HOF vote/Congrats Ken Griffey Jr.

[nicksaviking]

You have that backwards. Bonds was crazy-good before steroids came into the picture. He was an elite hitter with a ridiculous OBP who swiped 40+ bags a season.

That's true, but that also means Bonds knew he was likely a HOFer before he started using. He would have also known that getting caught using would almost certainly label him a cheater and keep him out of the Hall.

 

If he didn't give a crap about getting into the Hall, why should we?

[Dman]

 

'But he was never proven to have taken anything by MLB testing.'

 

People don't need proof.  Conjecture is fine.  Smallest hint works too.  One person thinking it and saying/writing it also works. It's the society we now live in. Public opinion is all about guilty until proven innocent. 

 

You are correct about Bonds he never was caught you can read in the Wikapedia link below.  Giambi actually had the guts to tell the truth and  confess and yet he never failed a test either, but then again Marion Jones didn't fail one at the Olympics and we all know how that turned out.  Lance Armstrong passed zillions of tests and yet the truth tells us a different story.  Yes hear say can be a bummer but often times it is just smoke before they find the real fire.

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BALCO_scandal 

[biggentleben]

 

You are correct about Bonds he never was caught you can read in the Wikapedia link below.  Giambi actually had the guts to tell the truth and  confess and yet he never failed a test either, but then again Marion Jones didn't fail one at the Olympics and we all know how that turned out.  Lance Armstrong passed zillions of tests and yet the truth tells us a different story.  Yes hear say can be a bummer but often times it is just smoke before they find the real fire.

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BALCO_scandal 

 

Wonderful, but for the BASEBALL HALL OF FAME, it doesn't matter. If the Black Sox had bet thousands of dollars on horse racing on the side with illegal gamblers and been convicted for that, they'd all still be eligible for the Hall of Fame (and many in it). If Pete Rose had bet on the Bengals with a bookie and got thrown in jail for it instead of betting on baseball, he'd still be a criminal, but he'd be in the Hall of Fame. If you weren't caught doing it by baseball, you retain all eligibility for the Hall of Fame, and your candidacy from that point forward should be based on where you ranked among your peers and among the greats of the game.

[jimmer]

 

You are correct about Bonds he never was caught you can read in the Wikapedia link below.  Giambi actually had the guts to tell the truth and  confess and yet he never failed a test either, but then again Marion Jones didn't fail one at the Olympics and we all know how that turned out.  Lance Armstrong passed zillions of tests and yet the truth tells us a different story.  Yes hear say can be a bummer but often times it is just smoke before they find the real fire.

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BALCO_scandal 

My comment wasn't about Bonds specifically.There are some players where a lot of evidence is presented.  There are some just accused with little to no evidence. My issue is when anyone even hinted at doing PEDs is put under the same blanket as those where there's a ton of evidence.

[Willihammer]

 

'But he was never proven to have taken anything by MLB testing.'

 

People don't need proof.  Conjecture is fine.  Smallest hint works too.  One person thinking it and saying/writing it also works. It's the society we now live in. Public opinion is all about guilty until proven innocent. 

He's not on trial for his life. An award for a game is at stake, that's all. The burden of proof shouldn't be the same. But there is evidence, possibly unreliable evidence but it exists, of failed tests and eyewitnesses, etc. That would be enough for me to exclude him. YMMV.

[jimmer]

 

He's not on trial for his life. An award for a game is at stake, that's all. The burden of proof shouldn't be the same. But there is evidence, possibly unreliable evidence but it exists, of failed tests and eyewitnesses, etc. That would be enough for me to exclude him. YMMV.

as I said before, my comment wasn't about one specific player.  Not sure who the 'he' is that you are referring to.

[Don Walcott]

 

That is not the case.  Rose was banned for life from baseball because of his gambling.  Same thing with the black Sox.  Nothing to do with the HoF.  The fact that he cannot be part of the HoF is one of the many consequences of his ban from baseball.

So you aren't aware of a debate about whether Rose should be eligible for the Hall of Fame? 

 

Maybe I've been imagining it, but it seems like people have been debating this ever since they passed a rule specifically to exclude him.  And now that we have the steroid era players, the debate has broadened to what is worse, what Rose did, or what steroid users did?  And the only reason for these debates is the Hall of Fame, not whether Rose can be a hitting instructor.  I was pointing out how passionate the debate is when it becomes about the Baseball Hall of Fame.

[biggentleben]

 

So you aren't aware of a debate about whether Rose should be eligible for the Hall of Fame? 

 

Maybe I've been imagining it, but it seems like people have been debating this ever since they passed a rule specifically to exclude him.  And now that we have the steroid era players, the debate has broadened to what is worse, what Rose did, or what steroid users did?  And the only reason for these debates is the Hall of Fame, not whether Rose can be a hitting instructor.  I was pointing out how passionate the debate is when it becomes about the Baseball Hall of Fame.

 

But they're not apples to apples. Manny Ramirez will be on the HOF ballot. He was suspended twice for failing a PED test. Pete Rose violated one of the "do not pass Go, do not collect $200" rules of the game by gambling on the game while being employed in the game.

[Don Walcott]

 

But they're not apples to apples. Manny Ramirez will be on the HOF ballot. He was suspended twice for failing a PED test. Pete Rose violated one of the "do not pass Go, do not collect $200" rules of the game by gambling on the game while being employed in the game.

Nobody said they were apples to apples.  I also mentioned the debate between sabermetrics and traditional measures.  These are good debates.

 

As for the "do not pass go" crimes, Shoeless Joe Jackson was on the ballot.  In my opinion, Rose should have been given that opportunity, but they changed the rules so he wouldn't get that opportunity.  Possibly, they thought he'd get voted in and didn't want that result.  The roiders are given that opportunity regardless of testing or admissions.  The more Rose gets debated, and the more he digs his own holes deeper, the more I don't care if he gets in (though as a player he definitely deserves to be there).  However, denying him even the opportunity to be voted on seems unfair.

[Don Walcott]

By the way, why would we debate between apples?

[jimmer]

 

By the way, why would we debate between apples?

Honeycrisp apples are the best!  Gala apples are pretty good!

[drjim]

 

as I said before, my comment wasn't about one specific player.  Not sure who the 'he' is that you are referring to.

 

Out of curiosity, who are you referring to? You made a pretty sweeping accusation.

 

I think when it all shakes out, no deserving player will be kept out that has no clear linkage (if not necessarily a positive test). Bagwell should be in, but he is far from a slam dunk in my opinion, and will probably get in next year anyways. I don't see many other problems.

[jimmer]

Out of curiosity, who are you referring to? You made a pretty sweeping accusation.

 

I think when it all shakes out, no deserving player will be kept out that has no clear linkage (if not necessarily a positive test). Bagwell should be in, but he is far from a slam dunk in my opinion, and will probably get in next year anyways. I don't see many other problems.

I've said at last twice that I'm not referring to anyone. That includes the one you quoted.

 

Bags is a good example and his numbers, IMO, make him a clear HOFer otherwise. ROY, MVP, .299/.408/.540 with an OPS+ of 149. 79.6 WAR (average WAR for HOF 1Bs is in the mid 60s) Some experts, such as Bill James, say Bags is the 4th best 1B of all time.

 

JAWS has him as 6th. Everyone in the top 10 that is retired and has been able to be voted in the HOF has been. (Pujols and Thome being the exceptions, because neither is eligible yet).

 

And the comment wasn't just about PEDs, it's anything.

[Squirrel]

MODERATOR NOTE: Baiting each other with inflammatory comments unrelated to the PED discussion is out of bounds. And taking up the bait is also out of bounds. Posts have been edited and/or deleted as a result.

 

And this discussion is doing nothing at this point but running in circles. If you have nothing new to add, walk away. It's not necessary to continue reiterating opinions that have been made several times. Agree to disagree but one more comment in an effort to get in the last word gets old. And not just in this thread.

[nicksaviking]

 

Wonderful, but for the BASEBALL HALL OF FAME, it doesn't matter. If the Black Sox had bet thousands of dollars on horse racing on the side with illegal gamblers and been convicted for that, they'd all still be eligible for the Hall of Fame (and many in it). If Pete Rose had bet on the Bengals with a bookie and got thrown in jail for it instead of betting on baseball, he'd still be a criminal, but he'd be in the Hall of Fame. If you weren't caught doing it by baseball, you retain all eligibility for the Hall of Fame, and your candidacy from that point forward should be based on where you ranked among your peers and among the greats of the game.

 

The Black Sox, Pete Rose, Bonds, Clemons and the entire PED era, Kent Hrbek and Eddie Gaedel are all in the HOF though.

 

This place is a museum, all of baseball's history is depicted good and bad. I'm not sure everyone who hasn't been there understands this.

 

What everyone is arguing is who should get plaques which are reserved for the hallowed players. If the museum is telling the story of the history of baseball, including these guys, why do the cheaters need a bust? Wouldn't that be like having a WWII HOF and adding a bust of Mussolini* along with all of the heroes of the war?

 

* Clearly Bonds is not as vile of a human as Mussolini, the point only is why would we honor the infamous players of the game when they are already chronicled as being a part of this history?

 

This is a private organization, if they don't feel comfortable honoring these guys, why should they have to change the rules?

[biggentleben]

I did do a lot of research on this outside of this discussion and published an article on my site today on the HOF:

 

http://tomahawktake.com/2016/01/11/is-the-hall-of-fame-already-tainted/

[biggentleben]

 

The Black Sox, Pete Rose, Bonds, Clemons and the entire PED era, Kent Hrbek and Eddie Gaedel are all in the HOF though.

 

This place is a museum, all of baseball's history is depicted good and bad. I'm not sure everyone who hasn't been there understands this.

 

What everyone is arguing is who should get plaques which are reserved for the hallowed players. If the museum is telling the story of the history of baseball, including these guys, why do the cheaters need a bust? Wouldn't that be like having a WWII HOF and adding a bust of Mussolini* along with all of the heroes of the war?

 

* Clearly Bonds is not as vile of a human as Mussolini, the point only is why would we honor the infamous players of the game when they are already chronicled as being a part of this history?

 

This is a private organization, if they don't feel comfortable honoring these guys, why should they have to change the rules?

 

Technically, Hrbek wasn't in any displays while I was there this summer, thankfully. That would have ruined the trip, but I'm sure they possess pictures and even some memorabilia of his career.

 

So, here's something fun to learn...fully 1/3 of the BBWAA had never visited the Hall of Fame as of a poll taken the year before Bonds and Clemens were on the ballot. So we're entrusting people to determine who should be part of a museum who do not have enough of a stake to have even visited the place ONCE! I don't exactly hold their "private organization" in high regard for deciding much of anything, frankly.

[nicksaviking]

 

Technically, Hrbek wasn't in any displays while I was there this summer, thankfully. That would have ruined the trip, but I'm sure they possess pictures and even some memorabilia of his career.

 

So, here's something fun to learn...fully 1/3 of the BBWAA had never visited the Hall of Fame as of a poll taken the year before Bonds and Clemens were on the ballot. So we're entrusting people to determine who should be part of a museum who do not have enough of a stake to have even visited the place ONCE! I don't exactly hold their "private organization" in high regard for deciding much of anything, frankly.

 

I agree that plenty of voters aren't qualified, but on the other hand if they nor the organization are held in high regard it probably shouldn't be worth too much angst. Kind of like Hollywood celebrities telling us common folk who should be president.

 

When I was there, there was a display celebrating Kent Hrbek observing Ron Gant's poor base running skills. The busts were cool, but I was more interested in the exhibits. But I like history and museums in general, I know they're not for everybody.