I assume that at least a few guys use all of their votes on deserving players who are about to run out of eligibility.
It's a fucked up system, but what are you going to do? Kenny Lofton was one and done, off the ballot. So now is Jim Edmonds. McGwire is now off the ballot for using then legal substances. Edmonds was very good, but not HoF worthy in my opinion. Lofton and McGwire? I think they should be in....certainly not one cast of votes and off the ballot as in Lofton's case. McGwire is still catching the backlash of PED's even though he was only found guilty of using supplements that were not disallowed when he was playing.
They were over the counter supplements. http://www.nytimes.com/1998/08/22/sports/baseball-mcgwire-admits-taking-controversial-substance.html
Greg Maddux didn't get in unanimously, either. There was an interview I heard on Mike & Mike then, with Buster Olney or Tim Kukjian, who said that there were guys who basically say "if so and so (Mays, Aaron, etc.) didn't get in unanimously, then, Maddux / Griffey / aren't getting 100%, either." Dumb. Yep, that's all he took, over-the-counter supplements. And, that's why he shamefully wouldn't talk about it then and won't now. Right. Oh, no, wait. He admitted to using steroids on and off for ten years. http://espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4816607
Yup. As did a whole shitload of players from that era. None of them (including Piazza) should get in. But I lay the biggest heaping of blame and shame at the feet of Bud Selig. He knew (or should have known since everyone else seemed to) what was going on and ignored it because he was trying to make baseball more popular again after the strike. Instead, he made it the dirtiest sport of the major four.
I know a bunch of players did, but I didn't know that Maddux, Griffey or even Piazza were ever suspected of using. And, yes, Selig should've done something sooner.
Piazza was suspected, but no allegations or rumors of Maddux or Griffey using that I'm aware of. When I say 'that era' - frankly, you'd have to be totally above reproach, like a Griffey, to get my vote for the HoF. So many players were using then, that, sad to say, unless you're completely clean, you shouldn't be in.
The problem is Aaron, Mays, Mantle, Clemente, Bench....all those players from the 50-70's were using Speed. Do we kick them out of the HoF? The whole PED thing is a non issue to me. You still have to see the ball, hit the ball, and have the reflexes to do it in a fraction of a second. PED's can't help you there. They will maybe take you from warning track power to fence scraper home runs (as in the case of Raphael Palmeiro) and help you come back from injuries quicker, but that's about it. As far as the sluggers of the PED era, Griffey and Thome I think are the only one not suspected of using in any way. There was wide speculation about Piazza, but nothing ever came of it.
I agree, and honestly you can just compare these guys to the other players in their era to figure out if they deserve to get in. McGwire and Bonds were two of the best hitters of their era, so they should get in. Baseball writers can be such sanctimonious twits it's annoying.
This goes from "keeping the sport clean" to "witch hunt" fairly quickly. Piazza (not to mention Bagwell and many others) shouldn't be excluded simply because they were "suspected" of use. If it cannot be proven, it shouldn't be used against them (and even then who gives a shit for reasons Toytoy mentioned). The moral absolutists who run the shitshow that is the HoF cite "character issues" despite the fact that there are plenty of racists, segregationists, woman-beaters and homophobes in the HoF. To act like its "pure" in any fashion is disingenuous in the extreme.
As a Reds fan during the Griffey years, I'm willing to bet that he didn't do HGH, if only because it always seemed to take him forever to come back from injuries and he always had nagging issues.
I could talk about baseball all day, but I have more serious questions: - why are there curtains when there is no window? - if you're going to pretend there is a window, why not make it higher? - who is the man so prominently framed that he deserves being included in this photo shoot? - did the photographer plan on her standing on the desk, or was that spur-of-the moment? Spoiler: Curious and NSFW
Ah, of course. I always get my Russian Czars mixed up. I was thinking it was pretty standard for Ivan the IV to b included in nude shoots. That's what was causing the confusion for me.