Posted by tecwrg on 11/30/2013 8:28:00 AM (view original):
Posted by dahsdebater on 11/29/2013 10:51:00 PM (view original):It seems to me that the "greenies = PEDs" argument is a "bullshit argument" as well. Are you saying that greenies in the 60's and 70's had the same impact on performance as steroids and other PEDs in the 90's and 00's?
Posted by tecwrg on 11/29/2013 9:34:00 PM (view original):You want to kick all the guys who used greenies out of the Hall? Mays? Aaron? What about the spitballers? Neither greenies nor steroids were ever explicitly against MLB rules or policy, just US law. Spitballs were explicitly against the rules. So time to give Gaylord Perry the boot?
Clemens was on his way to being one of the best of all time until he turned to PEDs. Anything achieved beyond that is tainted.
Cheaters should not be rewarded for cheating.
I'm so sick of this bullshit argument. Baseball has always rewarded those who get away with cheating. And the same guys who revere the spitballers and amphetamine abusers can't stand Bonds and Clemens because "they cheated the game." They did the same thing all the generations before them did, they just happened to have the best cheating technology available to date. Frankly, I think most of it is that everyone wants to believe the players and the game they saw when they were young and full of wonder were as good as it gets. The same reason that old guys in the '20s and '30s and even '40s would never accept that Ruth had been a better hitter than Cobb. The same reason everyone in the '60s and '70s and '80s was obsessed with putting an asterisk behind Maris' record. And the same reason that almost everyone over 40 now wants the steroid guys out of the Hall.
With that line of logic, we should probably also throw in caffeine or sugar. Anybody who's had a cup or two of coffee before a game, or ate a candy bar, should be tossed as well.
You said cheaters should not be rewarded for cheating. That doesn't imply degree at all. Your argument here is retarded - you aren't trying to keep guys out of the Hall for any moral reasons at this point, only because you don't like their numbers. Because they're "too good." Or am I missing something?
As far as I can tell, there is no moral element to your rebuttal. I just made a MORAL argument - "They did the same thing all the generations before them did, they just happened to have the best cheating technology available to date." I'm pretty sure I implied right there that amphetamines don't have the ability to enhance performance to the same extent as steroids and HGH. But I don't see why it should matter. The reality is that guys have been using illegal substances to improve performance for decades, and we've been eagerly anointing them worthy of enshrinement. There is no MORAL difference from guys using greenies in the '70s and guys sticking needles in their ***** in the '90s. They're both using illegal substances because they think it will help them play better and make more money. Coffee and candy aren't illegal. I don't see what point you could possibly be trying to make except the one I outlined above - "I don't like how good their numbers are, so I don't want to let them in."