There are rules of the game, but they exist within authority structures who not only refuse to enforce some of the rules, but in the case of Glavine etc, make up unwritten new ones. If Bonds smacks his wife around is that bad? Yep, no question. I don't think the same is unequivocally true if he uses PEDs.

I also think kids are smart enough to distinguish between identifying someone as one of the greatest ballplayers in baseball history and "celebrating" them as people of high character. Hitler's presence in history books isn't celebrating him, but taking him out will do infinitely more harm than teaching about him would. Banning entire segments of baseball players from a historical museum is not necessary to teach kids right from wrong, and in fact deprives them of the lesson that baseball and baseball success is a complicated nuanced thing. Like life itself

There are plenty of cheaters in the HOF already, be it by corked bats, scuffed or altered balls, greenies, , spitballs, air conditioning being turned off and on depending on who's at bat, and on and on. I get tired of the debate that steroids is cheating and anyone taking them should be banned from the HOF. Or is it ok to cheat depending on the degree of severity? I'm probably in the 1% minority that feels that way. I am not a fan of either Bonds or Clemens, but IMO both belong in. If Bonds played in an era where 50% were users, and Aaron played in an era where only 2% were using Greenies, who had the greater advantage? And please don't tell me steroids gives a greater advantage, because I am quite aware of what advantage using uppers can give oneself.

As Bombers said, just because cheaters have been inducted before doesn't mean we should let them all in. You don't correct past mistakes by entirely relenting and repeating them. Also, what past inductees have been proven cheaters or had substantial evidence of it brought against them? I believe there could be some, but I am curious.

Also, I would say that, while degrees of severity shouldn't be used to justify lesser cheating, it is a factor to consider. If a player unknowingly applies a bit too much pine tar on his bat for some at-bats, or a pitcher inadvertently goes to his mouth, he technically cheated. However, he shouldn't be banned from the HOF for it. However, as I said earlier, those cheating with steroids immensely impacted the game and harmed its integrity with their usage. They took wins away from teams with fewer or no roiding players. They robbed players like Maris and Aaron of honestly and diligently earned records. And they cost non-using players money in contract and arbitration negotiations because their statistics paled in comparison to the roiders. So the roiders did do significant harm with their cheating and don't belong in the HOF.

As to the greenies vs. PED argument, I'm not touching it. I'm not even close to a chemist, and unless one of the potencies was negligible, their respective potencies are irrelevant.

Well, one of the the above actually. Hank Aaron had admitted to using "Greenies". So can we agree to call his home run record tainted? Can we agree Bonds and Clemens (whose word I believe vs that of a convicted perjuror) has as much right to the HOF as perhaps the pioneer of chemical use to enhance performance in baseball in Hank Aaron? So why put this admitted cheater on a different standard than any of the steroid era players?

Like a previous poster mentioned, Steroids were not illegal in baseball until 2004. You tell me, if you were a ballplayer, and a trainer told you he could enhance your performance, and it was not a banned substance in baseball, would you not follow your trainer's advice?

It's not moral relativism to point out that determining what is moral vs immoral, right vs wrong, is often complicated in real life as opposed to children's books. I was not equating all of my examples.

... I'm not sure that pointing out that life's nuances apply to baseball history makes one a moral relativist. A moral empiricist maybe, but relativist no. Pointing out that morality is complicated isn't the same thing as saying there are no principles.

...The largest point of all here is that what counts as "cheating" is a complicated idea, not a simple one.

First of all, your views aren't moral empiricism, as they don't come from direct sensory knowledge. Secondly, your erasing standard moral differences in baseball cheating is moral relativism. It--as I said before--effectively wipes out the difference between cheating and non-cheating. That effectively makes nothing cheating, which does equate activities, which is moral relativism. Your throwing at a batter's head analogy doesn't negate that, as that isn't "cheating" per se.

And yes, pointing out morality is complicated isn't the same as saying there are no principles. Your problem is you just say morality is complicated, then you give no principles. If you want to show your stance isn't moral relativism, you need to show you do believe in specific principle determining MLB cheating and show what they are. If you don't, your stance stands as moral relativism with no standards for cheating.

I also think kids are smart enough to distinguish between identifying someone as one of the greatest ballplayers in baseball history and "celebrating" them as people of high character. Hitler's presence in history books isn't celebrating him, but taking him out will do infinitely more harm than teaching about him would. Banning entire segments of baseball players from a historical museum is not necessary to teach kids right from wrong, and in fact deprives them of the lesson that baseball and baseball success is a complicated nuanced thing. Like life itself

As I said earlier, kids will be able to see that Baseball says "PEDs are bad" while it celebrates players who significantly used them. They will also see that the HOF has a character clause, but doesn't consider cheating and harming the game as poor character. We don't want to send our kids either of those messages.

Also, your HItler analogy is not an apt one.. The Hall of Fame is not a history book; it is inherently selective. History books have no rules of inclusion, other than truth. They seek to record everything, no matter how nefarious. The HOF does have rules of inclusion, and only seeks to include the best of its subject. And keeping players out of the HOF won't keep them out of baseball history. So kids will still be able to learn of them.

Finally, everything is nuanced and complicated. However, that doesn't meant some things aren't right or wrong, or cheating or not cheating. If you mistakenly erase those differences, by implying its all nuance and complication, you make nothing cheating or not cheating and nothing nuanced or complicated. That isn't true, and we certainly don't want to teach that to our kids. Teaching kids some things are right and some are wrong doesn't teach them life isn't nuanced and complicated. It teaches them things are right or wrong regardless of it.

Well, one of the the above actually. Hank Aaron had admitted to using "Greenies". So can we agree to call his home run record tainted? Can we agree Bonds and Clemens (whose word I believe vs that of a convicted perjuror) has as much right to the HOF as perhaps the pioneer of chemical use to enhance performance in baseball in Hank Aaron? So why put this admitted cheater on a different standard than any of the steroid era players?

Like a previous poster mentioned, Steroids were not illegal in baseball until 2004. You tell me, if you were a ballplayer, and a trainer told you he could enhance your performance, and it was not a banned substance in baseball, would you not follow your trainer's advice?

If Hank Aaron took the occasional fatigue pill, I would say he didn't cheat and deserves to be in the HOF. I do believe in some nuance and complication. Taking a few fatigue pills is not the equivalent of regularly taking PED's to unnaturally accelerate body development and enhance performance. If he did it regularly, sure, I could see the argument for removal. If you think using greenies at all merits his removal, I wouldn't agree, but I wouldn't begrudge your strict interpretaion.

I, myself wouldn't risk my health taking PEDs. However, whatever I would do is irrelevant. Neither I, or anybody else, is the sole moral compass determining the ethics of a particular behavior. However, the allure of unethical behavior is never justification for it. It is only its explanation. So the allure of using PEDs does not jusify using PEDs.

Finally, the HOF doesn't just judge on the official rules of baseball. It is an ancillary entity, with its own rules. it judges on whether players effectively cheated and/or harmed the game, not just MLB's explicit rules. I have posted how they have harmed the game, but nobody has really replied. Here are the ways I stated the roiders damaged the game. What do you think of them?:

1. Their roid-assisted accomplishments on the field stole wins from opposing teams--with no or fewer roided players--and their fans.

2. Their roid-assisted accomplishments stole records from honest, diligent players like Maris and Aaron.

3. Their roid-assisted statistics cost non-roided players--with uninflated statistics--money in contract and arbitration negotiations

It should be said that roids were on baseball's banned substance list since the early 1990's, so it did technically violate baseball rules to use them. But like the phantom tag or blocking the plate before 2014 or non-rulebook strikes it was a rule that wasn't enforced in any meaningful way by MLB. The distinction between de jure and de facto mentioned though out the thread above. Illegal in name only, allowed in practice until '04

I don't buy the argument that some have cheated and gotten into the HOF therefore all cheating for future players is OK and should be awarded.

Agreed.

One question (for anyone): How much (if any) cheating is allowed for Hall induction? Should a Ryan Braun forget about having HOF recognition because of his known past violations?

I don't buy the argument that some have cheated and gotten into the HOF therefore all cheating for future players is OK and should be awarded.

Agreed.

One question (for anyone): How much (if any) cheating is allowed for Hall induction? Should a Ryan Braun forget about having HOF recognition because of his known past violations?

I think the test case for this type of action/player will be Petitte not Braun. Pettite was such a key part of all those Yankee post season success's I think he'd be a shoe in if not for the PED's, It will be interesting to see if his Mea Culpa, has and effect on his candidacy.