Long live the Mick, but I don't think mixing vodka and steroids is such a wise choice.

I am genuinely curious as to why you make this distinction. In all 3 cases, an unnatural foreign substance is added to try and gain an edge on the field of play. The choice was available for all players, and made by some.

I guess we need a card...
 

Here's one of Ortiz' best cards, his rookie year signature card... get 'em while they are hot. Wait, probably too late to buy one now...

Notice how Papi didn't know where he was supposed to sign these.

OTOH, although Molitor's plaque says third base, he spent more of his career as a DH. I am certainly not arguing Molitor is not legit as a HOFer as he certainly is, but I don't think he became a DH because he was an asset in the field.

This whole PED thing is a bit crazy. Look at the number of HOF eligible 500HR hitters not enshrined. 500HRs used to be the bar to reach to be enshrined.

Bonds (762 - Last year: 2007)
Sosa (609 - 2007)
McGwire (583 - 2001)
Palmeiro (569 - 2005)
Ramirez (555 - 2011)
Sheffield (509 - 2009)

Perhaps the voters are considering the players that "denied" the accusations of PEDs. On that list, the only one that admitted to using PEDs is McGwire, well at least until they were caught.

Clemens (354W - 2007) is somewhat similar in that he reached the 300W plateau but he also claimed he never used PEDs and was caught and continued to deny it. Maybe, just maybe the voters are looking at that.

The last year for Bonds, Sosa and Clemens was 2007. That would have been one hell of a HOF class to enshrine, but none are in.

We'll see what happens with A-Rod and Ortiz. I think being likable helps so Ortiz may stand a better chance than A-Rod, even though A-Rod clearly had the best offensive numbers (3K hits, 2K Runs, 2K RBIs and almost 700HRs).

PEDs and gambling. What a mess...

He did an excellent job of disguising the identity of the signer though.:eek:

It's a better chicken scratch than many.

I finally found a player that everyone can agree was always a "good boy" and deserves to be in the hall. Not the greatest hitter in the game, but always ran down the balls in the outfield with the best of them.

I never have the opportunity to add a card, since I don't collect vintage, so I'll post my favorite Arod signed card, as it fits in this debate. A sloppy signer, so I really like the signature on this card.

This debate will go on for a long time, as we all think differently. I hope they all get in.

Let's talk about The Big Papi for a minute. Why is the decision to put him in or not so hard? Designated Hitter is a legitimate position in the American League, is it not? Can anyone name another person who filled that position any better? And these questions are from a lifetime Yankees fan.

All the questions will not be answered but soon we will know the results.

Great thread and conversation

Mainly because they are keeping some players out for PED use. Why is a beyond obvious PED user getting in when others are not? That is my only problem with him getting in. If you seriously question if he ever done PEDs look at the year he had at 40 years old and tell me that is normal.

50% of the ballots are in !!
 

50% of the ballots published. So Far:

Ortiz 83.7%
Bonds 78.1%
Clemens 77.0%

Let's go Big Papi... Love to sell your signed cards for some $$... Daddy needs a new pair of Red Hindu's!

Last year both Bonds and Clemens dropped by over 11% from public tally to the final. Ortiz is making it very close, but if the private votes have the same trend he will just miss.

That's the whole point of it, isn't it? Frank Robinson had 586 home runs. He was a great player and a tremendous slugger. Now if you didn't know better you'd think he was comparable to Rafael friggin Palmeiro.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Voters
 

Voters can place up to 10 votes:

Nick Canepa, San Diego Tribune, voted for..... no one!
Michael Hunt submits a blank ballot (again)!
Dan Shaughnessy, grumpiest writer in BBWAA, votes for Jeff Kent only
Steve Simmons votes only for Andruw Jones and Curt (take me off the ballot) Shilling
Mark Purdy, Mercury News, votes only for Billy Wagner


Interesting....

Steve Simmons is a well known troll in Canadian media. He isn't qualified to vote for American Idol, much less the Hall of Fame. If they want to clean up the Hall of Fame, maybe they should start with better vetting of the voters.

On not voting for players on the first ballot, but voting for them later. people view voting differently. Observers want it to be an exercise in objectivity. Who should be in, who shouldn't be, mark your ballot accordingly. But when voters themselves, when they get behind the ballot, so to speak (and we know this from Federal level elections), approach it in a variety of ways. In this particular situation where voting changes from year to year, depending in part on the length of time a player is on the ballot, I think some voters don't view a non-yes vote as a no vote. They aren't ready to vote yes, but that doesn't mean they think they don't belong. They either aren't sure yet, or just aren't ready to be sure.

On steroid era PED cheating. Some say, so many cheated, you can't sort em out, accept those things as context and vote as if it doesn't matter. Sure, but why not say, so many cheated, you can't sort em out, accept those things as context and vote against the whole era? It is just as valid an argument. Or sort em out as best you can. Or sort em out as lazily and inconsistently as you can. It is voting, not a logarithmic computer program.

A constant line of arguing about these matters is an appeal to consistency (or inconsistency). If players in other eras did x and got in, shouldn't players in this era that did y get in? Or, player A did bad thing X and got in, player B who did bad thing Y ought to get in. Or player A got away with it, so it isn't fair that player B is left in the cold. It is fun to argue about these things, but the HOF isn't a board of consistency management. Players enter based on votes from voters. Voters today didn't vote on amphetamine users in the 60s. They aren't responsible for being consistent with voter results from 40 years ago. They aren't even responsible for being consistent with votes they may have cast 5 or 10 years ago themselves. People change their minds. They aren't and shouldn't be beholden to consistency to a previous vote. What the collective group of voters did in past years has very little bearing on what an individual voter is voting on in the present. And we shouldn't want that. Do we want the veterans committee electing everyone as good as Harold Baines because we demand consistency? I am happy for Harold. He is legit a HOFer now. But I also think it would be a mistake for Harold Baines' career stats to become the measure of HOFness. Because a steroid user is in is irrelevant to if another steroid user should get in. Because a bad guy is in is irrelevant to if another bad guy should get in. Because 60s stars used PEDs is irrelevant to if 2000s PED using stars should get in. It is fun to argue about and make comparisons and conjectures but should is not part of it.

That being said, Lou Whitaker should be a HOFer.

What? There is no other way to decide who's a better player than using stats. What is beyond stats that makes bonds come anywhere close to being a better player than Hank? I can't find it.

Cause unlike Clemens, McGwire, Bonds, Palmeiro and others, Ortiz actually tested positive for steroids and not just had accusations. Thats not to say the others didn't use but they never tested positive. Add on top Ortiz is a fringe HoFer anyway that clearly had add from gear seems weird that he would get in and the others wouldn't. But hey, Bagwell, Piazza, Ivan Rodriguez and others are already in so it's not like the voters have any consistency as is.

Agree 100%. It makes no sense that Ortiz gets a pass and other linked players don't. How can anyone vote for Ortiz and not Bonds or Clemens, who were infinitely better players. Like we used to say, "Ortiz couldn't carry their jocks."
It is absolutely hypocritical and inconsistent.

Ortiz gets in, I am okay with it. Okay with those other guys too. I could not care any less about steroids, or corked bats.

Everyone else who has tested positive or has significant evidence of use is being kept out. McGwire, Sosa, Palmeiro, Ramirez, Bonds, Clemens. It’s not that he’s a DH, it’s that the general ‘steroid policy’ look like it’s going to be waived for Ortiz, and only for Ortiz. Bonds denied for the 10th time while Ortiz, who tested positive, is elected the same year will be a complete joke.

2022 Baseball Hall of Fame - tracker
 

Sure, let's talk about base running, stealing, defense and arm. Bonds hands down. Not even close. Aaron had negative dWar. Have you ever watched baseball? Then you should know there's more than just stats to impact a game and the individual/teams success.

Just saw the headline that Bonds and Clemens didn't get in on their final year of eligibility. It's nice to see some good news for a change.

So do you think all the Astros players who cheated should have been ruled ineligible and permanently banned from the HOF?

No brainer for Ortiz.. He IS Boston!!

BOSTON - Commissioner Rob Manfred says it’s unfair for Red Sox slugger David Ortiz’s legacy to be tarnished by his positive drug test in Major League Baseball’s 2003 anonymous drug testing survey, since it’s unknown whether Ortiz actually used a performance-enhancing drug.

There were at least 10 false positives in the survey testing, Manfred said Sunday before Ortiz’s final regular-season game at Fenway Park, and it’s possible that Ortiz was one of the false tests.
Manfred confirmed that Ortiz also has never failed a drug test since MLB implemented its drug policy in 2004 and strengthened it numerous times in the decade-plus since.
“Even if your name was on that (anonymous) list,’’ Manfred said, “it’s entirely possible that you were not a positive.

Voting results

A no brainer…. IF he was not the only person completely forgiven for steroids while every other known user, including players far better than Ortiz, are denied. If we want to throw in a Red Sock user, why would it be him instead of Clemens or Ramirez? The double standard is obvious.

He has since admitted he failed.

Shaughnessy is the hack to end all hacks. The Globe should be embarrassed to employ him. I'm pretty sure the other writers that work there are...

This is what happens when we turn the HOF ballot into the morality police. Who did what? When? Who was clean? A Boy Scout?

Shaughnessy votes for Kent because he "knows" he's clean. I mean, we can't know. Pretending we can is absurd.

Not for nothing, but Kent had a 107 career OPS+ heading into his age 29 season...when he became teammates with a guy named Bonds. For the rest of his career, his OPS+ was 128 and he hit 299 of his 377 career home runs.

I'm in no way implying that Kent used PEDs...I have no idea. I'm just saying that saying "THIS is the guy I can vote for in good conscience" is pretty dumb.

Calm down we are sharing opinions. You think stolen bases and .984 vs .980 fielding beats hank aaron? A negative dWar is almost meaningless for individual or team success. Many amazing defenders are negative or a point or two above zero. Griffey jr had a staggering 2.2 career dWar. Not to mention Hank played quite a few games at first base which obviously hurt his defense.

Hank was busy running out his 3771 hits while bonds was jogging to first with a full sprint still reserved for stealing second after his 2500 walks. Of course he’s going to have more steals.

Bonds didn’t even hit .300 with 2500 less ABs. That’s a bit pathetic for a best ever contender imo.
“Oh well he got walked allot”
Exactly right.
So extremely high chances his career average would’ve been even lower than what it is now if he didn’t get those walks.

We haven’t even factored in performance enhancement that skewed his physical abilities. Arm strength and Speed namely. Basically the only 2 things he could beat hank in.

Bonds will never be the best.
Ever.

2022 Baseball Hall of Fame - tracker
 

I can nit pick plenty too. Bonds is the best. Ever. Everything backs it up. And much better than Aaron.

We'll never see eye to eye, that's fine. Always an interesting topic.

Sing it, sister!!

Yes it’s a very interesting conversation, And I agree I could never see eye to eye on this topic with you [emoji28].

Maybe. It would have been better if MLB took real action and stripped them of the WS. Then it would be easier to deal with players about their Hall of Fame potential, having been penalized in an appropriate way. Same with the roiders, if MLB did real testing and had real punishments (not just suspensions, but statistical judgments, like removing HRs). Bonds would probably be in if MLB tested, he was guilty, and they took away 150 home runs. I have some sympathy for the Joe Jackson case for the Hall because he was banned from the game for his actions. He paid a price that affected his career performance (since his career was over). I also still see the case against him, throwing games is a foundational blow to the spirit of the game. I consider the kind of steroid use alleged by the biggest stars of the game - significantly distorting aging curves, salary economics, and the sacred record books - to also be a foundational blow to the spirit of the game, so if I was voting, I don't think I'd vote them in even if they were appropriately tested, caught, and punished. But it would make it easier to sort through these things if they had.

What do y'all think about this... there are at least two kinds of cheating, cheating within the game, and cheating without (and brought within). Fixing games is taking cheating outside of the field of play and bringing it in. Fixing an at-bat for your buddy on the other team by telling him what pitch is coming, within the field of play. Performance-enhancing drugs like steroids are done outside the field of play and brought in. Doctoring a baseball, stealing signs, taking LSD (maybe), all within the field of play. If you can get away with it, more power to you. If you get caught, you get tossed. The Astros crossed a line by stealing signs outside the field of play (using video technology from outside) and bringing it in.

These two kinds are substantially different, and the consequences should be different. That doesn't mean one can't judge a within-the-game cheater, or a strong case can't be made against chronic ball-doctorers or the like, but I don't think those cases are well-argued when they equivocate one type of cheating with the other.

You're right, it's more than stats. Let's revisit how Barry's ignorance/arrogance lost the NLCS to the Braves in 1992, by not being able to throw out Sid Bream, the slowest runner in the history of runners, at home on a base hit. And this was before the 'roid usage in SF. From Wikipedia (with references):

"On the third pitch, with Belinda behind, 2-0, Cabrera ripped a foul line drive to left field. After the play, Van Slyke and Bonds got into a brief argument as Van Slyke signaled to the left fielder to move in so he could cut off a potential single and keep the runners from scoring; Bonds gave Van Slyke the finger and refused to move.[16][23][24] Sure enough, Cabrera again lined a pitch to left that dropped in front of Bonds for a hit.[25] Justice scored from third easily, which tied the game.[16][21][24] Bonds came up with the ball, but was out of position and had to throw across his body.[24][25] Third base coach Jimy Williams spotted this as Bream, running on five-times surgically repaired knees and thus, one of the slowest baserunners in the league, got to him at third. Williams decided to wave Bream in, thinking the off balance throw might not reach catcher Mike LaValliere in time for him to tag the slow-footed first baseman. Bonds' throw was indeed offline, which caused LaValliere to move to his right to field the ball just before Bream got to the plate. The extra motion allowed Bream to slide in ahead of LaValliere's tag, and the Braves won, 3–2.[16]"

Barry did things at the plate that I've never seen anyone else do. But Barry always put Barry first, and in a team game, that doesn't fly. And I don't know how stats measure that. So you are right, his measure is beyond stats.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgjIVvEQo_o

Look to me like the ball wasn't hit in front of Bonds but well to his left.

2022 Baseball Hall of Fame - tracker
 

If Bonds had played in that ball probably goes to the wall. Ball was hit WELL to his left (heck, you can see how long it takes him to get into frame). We all know Bonds is a dick. But this play is a bad example because the outcome most likely is the same, a run scored. But, let's not forget to give props to Bream who had a great jump as well off the bat and no hesitation rounding third. He ran the bases perfectly for someone like him.

2022 Baseball Hall of Fame - tracker
 

Yep. Not even CLOSE. He's well out of the frame and runs quite a bit. If he played in, that ball goes to the wall and he has no chance to cut it off like he barely did.

I wonder how good Aaron would have been if he had a PED assist. Greenies are amphetamines, not really attributed growth/strength enhancement. The bench mark for HRs could probably be well over 800 if Aaron had PEDs.

That said, Bonds most likely would have hit 500HRs without the PEDs. Bonds is a poster child for what PEDs can do to enhance a career. Bonds without PEDs would have put up HOF numbers, he was just that good. I'm not a Bonds fan, I would be if he didn't lie and try to cover it up. I have much more respect for McGwire because he knew better than to try and BS the public. Look at A-Rod. Wow, only about half the requirement to be enshrined and look at the numbers he put up (oh yeah, another one of those I never used PED guys).

2022 Baseball Hall of Fame - tracker
 

It's certainly fun to entertain and think about for Aaron.

I don't have an opinion on Bonds' HR total if he never used (don't really care honestly), but totally agree on what you said in regards to the character aspect. It's tough to see how someone can be that angry over such small trivial things. Oh well.

I was very surprised to see Sheffield get more votes than A-Rod, maybe character issues and PEDs kind of like Bonds?

Regardless of how it's looked at, it just sucks. While there may be so called "winners and loses" out of this, in my opinion, I still feel like we all lose. All this arguing etc is not how I want to remember baseball.

+1

Not sure I am reading your post right, but A Rod admitted it.

https://www.espn.com/mlb/news/story?id=3894847

Eventually, yes, but before that, there were plenty of denials.

Peter, that's correct, he did admit it, after he got caught. Kind of like the Palmeiro thing. Notice how many votes Rafael got.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAxo4pCITRM

A-Rod was a beast of a hitter. The one thing he didn't learn was a bit of humility when he was playing with Jeter. Does humility count for HOF voting? It shouldn't but apparently it does.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=994hkVav5qM

He was a very good defensive player as well IMO. Clearly upper tier all time great in terms of performance. On the whole very unlikeable guy which will not help his cause.