Hall vote, who you got?

[Jeff Fletcher]

1 hour ago, Ariamus said:

Bonds definitely and Clemens probably as well were both sure-bets for eventual Hall induction even before it is widely believed they started juicing (97 for Clemens and 99-00 for Bonds).

How about Manny Ramírez then?

[tdawg87]

@Jeff Fletcher do you have a vote this time around? Have you ever had a HOF vote?

[Angel Oracle]

50 minutes ago, Φαήλος said:

Derek Fisher

Nick Van Exel

[fan_since79]

Jeter, Walker, Schilling.

 

[Junkballer]

Jeter's bed.  The voter's will all get a nice gift basket.

[Pancake Bear]

2 hours ago, floplag said:

Speaking only for myself there, i dont see them as being on the same level.
For me those were all good/great players, just not hall of fame worthy for various reasons.  Not enough longevity, too many spikes and valleys, outlying years, etc... Bonds and Clemens were never not good or never not among the best thruout their careers, cant say that for the others. 

For me, it’s pretty simple. Bonds and Clemens are in the conversation for best pitcher and hitter ever. Steroids doesn’t make you that good. The others mostly are borderline cases just on the merits. Would they get in if they had no stains on their record? Maybe, some of them, but if you have to squint to see it, the PED’s make it an easy no for me. 

[Jeff Fletcher]

55 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

@Jeff Fletcher do you have a vote this time around? Have you ever had a HOF vote?

Yes. I have been a voter for 14 years or so. 

[makepeac]

33 minutes ago, Angel Oracle said:

Nick Van Exel

Sedale Threatt.

[Mark68]

Jeter and Walker

That's it. Walker had a body of work prior to and after Colorado (although his post-Rockies days certainly aren't Hall-worthy). Walker was a part of that '94 Expos team that was robbed of their chance to shine in the postseason. That team was loaded. 

[tdawg87]

4 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

Yes. I have been a voter for 14 years or so. 

That's awesome. I didn't even realize that. 

[Ariamus]

1 hour ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

2 hours ago, Ariamus said:

Bonds definitely and Clemens probably as well were both sure-bets for eventual Hall induction even before it is widely believed they started juicing (97 for Clemens and 99-00 for Bonds).

How about Manny Ramírez then?

My opinion on the PED guys is not set in stone and it is still likely to evolve. This is because it's hard to know what the extent of use was throughout the sport. Moreover, it's more than a bit unfair to make pronouncements over players who, even if they used, broke no official rules of the Leagues. These realities create uncertainty and that uncertainty diminishes the career totals for those guys with less obvious cases for the Hall. That's why I say there's a gap between Bonds and Clemens and the likes of McGwire, Palmeiro, and Sosa. Heck, even if all his achievements were on the level, I'm not so certain Sammy Sosa's case is that strong.

That said, I am hard and fast in my opposition to guys that broke the rules. If a guy got dinged since the ban, they're out. Even if he got caught at the end of an otherwise illustrious career. In my opinion, if I guy was using after the rules were in place, there should be little doubt he was using before. So Manny doesn't get in. The same applies to ARod.

Edited January 21, 2020 by Ariamus

[JustATroutFan]

Bonds and Clemens will most likely make the Hall of Fame at some point. Gaylord Perry cheated and is still in the Hall of Fame. The master of the spitball. How much longer will the voters stop being hypocrites and vote in Bonds and Clemens? The Hall of Fame voting has been a joke lately. 

[tdawg87]

Lol @ Gaylord being a spitting machine

[Jeff Fletcher]

3 minutes ago, Ariamus said:

My opinion on the PED guys is not universal and it is still likely to evolve. This is because it's hard to know what the extent of use was throughout the sport. Moreover, it's more than a bit unfair to make pronouncements over players who, even if they used, broke no official rules of the Leagues. These realities create uncertainty and that uncertainty diminishes the career totals for those guys with less obvious cases for the Hall. That's why I say there's a gap between Bonds and Clemens and the likes of McGwire, Palmeiro, and Sosa. Heck, even if all his achievements were on the level, I'm not so certain Sammy Sosa's case is that strong.

That said, I am hard and fast in my opposition to guys that broke the rules. If a guy got dinged since the ban, they're out. Even if he got caught at the end of an otherwise illustrious career. In my opinion, if I guy was using after the rules were in place, there should be little doubt he was using before. So Manny doesn't get in. The same applies to ARod.

The fact that Bonds is getting about 60 percent and Manny is getting about 25 percent would indicate that most voters agree with you.

I happen to vote for Manny too. He played 5 full seasons during testing, without failing a test, and had about a 1.000 OPS in those years. I believe -- obviously, just my opinion -- that he was probably a guy who just used steroids at the end to try to prolong his career, and they essentially didn't work. If he'd have just retired after 2008, he'd be a HOFer.

[kevinb]

There are certain people we know cheated but we don't know their extent of using. What we know is they weren't the only ones cheating. I imagine something like 50-80% of the league was using. Either people are getting in, in that era or they're not. Who's to say Jeter wasn't using when it is assumed a lot of his teammates were? Steroid use or PED use isn't just for hitting home runs. Put the people who were best in that era in and if you want to put a they played during the steroid era on their plaque so be it. Also I am guaranteeing you people are still using stuff that's undetectable right now. 

[Dtwncbad]

I don’t know how to resolve it, but I always find it hard to support baseball strictly enforcing “character” or “cheating” standards for the HOF when baseball as an institution was so deeply complicit in this problem existing in the first place and then complicit ongoing as it became the cluster%#*% that it became.

The integrity/character litmus test only works when the institution maintains its integrity/character. . .and it didn’t.

So I can be annoyed to no end at the likes of Bonds and Clemens, but let’s be honest.  It’s a little embarrassing for baseball to stick it to these guys with the contrived, self-protecting narrative that was a “player cheating” issue against their pure game.

I know the HOF is not mlb.  I am just saying the HOF expects player to respect the game.  I am not so sure they respected the game any less than mlb respected the game, so why are they the exclusive villains?

In the end, I view the HOF as a historical entity, not an honors society.  History says steroids contaminated the game (with mlb largely to blame).  So with all the unavoidable bad taste in my mouth, I recognize the Bonds and Clemens as HOFers.

The game should be embarrassed as much as the players, and I don’t let the game off the hook by this Scarlett letter thing of marking some cheaters and excluding them from the HOF. . .as if baseball was innocently wronged.  BS.

 

[T.G.]

7 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

The fact that Bonds is getting about 60 percent and Manny is getting about 25 percent would indicate that most voters agree with you.

I happen to vote for Manny too. He played 5 full seasons during testing, without failing a test, and had about a 1.000 OPS in those years. I believe -- obviously, just my opinion -- that he was probably a guy who just used steroids at the end to try to prolong his career, and they essentially didn't work. If he'd have just retired after 2008, he'd be a HOFer.

The idea that he was trying to prolong his career is irrelevant to me. Cheating is still cheating.

[Dtwncbad]

2 minutes ago, True Grich said:

The idea that he was trying to prolong his career is irrelevant to me. Cheating is still cheating.

So the HOF is a museum that recognizes the greatest players of all time who never tried to cheat, or is it the museum that recognizes the greatest players of all time?

[T.G.]

The way I see it, the Baseball HOF is like every other award deal... they're all flawed. They all have pluses and minuses.  They're all inconsistent in the people they choose, how they're selected, etc. It's all subjective. I don't get too worked up over any of it. Are there guys in the Hall that I don't think belong? Yes. Are there guys not in the Hall, who I think belong? Yes.  Does it make me a little crazy that each voter has different criteria? Sometimes. Does it make me crazy that some writers have an agenda? Usually. 

I've never been to Cooperstown. I plan to go someday.

[Jeff Fletcher]

4 minutes ago, True Grich said:

The idea that he was trying to prolong his career is irrelevant to me. Cheating is still cheating.

That's a fair opinion.

Lots of voters agree with you. Lots of voters agree with me.

[the dude abides]

Figgy and Chavez

[T.G.]

1 minute ago, Dtwncbad said:

So the HOF is a museum that recognizes the greatest players of all time who never tried to cheat, or is it the museum that recognizes the greatest players of all time?

You can't boil it down to an A or B question, in my opinion. It's complicated. Again, it's also flawed.

I just don't think it's a place for cheaters.

[T.G.]

1 minute ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

That's a fair opinion.

Lots of voters agree with you. Lots of voters agree with me.

And that's one of the reasons baseball is great. Baseball is a sport that fosters debate and discussions about differences of opinions.  Even though I don't agree that Manny should get in the HOF, I am not going to get too worked up over the fact that some do. It's an interesting discussion for those who choose to engage in it.

[Dtwncbad]

1 minute ago, True Grich said:

The way I see it, the Baseball HOF is like every other award deal... they're all flawed. They all have pluses and minuses.  They're all inconsistent in the people they choose, how they're selected, etc. It's all subjective. I don't get too worked up over any of it. Are there guys in the Hall that I don't think belong? Yes. Are there guys not in the Hall, who I think belong? Yes.  Does it make me a little crazy that each voter has different criteria? Sometimes. Does it make me crazy that some writers have an agenda? Usually. 

I've never been to Cooperstown. I plan to go someday.

I’ve been there a couple of times and it is a nice experience.  At 53, I just don’t buy into the narrative of the holiness of the game or its institutions.  MLB and the HOF are just as flawed as the flawed players. 

[CanadianHalo]

It’s expected that Walker will come up just short and that’s a damn shame.

Only 31% of his AB’s were at Coors Field and yet some of these guys are giving known steroid users votes? C’mon...

I see Eric Chavez has a vote. Clearly it’s time MLB does something about this process and who is voting.