Posted by SW52 on 2/10/2009, 12:19:02, in reply to "Re: ARod"
Hmm...good question.
It's tough because alot of time has passed with him not admitting anything, yet sounding pretty guilty by not addressing the issue. Is it as bad as Pete Rose denying for years and years, then coming clean? Probably not, but it's at least a similar situation.
My take on the HOF for Mac or any of the other players that have been singled out in this is that their best chance is to have their entire era judged as a whole. My personal opinion is that from the early 90's thru the present, well over half of MLB players were taking something illegal...and I think it probably peaked at 80+% during the prime years of 1997-2003 when records were falling left and right. I even think it might have been more prevelant among pitchers in order for them to compete against bigger, stronger hitters, not to mention the new ballparks getting smaller and smaller. I think you have to judge the entire era. If that's the case, then how can you keep a select few out of the HOF? You either keep them all out, or you put the deserving in, and throw an * next to their names as being part of the "Steroid/hgh era".
As the voting stands now with the current crop of writers casting ballots, I don't see him having any chance at the Hall. This subject will get dicier though when Bonds becomes eligible, or Clemens, etc. It has to be all or nothing in my opinion.
Message Thread:
