Those players seserve the distinction of noting what they faced in that erea to do what they did….I maybe wasn’t clear on that but that was my intent….

As for guys like Gaylord Perry I have no problem with taking him out of the hall for the spitball….But it’s pointless to try and dish out punishment AFTER the fact…

The only way to deal with cheating PROPERLY is to deal with it while it is happening. We didn’t in the steroid era and why we have the situation we are currently in!

Safe to say they didn’t deal with it well enough when Perry was cheating either…
But there is a bit of a distinction between the two. If baseball is about athletic ability using spit to get and edge is not quite the same as using chemicals to change the athletic composition and make them athletically better. You can say the spit gave him a pitch that was an advantage but he still threw it using his own athleticism not some Mr Hyde juice in a bottle. (he didn’t use vaseline it was pure spit…YUCH! LOL)

“what % of MLB players would you suggest took PED over the course of say 94-04″
Well Canseco says 90% and I have no reason to doubt him….All the more reason to place ALL players in that wing so the fans themselves can decide one way or the other….

And while you may have a point that if more than 50% of the league (even the 90% number) was on roids and therefore it was a level playing field there is still that 10-40% that may have done well as a clean player and may have done MORE if they were not facing a roided up clemons….

The idea of the WING is to TAKE NOTE that ANY player during this era has numbers that DO NOT RELATE to the rest of the hall and that can be either in a positive way or negative way but allows and alerts the fans to decide whatever they want.

It makes roid taking an issue and a lesson and at the same time makes for an interesting discussion piece for the hall.

And it shows players (and thier union) that thier refusal to test on a timely basis has ruined thier legacy for good. It is a just punishment for everyone who was in the union during that time and refused to weed the cheater out of the game by approving testing to protect thier legacy and record books!

RE: Perry taking roids..he probably would have….
As did a lot of other players that chose to…
The crime to me is not as much about the use of the roids because they hurt themselves more than me or the fans (it’s thier legacy they ruined not mine) the crime is knowing people were using and hurting themselves but refusing any attempt to stop it.

And the punishment for that should go to MORE than njust the guys who used or got caught.
Every player in that era should pay the price because even if they didn’t do it they were in a sense ACCOMPLICES by refusing to allow the one thing that could have stopped it or at least limited it’s affect on the league and the record books.

Keeping guys OUT of the hall is not gong to solve it as mst guys who use know they won’t get CLOSE to the hall without using…
No the lesson needs to be learned by all those who CAN reach the hall without cheating so they will not be as stubborn and refuse to allow the testing and actions needed to stop cheating that can hurt thier legacy and record books they all strive to get into and create WITH the cheating.

9.9 times out of 10 we disagree. Wait, that was not a compliment. Okay I’ll say this. I think you and I are on totally different wave lengths most the time, but – you don’t get personal. So thanks for that.

Now.

Time to argue

Seriously though here is my issue with your idea

Why do you create a difference between different kinds of cheating? Why do you not see a need for a separate wing of the HOF for those who doctored the ball like Perry or Ford?

If in your wing explaining the steroid era, what % of MLB players would you suggest took PED over the course of say 94-04 (just an example)

The reason I ask is if your view is that over 50% did (which is my view), then can’t you make an argument that the playing field was more level than say a handful of pitchers doctoring a baseball?

I’m against the use of steroids but I’m also a realist in that we’re all humans who are attracted to $ and success and to act like these players did something others wouldn’t have done is naive to me. If Gaylord Perry thought so much of the game and the rules that he CHOSE to break them then how do I know he wouldn’t take PED’s if available to him?

Step 2 – Cut that section in half and call one side “POSITIVE RESULTS” where any player who tested positive goes…

Step 3 – The other section is for all those who never tested positive and deserve to be noted as players who achieved DESPITE the fact they faced but did not JOIN the other cheaters!

Step 4 – To seperate the two sections a Video Exhibit that discusses the Steroid Era, Why it’s notable, Why Kids should never do it and why the stats of hall players during that era may seem light of hyper inflated depending on which side of the Hall your plaque hangs in….

And when someone gets proved to have used in the future….Move the nail and a plaque to the appropriate side of the wing!

Your not going to fix this via vote merely because you can’t prove one way or the other anyone used. Even guys we KNOW used have been proven innocent in a court of law albeit those cases didn’t involve steroid use just lying about it’s use.

If you want to punish players for cheating there is only ONE way to do it…And it isn’t to sweep them UNDER some rug and hope people forget because they won’t!

Nope it is to HIGHLIGHT and keep the memory of cheating alive and front and center!
So no one forgets and anyone who is willing to cheat to create a long lasting legacy for themselves will do so just not the legacy they were hoping for when they bent over and took the needle!

THATS how you punish them, not by keeping them in the Hall….
All it would take is a wing for the era and section for the Hall of Shame!

And I say if you need money to pay for it that the league should confiscate any salary of players suspended for testing positive to pay for it!

I think the heart of the issue comes from the picture you posted and that is then the parent’s responsibility. And it is a hard job because the younger one is, the more one needs to believe in heros but, at the same time, one does not want to shield their impressionalbe youngsters from some things they need to be aware of in order to grow up differenlty from being that way themselves.

So if they are old enough, we should try to separate the ball player from the person as best as possible so the young kids understand those plaques refer to their achievements in the sport and not necessarily. Not talking about all players – they don’t need to know the personal lives of most of them – even those like with Mickey Mantle- but they should understand about the courage and decency of Jackie Robinson and the vicious hatred of a Ty Cobb, Rodgers Hornsby, Cap Anson and others.

If integrity and character were serious attritubes for consideration, there would be only a handful in the Hall like Walter Johnson, Christy Matthewson, Lou Gehrig, Roberto Clemente, Tony Gwynn, etc. And one would have serious doubts about those who are making those judgements as well.

So we should forget integrity and character and just concentrate on the performances – and enhancing those performances automatically disqualifies the steroid users from consideration.

1) Agreed. They need to weed “suspicion” out of the process a little better. The trouble is defining what constitutes evidence. Do you use a judicial standard? If a player has been vindicated on perjury but not on steroids use (Clemens) or gets off on a silly technicality (Braun), what evidence is fair to use or not?

2) Here I disagree. What you propose — that nothing should be done if a player is later found out to have juiced — is exactly why many writers hesitated to vote for Piazza this year. Because they said he has a book coming out. The writers fear they are giving a pass to someone who turns out to be a cheat. But if you have a provision to remove the plaque later — or add an asterisk — then you are taking away that pass and those writers don’t have to worry.

3) I disagree again. I believe there are levels of cheating, and not all transgressions should be treated the same. Just like there are different levels of breaking the law in this country. A pickpocket should not be treated the same as someone who commits grand larceny or vehicular manslaughter.

What I would like is some changes to the electorate and the ballots. The idea that someone can write in Shawn Green or vote if they haven’t written about baseball for over 20 years or so is ridiculous. Maybe they need to pare down the size of the electorate considerably, but at the same time open it up to more groups such as broadcasters. There are plenty of esteemed broadcasters who I would trust with a vote.

The player is either a HOF or he’s not. No more ‘we’ll punish him for a little while’ or ‘he doesn’t deserve the HOF on the first vote’ mindset, or ‘I can only vote for 10 so I’ll get to player X next year as he’s got 14 more years to get in’.