Do YOU think Arod should be in the HOF?

Yes. First ballot

Without looking at anything, I think its safe to say the guy is easily one of the top 25 hitters of all time and he played a premium defensive position well for a solid chunk of his career.
So yea.

This post was edited by ppkpkppk on Aug 7 2016 08:17pm

Only if Barry Bonds gets in. Not even a homer thing either. They just need consistency, imo. If Bonds played his whole career for the Pirates, I'd still say the same thing. No reason to exclude one of the best of all time because of his alleged steroid use, then turn around and accept one of the other best of all time who has tested positive and admitted.

Shouldn't it be "if Pete Rose gets in."

Different can of worms to me. It's literally THE #1 rule written in every single clubhouse in baseball.

"Any player, umpire, or club official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has no duty to perform shall be declared ineligible for one year. Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible."

Not that I'm necessarily saying Pete should not be in the HoF. Just that it's apples/oranges when comparing to steroids, where baseball was playing catch up as players were using them in regards to how to appropriately police them.

The other thing I'd like to point out is that your logic is also the same as these idiots who refuse to partake in the never unanimous first balloter . "If Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, Hank Aaron, Willie Mays weren't unanimous first ballot guys, then how could .... be"

Nah that would be some big extrapolation of my line of thinking...

I think everyone who deserves it should receive votes, I personally don't care for the like 6 jerks who do what you say each year or leave the best of each class off each year because "theyll get the votes and the fringe guys need my vote." I just think if you've already excluded one of the best players of all time for steroids, you can't just turn around and accept someone else who is in the exact same situation.

Because two wrongs are better than one?

Because I'd prefer consistency from the voters?