Also, when McGwire an Sosa were having their epic homerun battles, they were considered saviors of baseball in a way since the game was still reeling atendance wise from the strike a few years before.

I say, put them in, but make a note of what they were caught or even accused of doing. That way, the players who helped shape the game, enhanced or not, can get recognition for their place in the history of the game.

Again, I just don’t see how it’s a moral issue. Those MLB players who chose not to take steroids when they could easily have aren’t morally superior; they just evaluated the cost/benefit differently.

I think the character clause should be scrapped. If a player was good enough to be in the HoF, he should be. I also want the plaques to be honest and include the warts. I prefer accurate history to nostalgia.

Schilling – 216-146, 3.46 ERA/127 ERA+, 3261 IP, 3116 K, 711 BB, 4.38 K/BB
Pettitte – 245-142, 3.86 ERA/117 ERA+, 3130.2 IP, 2320 K, 983 BB, 2.36 K/BB
Mussina – 270-153, 3.68 ERA/123 ERA+, 3562.2 IP, 2813 K, 785 BB, 3.58 K/BB
Morris – 254-186, 3.90 ERA/105 ERA+, 3824 IP, 2478 K, 1390 BB, 1.78 K/BB

Morris will probably be voted in this year or next, and he’s the worst of that entire group in both preventing runs and peripherals.

Baseball had an era in which steroids were (de facto) permitted. We’re now in an era in which they are not. Personally, I prefer the latter era, though I’m willing to listen to cur68 and others with medical expertise who claim this strict anti-steroids regime has perverse side effects. Much of my preference just comes to liking low-scoring games and pitching.

The players have to be compared to their contemporaries, ultimately. We could sit here all day and argue about how well Babe Ruth would have played had baseball been racially integrated during his career, how ’60s players would have performed without amphetamines, and how Koufax would have pitched in a neutral stadium and a shorter mound, and many other counterfactuals. Baseball has a long history and the sport has evolved through many phases, each of which has its own context. There’s a reason that most baseball fans view George Foster’s 50 home run season in 1977 as being more impressive than Brady Anderson’s in 1996.

Doing steroids isn’t a moral issue. Betting on events in which you play a part in the result is decidedly immoral, and for that reason Pete Rose was rightfully punished. But doing steroids? Come on. These players took a calculated risk to enhance their earning potential and increase their odds of winning a championship. It didn’t affect the integrity of the game. The Black Sox and Pete Rose did. Not these guys.

So please, please spare us the “they’re cheaters. Period. Keep them out.” argument. Because it isn’t even an argument! It’s just a boring, idiotic, brain-dead statement made by people who want to feel better about themselves. Reasonable people can disagree. But making a blanket moral statement just isn’t reasonable.

Are you saying greenies literally contributed to Hammerin’ Hank breaking Ruth’s record?

Not speaking for the others, but it depends on what you mean by contribute? Did it turn Hank from singles hitter to amazing HR hitter, no? Did it help him perform better than if he didn’t use them, you bet your bippy.

Think about it, I assume M-F you go to work. Drink any coffee when you are there? Why do you do it? It’s a stimulant, wakes you up, let’s you be that much more productive on the job. What do you think greenies did? If the day to day travel puts these guys at 70/80% of their abilities, and greenies boosts that to 90/95%, isn’t that “performance enhancing”?

I often wonder how many people who post on this board have every traveled a lot for work. I don’t mean once in a blue moon you take a flight, I mean like I do. Fly out every Mon, fly back every Thurs and travel to destinations in the interim? Because flying sucks, and it takes a lot out of you. Now imagine flying every 3 days, sometimes going two weeks before being “home” in your own bed. Wouldn’t a “stimulant” be great to get you through that 3 week west cost trip in August?

Those of us in the amphetamine crowd aren’t saying greenies = steroids, or that Aaron/Mays should never have been inducted. We’re merely saying that if your sole reason for being against PEDs/steroids is that they improve performance beyond what the player would normally do, shouldn’t you look at Aaron/Mays and almost every other player in the 60s and 70s in the same light?

For one thing, 150 of them were intentional.

Yes, and 49/150 happened in back to back season, so spread the rest of the 101 out over the other 13 years and that’s just under 8 a season.

so only a small percentage of his walks led to rune[sic]

So that’s McGwire’s fault? This is one step above “clogging up the bases” in ridiculous commentary.

Let’s compare two players, one a HoF and the other is McGwire.

A – .263/.394/.588 – 163 OPS+, 583 HR, 1317 Walks (150 IBB), 1596 Ks
B – .262/.356/.490 – 139 OPS+, 563 HR, 1375 Walks (164 IBB), 2597 Ks

Neither player was known for their defensive prowess. A = McGwire, B = Reggie. McGwire had more power, a better bb/k ratio, and a better OBP*. If you are going to leave McGwire out for PEDs, fine, but there’s no way you can justify voting for Reggie based on what they did on the field and not vote for McGwire.

*can we also stop quoting naked OBP when comparing two players. Player A with a .330 BA and a .375 OBP is not a better hitter than a guy with a .250 BA and .370 OBP.