Rafael Palmeiro

#1

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2121659

I was so shocked when I heard this. I could believe it at all. Now the question comes up....does he still deserve the Hall?

#2

QUOTE(ESPN)On July 15, Palmeiro joined Hank Aaron, Willie Mays and Eddie Murray as the only players with 3,000 hits and 500 homers

I think that says yes....Fuck a steroid...I wish they'd quit with that shit...

Lost Ghost · #3

If you're 40 and been in the leauge that long...and you're gonna use the excuse that you didnt know you were taking steriods....then not only should you not make it into the hall of fame, but you need to get a couple of home run swings right in the crotch.

Lost Ghost · #4

Um, he is allowed to do what he wants, except break laws, are you saying this guy is above the law because he can swing a stick? I'll put the fact that you think he shouldn't be punished when breaking a law that was put in place within the last year slip, because it was dumb enough in its self to hold your post has completely disregardable, but lets get to this DUMBASS point that "steriods do nothing to improve your baseball game"

Really? Then why are people takin' them? Why are they banned? To even get into the MLB, you're hand eye cordination is supreme, it doesn't need to be improved beyond its point artificially, but there is a little edge to when you finally do get the bat on the ball, that it goes flying 6,000 feet from the plate. Yeah, Mark McGwiure might have had a poor batting average, but almost 1 out of every 3 hits he had was a homerun, and he was taking steriods. But no, steriods don't help. Shut the fuck up.

Don't defend steriods in any sport, esp. the least stenuous and highest paying, undeservingly, of them all: baseball.

#5

Steroids don't help hand-eye coordination but that's not what gets you hits either. Just because you have that doesn't mean you're gonna be a star. You need power. Steroids give you that. I just read on ESPN.com that the steroid was a potent steroid

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2123113

But this sure does give more credibility to Conseco's book.

But Raffy does not deserve the Hall of Fame now

#6

The point is being made though, that we are in an era where roid use is rampant...I don't think that Big Mac isn't going to the hall, and you know his ass was juicing like crazy...We will have to enter a whole new era of baseball before we can start talking about who can and can't get into the hall...

His accomplishments are awesome, even the voters I saw that spoke on it agreed that they would vote him in still...

#7

Yea but people are saying that these players are better than the oldies because of numbers. The old timers did these totals with out steroids. Raffy swore in Congress that he didn't take steroids. He get his 500/3,000 on steroids. Doesn't deserve the Hall

#8

I don't believe that..! And along with that, those guys in the old days did not get those numbers playing against teh best players in the world, either...So, if we put up asterisks, then they will need to be up everywhere, yes..?

#9

Alot of players back then were the best. That's like saying every player now is the best. It isn't true. There were some good some bad.

I read this on ESPN:

In 1955, when there were only 16 teams, 33 active major leaguers were playing who eventually made the Hall, an average of 2.1 players per team.

In 1965, there were 20 teams and 34 future Hall of Famers, plus Pete Rose -- 1.75 per team.

In 1975, there were 24 teams and 31 Hall of Famers (so far), plus Rose -- 1.29 per team.

In 1985, there were 26 teams and 21 Hall of Famers (so far), plus Rose and certain future inductees Rickey Henderson, Cal Ripken, Tony Gwynn and Roger Clemens -- 1.0 per team.

Based on the historical trends, about 40 currently active majors leaguers will be elected to Cooperstown eventually. So I've crunched the numbers, studied the tendencies, pulled out some crazy predictions and peered into the future.

More players (on avg) went the Hall back then