 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Other Stuff » Sports Talk » Calm before the Storm- the 2012 MLB HOF ballot
tworoosters
Only Bernie Williams can even remotely be considered among a group headlined by the likes of Bill Mueller, Rueben Sierra, Phil Nevin, Vinny Castillo, Scott Erickson and Tim Salmon, and Williams isn't a HOFer in my mind.
2012 will be a good chance for Barry Larkin, Jack Morris, Jeff Bagwell and , hopefully, Tim Raines to make their move before the most contentious class ever arrives in 2013. The 2013 first year players will include Craig Biggio, Curt Schilling, Mike Piazza and three other guys named Bonds, Clemens and Sosa.
My Ballot would have:
Raines
Bagwell
Larkin
Morris
Morris is a tough call because he suffers from Don Sutton syndrome, he doesn't look like a Hall of Famer, but he was just so money for so many years on so many winning team. I'd put him in just for game seven of the 1991 World Series even if he didn't win 250+ games, plus even though he sucked in the playoffs in '92 the Jays don't win their first World Series without him.
Still I don't think he's got a hope in hell .
Calm before the Storm- the 2012 MLB HOF ballot
December 01, 2011 at 01:19AM View BBCode
So the first year eligible players on the 2012 MLB Hall of Fame ballot aren't likely to make much of an impact.Only Bernie Williams can even remotely be considered among a group headlined by the likes of Bill Mueller, Rueben Sierra, Phil Nevin, Vinny Castillo, Scott Erickson and Tim Salmon, and Williams isn't a HOFer in my mind.
2012 will be a good chance for Barry Larkin, Jack Morris, Jeff Bagwell and , hopefully, Tim Raines to make their move before the most contentious class ever arrives in 2013. The 2013 first year players will include Craig Biggio, Curt Schilling, Mike Piazza and three other guys named Bonds, Clemens and Sosa.
My Ballot would have:
Raines
Bagwell
Larkin
Morris
Morris is a tough call because he suffers from Don Sutton syndrome, he doesn't look like a Hall of Famer, but he was just so money for so many years on so many winning team. I'd put him in just for game seven of the 1991 World Series even if he didn't win 250+ games, plus even though he sucked in the playoffs in '92 the Jays don't win their first World Series without him.
Still I don't think he's got a hope in hell .
barterer2002
Barry Larkin
Jack Morris
Lee Smith
Jeff Bagwell
Tim Raines
Edgar Martinez
Alan Trammell
Larry Walker
Mark McGwire
Fred McGriff
Don Mattingly
Dale Murphy
Rafael Palmeiro
Juan González
Robin Ventura
I'd go with
Raines. The second best leadoff hitter ever.
Palmeiro Obviously steroids are the issue-and lying. but on the field he's in
Bagwell Some steroid rumors but I have him in
Mcgwire Again steroids will keep him out
I'd think about
Larkin Top of the not quites for me. Very Very good but not quite there IMO
Gonzalez 2 MVPs and 434 HRs warrant consideration at the least
Martinez Hit similar to Larkin without playing the field
Smith a lot of saves but I limit relievers
McGriff not quite to 500 HRs and generally considered steroid free which is a plus
I'd think slightly about
Mattingly One great year, a bunch of very good ones
Morris Winningest pitcher of the 80s and as TR said, 91 WS but never great except for that one game.
Murphy most HRs in the 80s 2 MVPs short career
Trammell good to very good. Better than some in the Hall but doesn't get my vote
I wouldn't give a second thought to
Walker Nice but nothing special outside of Colorado
Ventura better in college than MLB
And the Veteran's ballot this year
Buzzie Bavasi Executive
Ken Boyer Player
Charlie Finley Executive
Gil Hodges Player
Jim Kaat Player
Minnie Miñoso Player
Tony Oliva Player
Allie Reynolds Player
Ron Santo Player
Luis Tiant Player
I think that all the players didn't make it for a reason and wouldn't put any of them in. They're generally in a group that I'd put second tier. You could make an argument for each of them but you could also argue against each of them. Their best arguments are the lowest common denomiator ones (i.e. he's better than Eppa Rixey/Red Ruffing/Chick Hafey/Wally Shang). I would put Finley in though. Uncertain on Bavasi. Have to read more on him.
December 01, 2011 at 01:48AM View BBCode
OK I'll play. The total ballot isBarry Larkin
Jack Morris
Lee Smith
Jeff Bagwell
Tim Raines
Edgar Martinez
Alan Trammell
Larry Walker
Mark McGwire
Fred McGriff
Don Mattingly
Dale Murphy
Rafael Palmeiro
Juan González
Robin Ventura
I'd go with
Raines. The second best leadoff hitter ever.
Palmeiro Obviously steroids are the issue-and lying. but on the field he's in
Bagwell Some steroid rumors but I have him in
Mcgwire Again steroids will keep him out
I'd think about
Larkin Top of the not quites for me. Very Very good but not quite there IMO
Gonzalez 2 MVPs and 434 HRs warrant consideration at the least
Martinez Hit similar to Larkin without playing the field
Smith a lot of saves but I limit relievers
McGriff not quite to 500 HRs and generally considered steroid free which is a plus
I'd think slightly about
Mattingly One great year, a bunch of very good ones
Morris Winningest pitcher of the 80s and as TR said, 91 WS but never great except for that one game.
Murphy most HRs in the 80s 2 MVPs short career
Trammell good to very good. Better than some in the Hall but doesn't get my vote
I wouldn't give a second thought to
Walker Nice but nothing special outside of Colorado
Ventura better in college than MLB
And the Veteran's ballot this year
Buzzie Bavasi Executive
Ken Boyer Player
Charlie Finley Executive
Gil Hodges Player
Jim Kaat Player
Minnie Miñoso Player
Tony Oliva Player
Allie Reynolds Player
Ron Santo Player
Luis Tiant Player
I think that all the players didn't make it for a reason and wouldn't put any of them in. They're generally in a group that I'd put second tier. You could make an argument for each of them but you could also argue against each of them. Their best arguments are the lowest common denomiator ones (i.e. he's better than Eppa Rixey/Red Ruffing/Chick Hafey/Wally Shang). I would put Finley in though. Uncertain on Bavasi. Have to read more on him.
barterer2002
A couple of points on him.
1). He would be the third hall of fame player on some fairly bad Cubs teams in the 60s. WHen they were finally decent he'd be the 4th guy.
2). His offensive prowess was largely a park effect. He was a .296/.383/.522 avg/ob%/slg in Wrigley and a rather pedestrian .257/.342/.406 set away from the friendly confines.
3). In terms of comparable players, according to baseball reference his most compariable players are Dale Murphy, Gary Gaetti, Ken Boyer, Ruben Sierra, Chili Davis, Bobby Bonilla, Brian Downing, Graig Nettles, Scott Rolen and Adrian Beltre. All nice players but none of them going to the hall of fame.
In short, I look at Santo as a nice player. Probably better than some who are in the HOF (But really, if we're going to induct everyone that's better than Chick Hafey or Eppa Rixey we're going to have a whole town of Hall of Famers).
December 02, 2011 at 01:05AM View BBCode
I've never quite understood the support that Santo gets.A couple of points on him.
1). He would be the third hall of fame player on some fairly bad Cubs teams in the 60s. WHen they were finally decent he'd be the 4th guy.
2). His offensive prowess was largely a park effect. He was a .296/.383/.522 avg/ob%/slg in Wrigley and a rather pedestrian .257/.342/.406 set away from the friendly confines.
3). In terms of comparable players, according to baseball reference his most compariable players are Dale Murphy, Gary Gaetti, Ken Boyer, Ruben Sierra, Chili Davis, Bobby Bonilla, Brian Downing, Graig Nettles, Scott Rolen and Adrian Beltre. All nice players but none of them going to the hall of fame.
In short, I look at Santo as a nice player. Probably better than some who are in the HOF (But really, if we're going to induct everyone that's better than Chick Hafey or Eppa Rixey we're going to have a whole town of Hall of Famers).
tworoosters
Yes Santo's OPS+ is higher but he played his whole freakin' career with Wrigley as his home field and while OPS is supposed to adjust for ballpark I'm still a little skeptical about it.
There isn't any way that if I were picking a team and my choice for3B was Nettles or Santo that I'd take Santo and nobody pissed and moaned when Nettles got dropped off the ballot .
December 02, 2011 at 07:25AM View BBCode
I never got the Santo thing either, I mean what's the huge difference between Santo and Graig Nettles or Gary Gaetti or even Tim Wallach ? (other than the fact that Nettles and Gaetti actually have World Series rings)Yes Santo's OPS+ is higher but he played his whole freakin' career with Wrigley as his home field and while OPS is supposed to adjust for ballpark I'm still a little skeptical about it.
There isn't any way that if I were picking a team and my choice for3B was Nettles or Santo that I'd take Santo and nobody pissed and moaned when Nettles got dropped off the ballot .
YarM80
I'd also vote in McGwire and Raines, though. Larkin would be a decent enough HoF selection. Palmeiro and Lee Smith would get some consideration.
No way does Morris get my vote.
I think it's already pretty much guaranteed that there are juicers currently in the Hall. Removing someone from consideration simply because of steroid rumors is asinine.
December 15, 2011 at 06:02PM View BBCode
The only slam dunk inductee, in my opinion, is Bagwell.I'd also vote in McGwire and Raines, though. Larkin would be a decent enough HoF selection. Palmeiro and Lee Smith would get some consideration.
No way does Morris get my vote.
I think it's already pretty much guaranteed that there are juicers currently in the Hall. Removing someone from consideration simply because of steroid rumors is asinine.
dirtdevil
i have to disagree. since the voting is subjective, any criteria which seems valid to the voters is valid. that particular one i can completely understand. if someone feels strongly that steroid use in baseball is/was wrong and feels that steroid users should be in the hall has every right to use their belief of that as a criteria. disagreeing with their use of it as a criteria does not make it assinine. it's actually less assinine than electing any yankee with more than one ring, if you want my opinion.
December 15, 2011 at 07:07PM View BBCode
Originally posted by YarM80
Removing someone from consideration simply because of steroid rumors is asinine.
i have to disagree. since the voting is subjective, any criteria which seems valid to the voters is valid. that particular one i can completely understand. if someone feels strongly that steroid use in baseball is/was wrong and feels that steroid users should be in the hall has every right to use their belief of that as a criteria. disagreeing with their use of it as a criteria does not make it assinine. it's actually less assinine than electing any yankee with more than one ring, if you want my opinion.
YarM80
Disqualification based on rumor, though? Sure, make Palmeiro ineligible. I get that. But Bagwell? Where's the proof?
I'd say that the specter of steroids looms over any player in the last two and half decades. If you're going to suspect Bagwell you might as well suspect Griffey, Jr. Are we just not going to induct anyone who's played in the last 25 years?
Either you have concrete proof or not.
I'm about the furthest you can possibly be from a Barry Bonds fan but I'd say that he is a slam dunk, first ballot HoFer. As far as we, the public, know, he's never been found to have done steroids. Did he probably do them? Yeah. However, I have to imagine that there needs to be some sort of burden of proof beyond just suspicion.
December 15, 2011 at 07:54PM View BBCode
Originally posted by dirtdevil
Originally posted by YarM80
Removing someone from consideration simply because of steroid rumors is asinine.
i have to disagree. since the voting is subjective, any criteria which seems valid to the voters is valid. that particular one i can completely understand. if someone feels strongly that steroid use in baseball is/was wrong and feels that steroid users should be in the hall has every right to use their belief of that as a criteria. disagreeing with their use of it as a criteria does not make it assinine. it's actually less assinine than electing any yankee with more than one ring, if you want my opinion.
Disqualification based on rumor, though? Sure, make Palmeiro ineligible. I get that. But Bagwell? Where's the proof?
I'd say that the specter of steroids looms over any player in the last two and half decades. If you're going to suspect Bagwell you might as well suspect Griffey, Jr. Are we just not going to induct anyone who's played in the last 25 years?
Either you have concrete proof or not.
I'm about the furthest you can possibly be from a Barry Bonds fan but I'd say that he is a slam dunk, first ballot HoFer. As far as we, the public, know, he's never been found to have done steroids. Did he probably do them? Yeah. However, I have to imagine that there needs to be some sort of burden of proof beyond just suspicion.
barterer2002
You're stretching here. Bonds was indicted for lying about steroid use. That's certainly more than "just suspicion" THere may not be sufficient evidence for the "Beyond a reasonable doubt" standard but to say its "mere suspicion" is well off.
December 15, 2011 at 08:03PM View BBCode
Originally posted by YarM80
I'm about the furthest you can possibly be from a Barry Bonds fan but I'd say that he is a slam dunk, first ballot HoFer. As far as we, the public, know, he's never been found to have done steroids. Did he probably do them? Yeah. However, I have to imagine that there needs to be some sort of burden of proof beyond just suspicion.
You're stretching here. Bonds was indicted for lying about steroid use. That's certainly more than "just suspicion" THere may not be sufficient evidence for the "Beyond a reasonable doubt" standard but to say its "mere suspicion" is well off.
YarM80
Well, ok then I guess. Where does your burden of proof lie? Is accusation enough? Indictment? Conviction?
It just seems that an equitable measure needs to be applied to all potential HoFers with regards to steroid use allegations. That measure, in my opinion, should be well beyond "he was rumored to have used."
December 15, 2011 at 08:12PM View BBCode
Originally posted by barterer2002
Originally posted by YarM80
I'm about the furthest you can possibly be from a Barry Bonds fan but I'd say that he is a slam dunk, first ballot HoFer. As far as we, the public, know, he's never been found to have done steroids. Did he probably do them? Yeah. However, I have to imagine that there needs to be some sort of burden of proof beyond just suspicion.
You're stretching here. Bonds was indicted for lying about steroid use. That's certainly more than "just suspicion" THere may not be sufficient evidence for the "Beyond a reasonable doubt" standard but to say its "mere suspicion" is well off.
Well, ok then I guess. Where does your burden of proof lie? Is accusation enough? Indictment? Conviction?
It just seems that an equitable measure needs to be applied to all potential HoFers with regards to steroid use allegations. That measure, in my opinion, should be well beyond "he was rumored to have used."
dirtdevil
i don't have any real argument with that opinion. i do think the other view is also valid. if someone feels that a player was likely to have used steroids and they feel that should/would dq them from the hof, they have every right not to vote for that person. that's what happens when you have a subjective vote without set criteria. it's really no different from the issues that keep tim raines out and let jim rice or phil rizzuto in.
i do think that griffey is a bad example. if there are any guys i would be willing to bet on as having not done steroids (and let's be clear, i'm not) they would be griffey and fred mcgriff. there's no unexplained explosion in production or change in body type there. generally, if a guy looks like a pro wrestler, he's probably using.
[Edited on 12-15-2011 by dirtdevil]
December 15, 2011 at 09:55PM View BBCode
Originally posted by YarM80
It just seems that an equitable measure needs to be applied to all potential HoFers with regards to steroid use allegations. That measure, in my opinion, should be well beyond "he was rumored to have used."
i don't have any real argument with that opinion. i do think the other view is also valid. if someone feels that a player was likely to have used steroids and they feel that should/would dq them from the hof, they have every right not to vote for that person. that's what happens when you have a subjective vote without set criteria. it's really no different from the issues that keep tim raines out and let jim rice or phil rizzuto in.
i do think that griffey is a bad example. if there are any guys i would be willing to bet on as having not done steroids (and let's be clear, i'm not) they would be griffey and fred mcgriff. there's no unexplained explosion in production or change in body type there. generally, if a guy looks like a pro wrestler, he's probably using.
[Edited on 12-15-2011 by dirtdevil]
dirtdevil
December 15, 2011 at 10:01PM View BBCode
bonds, by the way, i would vote for. for me he's one of the easier guys to draw a pre-juiced/juiced career line. and before he juiced he was a slam-dunk hall of famer. for me that's enough. it won't be for everyone though, and i won't say they're wrong to think that way. i'd probably do the same for clemens but the other major guys i would not vote for. the best case for them is the power and since it's impossible to say how much of it was the juice and how much wasn't, they're out.
barterer2002
You'll note that my ballot above does not penalize players for steroids.
December 15, 2011 at 10:11PM View BBCode
Originally posted by YarM80
Originally posted by barterer2002
Originally posted by YarM80
I'm about the furthest you can possibly be from a Barry Bonds fan but I'd say that he is a slam dunk, first ballot HoFer. As far as we, the public, know, he's never been found to have done steroids. Did he probably do them? Yeah. However, I have to imagine that there needs to be some sort of burden of proof beyond just suspicion.
You're stretching here. Bonds was indicted for lying about steroid use. That's certainly more than "just suspicion" THere may not be sufficient evidence for the "Beyond a reasonable doubt" standard but to say its "mere suspicion" is well off.
Well, ok then I guess. Where does your burden of proof lie? Is accusation enough? Indictment? Conviction?
It just seems that an equitable measure needs to be applied to all potential HoFers with regards to steroid use allegations. That measure, in my opinion, should be well beyond "he was rumored to have used."
You'll note that my ballot above does not penalize players for steroids.
GregoryZenwirt
Santo (he is already in)
Morris
Raines
Don't hate on Scott Erickson he was the best #3 starter the Oklahoma Redhawks ever had
December 15, 2011 at 10:54PM View BBCode
BagwellSanto (he is already in)
Morris
Raines
Don't hate on Scott Erickson he was the best #3 starter the Oklahoma Redhawks ever had
tworoosters
What if the voter feels black players or Hispanics shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame, is that criteria valid ?
If you want to keep known steroid users out I'm cool with that but there has never been a shred of evidence against Bagwell, or Griffey for that matter when he comes up- the whispers have already started, so I think the "well gee he was awfully muscular" excuse is a tad light.
December 15, 2011 at 11:08PM View BBCode
Originally posted by dirtdevil
Originally posted by YarM80
Removing someone from consideration simply because of steroid rumors is asinine.
i have to disagree. since the voting is subjective, any criteria which seems valid to the voters is valid.
What if the voter feels black players or Hispanics shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame, is that criteria valid ?
If you want to keep known steroid users out I'm cool with that but there has never been a shred of evidence against Bagwell, or Griffey for that matter when he comes up- the whispers have already started, so I think the "well gee he was awfully muscular" excuse is a tad light.
YarM80
The guy's ERA+ is 105, for chrissakes. He's barely above average. He wouldn't even make it into the Hall of Pretty Good. Never even had an ERA under 3.00 in a single year.
Some guys have such great peaks that they're impossible to ignore. Morris wasn't even that great at his peak.
He might be an even worse inductee than Phil Rizzuto or Phil Tinker.
December 16, 2011 at 12:11AM View BBCode
I also don't get the love for Jack Morris. In my opinion, he's not even close to being a HoFer.The guy's ERA+ is 105, for chrissakes. He's barely above average. He wouldn't even make it into the Hall of Pretty Good. Never even had an ERA under 3.00 in a single year.
Some guys have such great peaks that they're impossible to ignore. Morris wasn't even that great at his peak.
He might be an even worse inductee than Phil Rizzuto or Phil Tinker.
tfarr_24
Brad Radke
Jose Lima
Joe Randa ~ borderline
December 16, 2011 at 12:56AM View BBCode
Brian JordanBrad Radke
Jose Lima
Joe Randa ~ borderline
dirtdevil
why do you insist on extending reasonable arguments to ridiculous lengths? shall we discuss voters who don't believe right handed hitters or left handed outfielders shouldn't get in too?
he looks pretty muscular was all we had on canseco, sosa, boone, bonds, palmerio and mcgwire at one point too. if it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck, most of the time, it's a duck.
December 16, 2011 at 05:54AM View BBCode
Originally posted by tworoosters
What if the voter feels black players or Hispanics shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame, is that criteria valid ?
why do you insist on extending reasonable arguments to ridiculous lengths? shall we discuss voters who don't believe right handed hitters or left handed outfielders shouldn't get in too?
he looks pretty muscular was all we had on canseco, sosa, boone, bonds, palmerio and mcgwire at one point too. if it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck, most of the time, it's a duck.
YarM80
By that reasoning, Albert Pujols, Frank Thomas, and Roger Bernadina are or were all users as well.
If a person's criteria for keeping someone out of the Hall is that they are muscular, they are an idiot and deserve to have their vote taken from them.
Also, the "if they look like a pro wrestler they probably took steroids" not only comes up with false positives (presumably) but also false negatives. Lenny Dykstra was named in the Mitchell Report. So was Denny Neagle, Ryan Franklin, Matt Herges, Nook Logan, Derrick Turnbow, Ismael Valdez, and a whole host of others that might surprise.
I stand by the notion that excluding people from the Hall because of mere rumors of use is asinine. There is no real way to know who's used without actual tests. Saying "well that guy got pretty big" is not a test and is not to be taken seriously.
[Edited on 12-16-2011 by YarM80]
December 16, 2011 at 04:08PM View BBCode
Originally posted by dirtdevil
Originally posted by tworoosters
What if the voter feels black players or Hispanics shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame, is that criteria valid ?
why do you insist on extending reasonable arguments to ridiculous lengths? shall we discuss voters who don't believe right handed hitters or left handed outfielders shouldn't get in too?
he looks pretty muscular was all we had on canseco, sosa, boone, bonds, palmerio and mcgwire at one point too. if it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck, most of the time, it's a duck.
By that reasoning, Albert Pujols, Frank Thomas, and Roger Bernadina are or were all users as well.
If a person's criteria for keeping someone out of the Hall is that they are muscular, they are an idiot and deserve to have their vote taken from them.
Also, the "if they look like a pro wrestler they probably took steroids" not only comes up with false positives (presumably) but also false negatives. Lenny Dykstra was named in the Mitchell Report. So was Denny Neagle, Ryan Franklin, Matt Herges, Nook Logan, Derrick Turnbow, Ismael Valdez, and a whole host of others that might surprise.
I stand by the notion that excluding people from the Hall because of mere rumors of use is asinine. There is no real way to know who's used without actual tests. Saying "well that guy got pretty big" is not a test and is not to be taken seriously.
[Edited on 12-16-2011 by YarM80]
tfarr_24
So, if the BBWAA have now become skeptical and wish to error on the side of caution, honestly, why do we blame them? The game deserves what has happened and if players are left out of the HOF from that era, so be it. If a player was worried about the chances of being remembered for his achievements, then that player or those players should have come forward long ago. It's not like I'm saying that I would have if I had been the same situation. That would have been a very difficult thing to do. But at this point in time, I don't understand how people can criticize anyone for being skeptical. Either they all go in, or none of them go in, would be my stance as a writer. Personally, I feel that it was an era which saw the majority of players using some type of PEDs, so that era should be judged by the numbers that it produced. My ballot would include:
McGwire
Palmeiro
Bagwell
Raines
December 16, 2011 at 04:52PM View BBCode
You know that there was a time when people really got after Canseco for the things and players that he outed in his first book. I mean, that's what really started the landslide. Him. But people called him all kinds of things: a liar, a disgrace to the game and all that stuff. But the game of baseball treated him horribly and the game of baseball deserves the criticism that it has taken on. It's not like I'm a big supporter of Canseco or anything but there has been nothing that he has claimed that proved to be inaccurate. But everyone was a critic in the beginning.So, if the BBWAA have now become skeptical and wish to error on the side of caution, honestly, why do we blame them? The game deserves what has happened and if players are left out of the HOF from that era, so be it. If a player was worried about the chances of being remembered for his achievements, then that player or those players should have come forward long ago. It's not like I'm saying that I would have if I had been the same situation. That would have been a very difficult thing to do. But at this point in time, I don't understand how people can criticize anyone for being skeptical. Either they all go in, or none of them go in, would be my stance as a writer. Personally, I feel that it was an era which saw the majority of players using some type of PEDs, so that era should be judged by the numbers that it produced. My ballot would include:
McGwire
Palmeiro
Bagwell
Raines
dirtdevil
do you really think that's the argument? it's not the presence of muscles that builds suspicion. it's the sudden appearance of body-changing muscle that builds suspicion. go back and look at baseball cards of bonds and mcgwire, (or sosa and palmeiro and clemens) for instance. i bet you can guess pretty accurately just by looking when they started using. muscular guys who have always been muscular are far less suspicious than someone like brett boone who could have posed for the before and after tony atlas pictures in one off-season. bagwell's body changes are not at all dissimilar. that doesn't mean he was using but given the circumstances of the era in which he played, i don't think it's unreasonable for someone to have the suspicion that he did. it sucks for the clean guys (assuming there were any) but that's what it is.
please tell me you are not seriously calling lenny dykstra a false negative???? have you ever seen pictures of the guy? lenny dykstra is the poster child for 'suddenly looks like a pro-wrestler'. i mean, you actually have a pretty reasonable position- only proven users get excluded- but assertions like that make it harder to take your position seriously.
i'd be perfectly willing to agree that it's a criteria that many will disagree with. but assinine? no. as for taking it seriously, i think you have to. that doesn't mean you have to adjust your hof opinion because of it but it would be mroe assinine to ignore it.
there are only so many positions to take on this. (1) i don't care if someone used or not. too many guys used to sort it out so the best of their generation get in based on what they did on the field. (2) using is wrong, so anyone confirmed to be using where it can be assumed that the using led to the hof credentials (ie mcgwire) is out. anyone who would have been in the hall before they can be shown to have used (ie bonds, clemens) still gets in based on prior performance (3) using is wrong, so anyone comfirmed to be using is dq'd. but it's too hard to sort out who else did or didn't, so non-confirmed are innocent until proven guilty. (4) using is wrong and no user should be in the hof. more people used than got caught, and anyone who used and didn't get caught is just as wrong as those who did, so anyone who i think might have used is not getting a vote. better to have some deserving non-users be excluded than some not-caught users get in. (5) using is wrong. it's impossible to sort out who did or didn't use, so no one is getting in unless they are confirmed not to have used. if that means no one from that era goes in, so be it.
every one of those positions is, in my view, reasonable to take although i don't agree with all of them. none of them is "assinine".
[Edited on 12-16-2011 by dirtdevil]
December 16, 2011 at 05:41PM View BBCode
Originally posted by YarM80
If a person's criteria for keeping someone out of the Hall is that they are muscular, they are an idiot and deserve to have their vote taken from them.
do you really think that's the argument? it's not the presence of muscles that builds suspicion. it's the sudden appearance of body-changing muscle that builds suspicion. go back and look at baseball cards of bonds and mcgwire, (or sosa and palmeiro and clemens) for instance. i bet you can guess pretty accurately just by looking when they started using. muscular guys who have always been muscular are far less suspicious than someone like brett boone who could have posed for the before and after tony atlas pictures in one off-season. bagwell's body changes are not at all dissimilar. that doesn't mean he was using but given the circumstances of the era in which he played, i don't think it's unreasonable for someone to have the suspicion that he did. it sucks for the clean guys (assuming there were any) but that's what it is.
Also, the "if they look like a pro wrestler they probably took steroids" not only comes up with false positives (presumably) but also false negatives. Lenny Dykstra was named in the Mitchell Report. So was Denny Neagle, Ryan Franklin, Matt Herges, Nook Logan, Derrick Turnbow, Ismael Valdez, and a whole host of others that might surprise.
please tell me you are not seriously calling lenny dykstra a false negative???? have you ever seen pictures of the guy? lenny dykstra is the poster child for 'suddenly looks like a pro-wrestler'. i mean, you actually have a pretty reasonable position- only proven users get excluded- but assertions like that make it harder to take your position seriously.
I stand by the notion that excluding people from the Hall because of mere rumors of use is asinine. There is no real way to know who's used without actual tests. Saying "well that guy got pretty big" is not a test and is not to be taken seriously.
i'd be perfectly willing to agree that it's a criteria that many will disagree with. but assinine? no. as for taking it seriously, i think you have to. that doesn't mean you have to adjust your hof opinion because of it but it would be mroe assinine to ignore it.
there are only so many positions to take on this. (1) i don't care if someone used or not. too many guys used to sort it out so the best of their generation get in based on what they did on the field. (2) using is wrong, so anyone confirmed to be using where it can be assumed that the using led to the hof credentials (ie mcgwire) is out. anyone who would have been in the hall before they can be shown to have used (ie bonds, clemens) still gets in based on prior performance (3) using is wrong, so anyone comfirmed to be using is dq'd. but it's too hard to sort out who else did or didn't, so non-confirmed are innocent until proven guilty. (4) using is wrong and no user should be in the hof. more people used than got caught, and anyone who used and didn't get caught is just as wrong as those who did, so anyone who i think might have used is not getting a vote. better to have some deserving non-users be excluded than some not-caught users get in. (5) using is wrong. it's impossible to sort out who did or didn't use, so no one is getting in unless they are confirmed not to have used. if that means no one from that era goes in, so be it.
every one of those positions is, in my view, reasonable to take although i don't agree with all of them. none of them is "assinine".
[Edited on 12-16-2011 by dirtdevil]
YarM80
Next, I guess I don't care whether you take my position seriously or not. You have provided anecdotal evidence in the form of a handful of players and have made your position to apply said evidence to the entire body of major league baseball. That's something I cannot take seriously. Sosa and Canseco got big, therefore anyone who gets big should be viewed with suspicion and removed from consideration from HoF induction. I mean, conversely, if you looked at some of the other guys who have actually been found to have taken steroids (unlike several of the players you've referenced) you could come up with all sorts of ridiculous criteria. Did Guillermo Mota suddenly get "pro wrestler" big? How about Ryan Franklin? Neifi Perez? Because these players, unlike Lenny Dykstra, were all found to have actually taken steroids. I, therefore, reject your #4 above as reasonable and anything more than rumor mongering based on little or no evidence.
December 16, 2011 at 06:06PM View BBCode
First, stop misspelling asinine. :)Next, I guess I don't care whether you take my position seriously or not. You have provided anecdotal evidence in the form of a handful of players and have made your position to apply said evidence to the entire body of major league baseball. That's something I cannot take seriously. Sosa and Canseco got big, therefore anyone who gets big should be viewed with suspicion and removed from consideration from HoF induction. I mean, conversely, if you looked at some of the other guys who have actually been found to have taken steroids (unlike several of the players you've referenced) you could come up with all sorts of ridiculous criteria. Did Guillermo Mota suddenly get "pro wrestler" big? How about Ryan Franklin? Neifi Perez? Because these players, unlike Lenny Dykstra, were all found to have actually taken steroids. I, therefore, reject your #4 above as reasonable and anything more than rumor mongering based on little or no evidence.
tworoosters
[quote][i]Originally posted by tworoosters[/i]
What if the voter feels black players or Hispanics shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame, is that criteria valid ?[/quote]
why do you insist on extending reasonable arguments to ridiculous lengths? [/quote]
To illustrate a point.
At least my ridiculous criteria can be proven, whereas your criteria of denying a player based on your belief without any evidence, cannot.
At this point, with all the confirmed evidence against Canseco, McGwire, Sosa, Palmiero, Rodriguez why is it that there is no confirmed evidence against Bagwell ?
December 16, 2011 at 06:13PM View formatted
You are viewing the raw post code; this allows you to copy a message with BBCode formatting intact.
[quote][i]Originally posted by dirtdevil[/i]
[quote][i]Originally posted by tworoosters[/i]
What if the voter feels black players or Hispanics shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame, is that criteria valid ?[/quote]
why do you insist on extending reasonable arguments to ridiculous lengths? [/quote]
To illustrate a point.
At least my ridiculous criteria can be proven, whereas your criteria of denying a player based on your belief without any evidence, cannot.
At this point, with all the confirmed evidence against Canseco, McGwire, Sosa, Palmiero, Rodriguez why is it that there is no confirmed evidence against Bagwell ?
dirtdevil
i don't think i've ever said that's my criteria. what i've said is that it is not an unreasonable position for someone to take. (you'd also have one heck of a time proving someone refused to vote for racial minorities, but that's beside the point)
roosters, you're smarter than that. the absence of proof is not the same as innocence. unless you believe that we now have proof against everyone who used? there is no confirmed evidence against bagwell for one of two reasons: either was clean or he wasn't caught/outed using. i don't know which it is. neither do you.
on the balance of probabilities, i think that bagwell was using. i wouldn't vote him into the hall of fame because i don't think he belongs there. this era is unique offensively for a number of reasons, but regardless i don't feel that the standard number metrics have the same value they used to. i just don't think bagwell was good enough to be in the hall.
December 16, 2011 at 06:54PM View BBCode
Originally posted by tworoosters
At least my ridiculous criteria can be proven, whereas your criteria of denying a player based on your belief without any evidence, cannot.
i don't think i've ever said that's my criteria. what i've said is that it is not an unreasonable position for someone to take. (you'd also have one heck of a time proving someone refused to vote for racial minorities, but that's beside the point)
At this point, with all the confirmed evidence against Canseco, McGwire, Sosa, Palmiero, Rodriguez why is it that there is no confirmed evidence against Bagwell ?
roosters, you're smarter than that. the absence of proof is not the same as innocence. unless you believe that we now have proof against everyone who used? there is no confirmed evidence against bagwell for one of two reasons: either was clean or he wasn't caught/outed using. i don't know which it is. neither do you.
on the balance of probabilities, i think that bagwell was using. i wouldn't vote him into the hall of fame because i don't think he belongs there. this era is unique offensively for a number of reasons, but regardless i don't feel that the standard number metrics have the same value they used to. i just don't think bagwell was good enough to be in the hall.
tm4559
(when was it you think bonds did start using?)
((one other thing, about stuff in here. Bonds is not a suspected user. He used the Cream and the Clear. its a steroid. He said he didn't know it was a steroid. that does not matter. he is a confirmed user.))
December 16, 2011 at 07:19PM View BBCode
if bagell was using, he must have been using right from jumpstreet. it seems bonds gets a pass from you, because, you are sure he wasn't using from the beginning.(when was it you think bonds did start using?)
((one other thing, about stuff in here. Bonds is not a suspected user. He used the Cream and the Clear. its a steroid. He said he didn't know it was a steroid. that does not matter. he is a confirmed user.))
Pages: 1 2