Chillz what are your thoughts on this article

[Admin]

 Article: 

There are questions in life I never thought I'd have to answer.

And this is one of them:

Would I vote for a guy with 3,000 hits and almost 600 homers for the Hall of Fame?

Yeah, I would. On the first ballot. And every ballot.

It's some kind of commentary on the bizarro world we live in these days that stuff like this is now a subject for serious debate. But steroids have done that for us.

It was only a matter of time before some future Hall of Famer tested positive, right? So we'd like to thank Rafael Palmeiro for being the winner of that race.

In a way, it's almost fitting. This was, after all, a man who did commercials for the ultimate performance-enhancing drug (Viagra).

But Palmeiro was also a man who almost managed to turn himself into one of the good guys of baseball with that finger-pointing performance before Congress. Oops.

His life, his career, his legacy will never be the same now.

But I'd still vote for him. First ballot. Every ballot.

Why? Because I'm not a cop. I'm just a guy who covers baseball for a living.

So it's not my job to police this sport. It's the sport's job to police itself. And for 15 years -- maybe 20 -- baseball's police station was a place where the cops just sat around, played cards, smoked cigars and let the inmates hit 900-foot home runs.

Baseball's idea of policing itself in the '90s was to allow a whole generation of players to play -- without testing them, without punishing them, without preventing them from bulking up however they wanted.

So if they "cheated," it wasn't because I let them cheat. It was because baseball let them cheat.

Now it's too late -- for me, for any of us -- to retroactively pronounce these guys guilty of something baseball now considers illegal. It wasn't illegal then.

So they took what they took. They did what they did. And now, all I can do as a voter is vote on what they did on the fields they were allowed to play on.

Sorry. That's the deal.

So all I know is that Rafael Palmeiro had a Hall of Fame career on those fields he was allowed to play on.

Even if 3,000 hits and 600 homers don't mean what they used to, they still mean enough that any player who reaches both those plateaus is a Hall of Famer. Even if he once got suspended for testing positive.

You know, Gaylord Perry won 300 games in an age when 300 wins didn't mean what it did when Old Hoss Radborn did it, either. But it was still enough wins to make ol' Gaylord a Hall of Famer -- even though he might have been the most proud and famous "cheater" in the history of modern sports.

Baseball didn't seem to care if Gaylord Perry cheated for two solid decades. In fact, everyone mostly seemed to find it kind of amusing.

So the next thing we knew, his name was showing up on the Hall of Fame ballot. And I figured, if baseball didn't want to stop him from cheating at the time, why would a few thousand Vaseline-balls stop me from voting for him?

So I did.

We all have players we suspect. But what about all the players we don't suspect? You want to propose some foolproof way to judge? We'd love to have one. But unless it involves the concept of a time machine, don't bother -- because it's too late.

I've written about this before, and I've heard from a lot of you who tried to convince me that that was a different form of cheating. This steroid stuff -- it's much more sinister. It's more dangerous to our youth. It's destroying the meaning of the great numbers of baseball. You made those arguments beautifully.

I don't disagree with them, either. But I have a problem, as a voter, with using them to justify not voting for the Rafael Palmeiros of our time.

The problem is, I still don't know who, from that generation, "cheated" and who didn't. Baseball has provided us with no evidence to go on here. None.

It never tested anybody. It never suspended anybody. It never convicted anybody.

So it's all guesswork. Are we just going to deny votes to players who showed up in Jose Canseco's book?

Or to players who got subpoenaed by Congress?

Or to players who gained weight?

Or to players who had pimples?

What's the magic standard here?

We all have players we suspect. But what about all the players we don't suspect? You want to propose some foolproof way to judge? We'd love to have one.

But unless it involves the concept of a time machine, don't bother -- because it's too late.

Just as we have no idea what other pitchers of Gaylord Perry's generation loaded up the baseball, or scuffed it, or taught it a bunch of Harry Potter tricks, we have no clear idea which players of the '90s "cheated" their way to greatness and which didn't.

So are we going to vote for none of them? I've heard some of my fellow writers suggest they might actually do that, to "make a statement." Hey, great. Let them make it. But if they keep some players out of Cooperstown who did it clean, that's wrong, too.

And let us remind you of what the always-eloquent Jose Canseco told the Congress of the United States just last March:

There's no magic formula that can tell us how many home runs any player would have hit if he hadn't used steroids. Heck, there's no way to know how many he would have hit if the pitchers hadn't been using them, too.

And that reminds us: You never hear any outrage about those pitchers, do you?

Who knows how many pitchers from The Steroid Era will sail on into the Hall of Fame with pharmaceutically aided numbers? We couldn't tell you how many will -- but we bet it won't be zero.

There won't be any cloud hanging over any of those guys, though, because nobody ever gets heated up about what pitchers do. But those criminals who tarnished the hallowed numbers of the Babe and Ted and Willie -- we'll show them. We won't vote for any of them.

Sorry. It just isn't rational to selectively pick out a guy here or a guy there -- whether it's based on a positive drug test or a page in somebody's book.

There is an argument to be made that what separates Palmeiro from the rest is that he did test positive, so we know what he did. But wait a second. Do we?

I'd love to know a whole lot more about what Palmeiro did that caused him to test positive, actually. Not to mention when he did it, how much he did it, how long he did it and exactly how many more hits and homers he hit because he did it.

But I'll never get those answers, will I? He'll never tell us everything. And even if he wanted to, even he doesn't know the answer to that last question. And never will.

For Rafael Palmeiro, the reverberations of this positive drug test will be shaking his floor for the rest of his life. And should. Unless he spits out a darned compelling explanation for it some day, he deserves all of those reverberations.

But the one reverberation he doesn't deserve is to have someone like me look at his name on a Hall of Fame ballot some day and treat it as if he were just another Manny Alexander -- or Jack the Ripper.

I wish baseball had taken care of this mess a decade ago. For me. For all of us. But it didn't.

So I might not feel the same about him as I felt a week ago. But when that ballot arrives, I'll check off that box next to Rafael Palmeiro's name. First ballot. Every ballot.

'>http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/stor...yson&id=2122193

[cyman3]

when it comes to the hall of fame (in any sport for that matter)- we shouldnt judge players by what they did outside of the sport. their personal life is INDEPENDENT of their sports life. if player X was the ultimate ass but had game to back it up and piled up crazy stats over a long period of time, he should be in the hall of fame. simple as that. its the same concept- great writers or Noble Prize winners who accomplished so much, while having addictions to drugs or alcohol. its NO DIFFERENT.

but when it comes to steriods and steroids- u gotta deal w/ that "cheating" factor. its hard to say. i want to reserve my judgment for now- but if the guy was being voted *TODAY*...

i dont think he'll make the cut.

[AHF]

Why would you vote for Raffy at all? He has good career numbers but was never the best player on his own team let alone a dominant player in the league. Add in the fact that he was accused of being a long-time doper by Canseco and then nailed for steroids months later and you have reason to doubt whether his numbers are legitimate at all.

Personally, I am more cynical than this writer and willing to judge Bonds, Sosa and other based on their cheating ways.

But even apart from the cheating, Palmeiro didn't have the credentials of dominating play like other HOF. He had a bunch of good years during the inflated offense era of the 90s, etc. and played primarily for losing teams with good offenses. Considering there are a lot of teams where Palmeiro wasn't even the second best player, he doesn't pass HOF must with me - especially not after testing positive for steroids.

[ggp]

Quote:

---

Why would you vote for Raffy at all? He has good career numbers but was never the best player on his own team let alone a dominant player in the league. Add in the fact that he was accused of being a long-time doper by Canseco and then nailed for steroids months later and you have reason to doubt whether his numbers are legitimate at all.

Personally, I am more cynical than this writer and willing to judge Bonds, Sosa and other based on their cheating ways.

But even apart from the cheating, Palmeiro didn't have the credentials of dominating play like other HOF. He had a bunch of good years during the inflated offense era of the 90s, etc. and played primarily for losing teams with good offenses. Considering there are a lot of teams where Palmeiro wasn't even the second best player, he doesn't pass HOF must with me - especially not after testing positive for steroids.

---

I simply do not agree. Palmeiro was often the best and most consistent hitter on his teams for years. He was never flamboyant. He was never a standout character, just a damn good ball player....year after year. He never signed on with a contender just to get a ring....that is a phenomenon that has recently taken hold of all of sports. To me, that is a sign of lowered character.

Phil Niekro is in the Hall. I was glad to see that. As a matter of fact, there are plenty of guys in the Hall that never "dominated". I visited the HOF just two weeks ago. It is all about Baseball. There are guys in there because they had phenomenal careers and there are guys in there that were very good baseball players for many years. The value of being consistenty very good for a long time has correctly been rewarded in the HOF. Why should that standard be changed at this time?

I have hated the stain that steroids have made on this wonderful sport. I have often been called a stick in the mud when I would bring up the subject of inflated stats. No one wanted to hear that McGwire and Sosa were juiced. No one wanted to stop the circus that was Barry Bonds....a very good hitter in his youth turned hitting monster in recent years.

Will McGwire be voted to the Hall? Will Sosa make it? Will Bonds get in? I am assuming that they will all make it. If Sosa doesn't, then it will confirm my suspicion that Hispanics must be better to be given equal respect in this game....but that is another subject.

I don't like a lot about what has been going on in Baseball for years, but I still love the game. And if I were voting, Raphael Palmeiro would be a first ballot inductee.

[chillzatl]

The writer obviously does not believe in personal accountability. He thinks it's baseballs fault that they didn't STOP people from doing stuff that those people knew was wrong to begin with. Forget having self respect, forget knowing right from wrong on our own. Since baseball didn't stop them, I won't hold them accountable either. It's no different than people who blame society for a criminals problems before blaming the criminals themselves.

Baseball does need to make a clear list of what is allowed and what is not. If they're going to call these guys "steroid users" because they took a supplement that is not technically a steroid, they need to have a clear deliniation there.

As for Palmeiro, yah I think he still gets in. But he is in NO WAY a first ballot player. IMO, first ballot is reserved for VERY special players. Players who changed the face of the game and made an impact on the history of the game. Palmeiro had great stats. But he never did a thing to change the game. His best showing in MVP voting was 5th. If you can't elevate yourself above 5th best in your league at any given point in your career, you CAN NOT be a first ballot player. Now, this is just my opinion. I'm also one of those that thinks the sports writers get too many allotments per year. They get 10 and there just aren't that many HOF worthy players out there. We're getting to a point where guys with great stats and good longevity are being portrayed as legends.

[AHF]

I would also not vote for Mark McGwire or Sammy Sosa because their success was fueled by performance enhancing drugs.

I'd be happy to deny Bonds a spot if the league had a policy against cheaters equivalent to the anti-gambling policy keeping Rose out of the HOF but Bonds was a HOF talent before he juiced up so I would vote for him if given the chance.

[AHF]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Why would you vote for Raffy at all? He has good career numbers but was never the best player on his own team let alone a dominant player in the league. Add in the fact that he was accused of being a long-time doper by Canseco and then nailed for steroids months later and you have reason to doubt whether his numbers are legitimate at all.

Personally, I am more cynical than this writer and willing to judge Bonds, Sosa and other based on their cheating ways.

But even apart from the cheating, Palmeiro didn't have the credentials of dominating play like other HOF. He had a bunch of good years during the inflated offense era of the 90s, etc. and played primarily for losing teams with good offenses. Considering there are a lot of teams where Palmeiro wasn't even the second best player, he doesn't pass HOF must with me - especially not after testing positive for steroids.

---

I simply do not agree. Palmeiro was often the best and most consistent hitter on his teams for years.

---

You may be right. Let's see:

Chicago 1986, 1987 and 1988 - not close to the best player

Texas:

1989 - Not close to best player (Ruben Sierra and Julio Franco just two of the better players on a bad team)

1990 - Ruben Sierra

1991 - Ruben Sierra & Juan Gonzalez

1992 - Juan Gonzalez

1993 - Juan Gonzalez

Baltimore:

1994 - Best Hitter By A Little but Not Best Player - Cal Ripken

1995 - Rafael Palmeiro - Best player for mediocre 71-73 team - 11th in MVP voting

1996 - Brady Anderson

1997 - Best hitter (despite .254 average) But Finished Second in MVP Voting on His Own Team (13th overall) behind Randy Myers (4th for AL MVP)

1998 - Palmeiro - I give him this year although he finished tied for 18th in MVP voting with teammate Eric Davis

Texas:

1999 - 2nd Best Player on Team Behind MVP Ivan Rodriguez (also finished behind former teammate Roberto Alomar and three others)

2000 - Palmeiro Best Batter on a Texas team finishing 20 games below .500. 0 MVP votes (not in top 20 players in AL that season)

2001 - ARod

2002 - ARod

2003 - ARod

2004 - Miguel Tejada, Melvin Mora & Javy Lopez (also former teammates Michael Young, Mark Texeira, Frasisco Cordero all finished higher in MVP voting)

His teams almost never had a winning record over his career and he was the best player on those teams a whole three times. That is probably why he has one top 5 MVP finish and 0 finishes in the top 4. Heck, Dale Murphy has two MVPs and isn't considered a serious shot at the HOF.

He was very good for a long time but never a great player. Here are his similar batter by age which says it all, IMO:

Most Similar by Age

Click on C to compare their stats

Mouse over numbers to view names

Shawn Green (968) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C

Al Oliver (969) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C

Al Oliver (962) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C

Darin Erstad (968) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C

Al Oliver (952) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C

John Olerud (949) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C

John Olerud (948) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C

Will Clark (957) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C

Will Clark (942) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C

Will Clark (920) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C

Billy Williams (926) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C

Orlando Cepeda (954) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C

Orlando Cepeda (937) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C

Jeff Bagwell (909) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C

Eddie Murray (896) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C

Eddie Murray (894) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C

Eddie Murray (898) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C

[AHF]

Here is an article that echoes my sentiments here:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story...=bayless/050715

Quote:

---

Too many seam-headed voters are too imprisoned by milestone numbers. For them, 3,000 plus 500 equals first ballot. I realize I'm thinking way too right-brain for a baseball argument, but just listen to your instinct when I ask: "Is Rafael Palmeiro a game-changing player?"

Your instinct whispers no, loudly.

Palmeiro has made only four All-Star teams -- half of Murray's. Not once has Palmeiro been voted a starter. His highest MVP finish is fifth. Not once has he led the league in home runs, RBI or batting average.

Don't lie to yourself.

Palmeiro is nothing more than a very good player who has benefited from being a left-handed hitter in bandbox ballparks, Camden Yards and Ameriquest Field in Arlington, featuring right-field jet streams. Not counting the strike year of 1994, Palmeiro played five seasons in Baltimore and five in Arlington during 1995-2004. He averaged a little more than 36 homers a year in Baltimore, counting last season's 23, and almost 45 a year in Arlington.

Yes, he still had to make home-run contact. But is he Reggie Jackson?

Please.

That's the argument you hear for Palmeiro: Reggie's in the Hall of Fame, and Palmeiro passed Reggie's 563 homers on the all-time list.

Oh, please.

No one's denying Palmeiro has a sweet swing. But that doesn't make him Hall-worthy.

Reggie Jackson made 14 All-Star teams and won two World Series MVPs, as well as the 1973 regular-season MVP. In 27 World Series games, Reggie batted .357 with 24 RBI and 10 homers -- including, of course, three in 1977's deciding Game 6 against the Dodgers.

Has Palmeiro ever been called Mr. October? Mr. Anything?

OK, Mr. Viagra. Five years after he retires, Palmeiro will be remembered mostly for doing Viagra ads.

Palmeiro hasn't played in a World Series. In 22 postseason games, he has only four homers and eight RBI, with a .244 average. Not exactly immortal impact.

Forgive me, but I want my Hall of Fame to admit only larger-than-life players. Make that Gary Coopers-town. If you have to think twice about it …

Wade Boggs? Yes! Ryne Sandberg? Uh, well …

Sandberg belongs in the Hall of Very Good. Yet Boggs and Sandberg will both be inducted into the Hall of Fame on July 31.

Andre Dawson (one MVP, eight All-Star teams) and Dale Murphy (two MVPs, seven All-Star teams) are notable Hall snubs. I'd trade Palmeiro for either of them.

Still, I don't lie awake nights wondering how, in the name of Babe Ruth, Dawson and Murphy aren't Hall of Famers. I don't want a Hall of Sympathy for Very Good Players.

I want rare greatness, Olympus-high standards. Roger Clemens? Obviously! Barry Bonds? Even pre-steroids, no doubt. Mariano Rivera: Sure! Greg Maddux? No-brainer. Curt Schilling: Darn right. Randy Johnson? Never been anything quite like him.

Sammy Sosa? Uh, well, just because he had three 60-plus home run seasons at the height of the steroid era …

Sosa is not in my Hall of Fame either. Sosa has too often been the master of the meaningless home run. In the clutch, Sosa too often has swung at strike three in the dirt (he has led the league in strikeouts three times). Sosa too often has been a liability in right field.

If you want to put Sammy in your Lovable Cartoon Character Hall of Fame, fine. But he's not in my Hall.

Mark McGwire? Gut feeling: Yes, with or without steroids. He was a 12-time All-Star (to Sosa's seven) and helped carry three Oakland teams to the World Series (to Sosa's none). McGwire was the most feared power hitter of his time.

Though Jose Canseco goes into detail in his book about how he educated Palmeiro about (and injected him with) steroids, Palmeiro heatedly denied ever using steroids when he testified before Congress. Canseco joined Palmeiro in Texas for the final two months of the '92 season. That season, Palmeiro hit 22 homers. The next, he hit 37 and turned into a legitimate 40-homer threat.

Still, let's assume Canseco is lying. Steroid-free, Palmeiro isn't a Hall of Famer.

Give me no-doubters.

Give me Aaron, Banks, Bench, Brock, Carew, Carlton, Clemente, Cobb, Dizzy Dean, DiMaggio, Drysdale, Eckersley, Feller, Whitey Ford, Gehrig, Gibson, Grove, Hornsby, Hubbell, Walter Johnson, Kaline, Killebrew, Koufax, Mantle, Marichal, Mathewson, Mays, McCovey …

Mize, Morgan, Musial, Ott, Paige, Palmer, Reese, Brooks Robinson, Frank Robinson, Jackie Robinson, Ruth, Nolan Ryan, Schmidt, Seaver, Sisler, Ozzie Smith, Snider, Spahn, Speaker, Stargell, Honus Wagner, Ted Williams, Yastrzemski, Cy Young and Robin Yount.

Sorry, Raffy.

---

That really says it all from my perspective. The guy only made 4 All-Star games in his entire career and never started one. You don't have to be flamboyant to make All-Star teams - you just have to be one of the best players. Heck, every team gets an All-Star rep so if you are just the best player on your team you are going to get in a decent number of times. Raffy just wasn't the best player on his team and wasn't a dominating presence like a HOF player should be IMO.

[chillzatl]

[Admin]

Granted what those guys were doing wasnt illegal according to baseball and yeah the writer is probably correct in saying that just as high of a percentage of pitchers were probably juicing as well, but IMO he was a borderline HOF player, definitely not first ballot, and now he has tainted his name because of not being honest about using in the 1st place.

[drzachary]

Track and field, considered to be a "dirty" sport, issues a 2-year ban for a steroid violation like Palmeiro's. Baseball is an utter joke.