Net54baseball.com Forums

Net54baseball.com Forums (http://www.net54baseball.com/index.php)
-   Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions (http://www.net54baseball.com/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   HOF Future Eligibles (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=199425)

HRBAKER 01-06-2015 12:01 AM

350 Home Runs after the age of 35 - simply amazing.

dgo71 01-06-2015 12:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kailes2872 (Post 1363022)
Fair statement. My only point was that even their biggest critics accused Clemens of juicing only once he got to Toronto (192 wins in Boston and 3 Cy Young's prior to that). The two guys in SF accused Bonds in (I believe) '98 or '99 - as he was jealous of the hype and $'s given to Mac and Sosa. If that is to be believed, he had a nice career and 3 MVPs up until that point.

This is when the accusations surfaced. It does not mean the player had just began using at that point. Maybe it was, but maybe it was 5 years earlier or more. Again, we'll never know, nor will we know what the "true" numbers might have been. They may have still been stellar. Maybe not though. That pesky doubt, that they brought upon themselves, is why they are penalized today.

Kenny Cole 01-06-2015 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dgo71 (Post 1363031)
I didn't see anyone deny that Bonds hit more HRs than anybody. The fact is he cheated to get there, and now nobody will ever know what he would have done without cheating. It's the doubt that makes the steroid scandal such a murky issue.

Comparing the medical steroids of this day and age to greenies is another favored arguement of steroid-era supporters, but it's about as apples-to-oranges as you can get. Steroids improve muscle regeneration, make you stronger, faster, even improve your vision and eye-hand coordination. Greenies are basically the same as a cup of coffee. A jolt of caffeine. It's like saying a Porsche and a Kia are both cars.

It's true, Bonds never failed a drug test. Because they didn't test for HGH and testosterone then. So it's not at all surprising that he never failed a test that was never administered. However, does anyone truly believe that his dramatic and magical uptick in power in his late 30's, so dramatic that in the 130+ history of the game it had never happened before, was completely natural? Maybe it was his ego that caused his head to grow two cap sizes? Anyone who says Bonds did not juice is delusional, and I'm sorry that I cannot think of a nicer way to put that, but it's true.

Steroids may not have been in MLB's little rulebook, but there was definitely a U.S. LAW making them illegal to use in the context these athletes were taking them. I don't know, but I'd think if it's illegal in the United States it would stand to reason they shouldn't be allowed in the game. The rulebook doesn't say I shouldn't run out to the mound and stab the pitcher either. Some things need to be assumed. If these guys thought steroids were A-OK then why was it done in such secrecy and why was there such a stigma on anyone who outted it, such as Canseco? They knew full well what they did was wrong.

I do completely agree with your stance on the writers and MLB itself however. It makes me sick to think a writer (can't remember who right now) actually said he didn't vote for Biggio because Biggio knew guys were using and didn't say anything. Really? Pot calling the kettle black if ever there was such a thing. And MLB certainly created this mess by condoning it, so their stance now is ironic and sad. However, the hypocrisy of these two entities doesn't justify the actions of those who knowingly cheated IMO.

Wow, seriously? Greenies, which were just as illegal as peds, are OK because they were really sort of like coffee? Spare me. Your allusion to running out and stabbing the pitcher applies equally to them. That argument is bullshit and I imagine you know it. Greenies were used because the players believed that they improved eye-hand coordination. And they were used pretty much every game back then. But it wasn't common knowledge and so we couldn't express what I'm sure is now our collective disdain for that form of cheating when we were arguing about the HOF. Knowing what we now know you wouldn't say Mays or Mantle should be elected, right? They were cheaters, true?

Fast forward 20 years and that type of cheating is OK because now we're really upset about the newest form that it has taken. Cheating is cheating. It has happened since the game began and it continues to this day. Give me a freaking break.

dgo71 01-06-2015 02:10 AM

You clearly don't understand the difference in the effects of amphetamines vs steroids. Let alone that greenies were prescribed by team doctors in many instances, which is perfectly legal, as opposed to some back alley pharmacist who is selling metabolic steroids. Guys like Mantle took them because he was out late every night drinking. So yeah, it's basically coffee, and forms of amphetamine can be bought over the counter at any truck stop. They woke players up, they didn't turn long fly outs into home runs.

howard38 01-06-2015 03:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by btcarfagno (Post 1363014)
Rivera was a solid minor league starter who was always old for the league he was in. His final full year in the minors he had good but not great numbers....only about a strikeout every other inning. Then he got lit up like a Christmas tree as a 25 year old starter in the majors. Perhaps not a failed starter but, at age 26 with a good arm but few quality pitches and solid but unspectacular minor league numbers as a starter....he was removed from that role. There was certainly a reason for it.

Tom C

Of course there was a reason for it but the reason was not failure, which was my only point.

btcarfagno 01-06-2015 04:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by howard38 (Post 1363039)
Of course there was a reason for it but the reason was not failure, which was my only point.

The reason was they saw the high likelihood of him flaming out as a starter and figured his limited pitch selection and good arm lent itself to a role in the bullpen. They saw a flawed starter who likely would not help them much in that role. Flawed....failed....semantics really.

Tom C

rats60 01-06-2015 05:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by conor912 (Post 1362977)
IMO there's no way career closers should get in and not career DH's. I am from Boston where David Ortiz is a God, regardless of steroid speculation. There is no arguing that he was one of the most clutch, most feared hitters in the game for the better part of a decade, yet when he becomes eligible you're going to hear cries from every corner of the baseball world that he doesn't deserve it because he never played in the field. As for Hoffman and the other closers, electing a guy who threw 40 pitches/week for his entire career is a joke.

Ortiz without steroids is a borderline case. When you look at advanced metrics, he is behind other 1b like Keith Hernsndez, Will Clark, Fred McGriff and Norm Cash. He does have a good OPS and post season success. War of 47.7 is not good. He may have had a chance to eventually get in if clean.

The problem is that he failed a drug test early in his Red Sox career. That taints everything he did in Boston. He sure wasn't very good in Minnesota. Piazza and Bagwell are struggling to get in with much stronger resumes and weaker connections to steroids. I don't see any way Ortiz even gets 40% of the vote, let alone 75.

rats60 01-06-2015 06:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole (Post 1363034)
Wow, seriously? Greenies, which were just as illegal as peds, are OK because they were really sort of like coffee? Spare me. Your allusion to running out and stabbing the pitcher applies equally to them. That argument is bullshit and I imagine you know it. Greenies were used because the players believed that they improved eye-hand coordination. And they were used pretty much every game back then. But it wasn't common knowledge and so we couldn't express what I'm sure is now our collective disdain for that form of cheating when we were arguing about the HOF. Knowing what we now know you wouldn't say Mays or Mantle should be elected, right? They were cheaters, true?

Fast forward 20 years and that type of cheating is OK because now we're really upset about the newest form that it has taken. Cheating is cheating. It has happened since the game began and it continues to this day. Give me a freaking break.

Cheating? Do you consider the pre 1920 spit ball pitchers cheaters? Should we try to get them kicked out of the hof? Baseball didn't make greenies illegal until the 70s. Baseball's drug policy was broad and included steroids at that time. I hate the guys who want to say steroids weren't illegal until they started testing for them in the 2000s, because it's not true. Fay Vincent sent a memo to all teams in 1991 stating that to all teams because he was aware of their widespread use in baseball.

As far as Bonds, it is very naive to believe he started using in 98-99. Steroids were in the Giants clubhouse in the late 80s. He had a major jump in production when he moved from a hitters park in 92 to a pitchers park in 93. It is far more likely that he began using in 93. His production jumped again when he hooked up with Balco,the best in the business, in 2000-01.

Kenny Cole 01-06-2015 06:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dgo71 (Post 1363037)
You clearly don't understand the difference in the effects of amphetamines vs steroids. Let alone that greenies were prescribed by team doctors in many instances, which is perfectly legal, as opposed to some back alley pharmacist who is selling metabolic steroids. Guys like Mantle took them because he was out late every night drinking. So yeah, it's basically coffee, and forms of amphetamine can be bought over the counter at any truck stop. They woke players up, they didn't turn long fly outs into home runs.

Well, I'm up this morning drinking my greenies, er, coffee. I understand the difference between the two, and they both represent a method of cheating. You can buy various forms of peds over the counter too, or at least used to be able to. How many players have been suspended for taking a banned substance (ironically often an amphetamine) that they bought in an over the counter cold, allergy or cough medicine? And right or wrong, the perception was that the greenies increased hand-eye coordination, which presumably translates into an increased ability to hit the ball. See ball more clearly, move bat faster, hit ball better, you know, that sort of thing. The difference is simply not nearly so much as you have talked yourself into believing.

The fact of the matter is that cheating has been around as long as baseball has been around. If you have convinced yourself that ped usage is a type of cheating that is worse than other types, so be it. But don't try to delude yourself, or me, that one is perfectly OK and the other isn't.

darwinbulldog 01-06-2015 07:24 AM

Unless we assume that pitchers are disproportionately more likely to get caught when they cheat (i.e., stupider), there is pretty good evidence that pitchers were more likely than hitters to have been juicing. That is, a higher percentage of pitchers than of position players used PEDs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/18/sp...anted=all&_r=0

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb (Post 1362801)
I'm very surprised that we are now heavily into the PED time frame of HOF balloting and no one has commented on the fact that the most recent selectees are almost all pitchers, Maddux, Glavine, Pedro, Big Unit, Smoltz (most likely) with only Frank Thomas being a position player. This could continue with guys like Schilling & Mussina garnering more votes as the PED position players begin to show up more and more on future ballots. Is it realistic to think that the only "clean" players during this era were pitchers? Why do we assume that they were not using?

In my opinion, Bagwell was a user. His minor league and amateur resume just do not add up to his major league power numbers. I know anything's possible but.......

Piazza's minor league numbers match up somewhat better but did anyone see him during is first year or two in the minors? Was there a big difference in body size and type from his major league physique?

I would also like to make a comprehensive list of known users who finished with the best career stats. Off the top of my head, these are the ones that I can think of:

Bonds
McGwire
Sosa
Sheffield
Clemens
Pettitte
Palmeiro
M. Ramirez
I. Rodriguez
A. Rodriguez
Bagwell (IMHO)
J. Gonzalez
M. Tejada
Braun
Canseco

Does anyone else have any others that would be surefire HOF'ers based on their career stats?


darwinbulldog 01-06-2015 07:37 AM

I concur with this. I would just say that Aaron, Mays, and Mantle were cheating the best way they knew how and that Bonds and Clemens were cheating the best way they knew how. Given the scientific advancements of the decades that separated them, Bonds and Clemens were able to get better stuff than their predecessors. But I see no particular reason to believe that if Bonds and Clemens had been born earlier that they wouldn't have been using greenies or that if Aaron, Mays, and Mantle had been born later that they wouldn't have been using PEDs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole (Post 1363055)
Well, I'm up this morning drinking my greenies, er, coffee. I understand the difference between the two, and they both represent a method of cheating. You can buy various forms of peds over the counter too, or at least used to be able to. How many players have been suspended for taking a banned substance (ironically often an amphetamine) that they bought in an over the counter cold, allergy or cough medicine? And right or wrong, the perception was that the greenies increased hand-eye coordination, which presumably translates into an increased ability to hit the ball. See ball more clearly, move bat faster, hit ball better, you know, that sort of thing. The difference is simply not nearly so much as you have talked yourself into believing.

The fact of the matter is that cheating has been around as long as baseball has been around. If you have convinced yourself that ped usage is a type of cheating that is worse than other types, so be it. But don't try to delude yourself, or me, that one is perfectly OK and the other isn't.


packs 01-06-2015 07:40 AM

It blows my mind that there could possibly be people who don't view Mariano Rivera as a HOFer, let alone one of the greatest pitchers of all time.

Arguments over him being a failed starter don't hold water to me. He wasn't a failed starter. He found his role and dominated in it. Your starter can pitch a great game. But until you finish the game, it's not a win. So unless your position is that starters should have to pitch 9 innings every time they pitch, your argument that relief pitchers aren't important doesn't make a lot of sense.

You don't win until the 9th inning is over. Mariano owned that 9th inning. And in the post-season you were more or less doomed: 8 - 1 with an 0.70 ERA and 42 saves.

That's 50 post-season wins for your team when you had Rivera in the pen. That cannot be denied or diminished. Not to mention that before he even pitched the baseball, you already knew what he was going to throw. And you still couldn't hit it. He was exceptional and extraordinary, everything a HOFer should be.

jbhofmann 01-06-2015 08:01 AM

Adderall is not a substance that will turn deep flys into HRs but it is a banned performance enhancing drug.

Greenies cannot be simply dismissed just because the league didn't recognize the benefits of taking them.

bcbgcbrcb 01-06-2015 08:21 AM

Eventually it will come to light that someone (or more) already in the HOF used PED's during the 1986-2006 era. What happens then?

That's why the more I think about it, the era should just be documented as the steroids era and we should go on with our HOF selections as normal based on stats taken in context of their own era, etc. Those with the best numbers will get in and life will go on........

Jose Canseco, source of much of the known info, has indicated that up to 75% of Major Leaguers were users at some point. He has been right on just about everything that he has told so far, so why doubt him now.......

If Canseco is correct, how can you really differentiate who did and did not?

darwinbulldog 01-06-2015 08:23 AM

I think there's at least as much reason to suspect Rickey Henderson as to suspect Bagwell or Piazza.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb (Post 1363088)
Eventually it will come to light that someone (or more) already in the HOF used PED's during the 1986-2006 era. What happens then?

That's why the more I think about it, the era should just be documented as the steroids era and we should go on with our HOF selections as normal based on stats, etc. Those with the best numbers will get in and life will go on........


bcbgcbrcb 01-06-2015 08:32 AM

Wasn't it obvious enough to MLB when Luis Gonzalez hit 57 home runs in the early 2000's.........

bcbgcbrcb 01-06-2015 08:34 AM

Well, Glenn, Henderson played on the same Oakland teams with McGwire, Canseco, etc. so..........

triwak 01-06-2015 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb (Post 1363088)
That's why the more I think about it, the era should just be documented as the steroids era and we should go on with our HOF selections as normal based on stats taken in context of their own era, etc. Those with the best numbers will get in and life will go on........

100% agree!

btcarfagno 01-06-2015 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by packs (Post 1363081)
It blows my mind that there could possibly be people who don't view Mariano Rivera as a HOFer, let alone one of the greatest pitchers of all time.

Arguments over him being a failed starter don't hold water to me. He wasn't a failed starter. He found his role and dominated in it. Your starter can pitch a great game. But until you finish the game, it's not a win. So unless your position is that starters should have to pitch 9 innings every time they pitch, your argument that relief pitchers aren't important doesn't make a lot of sense.

You don't win until the 9th inning is over. Mariano owned that 9th inning. And in the post-season you were more or less doomed: 8 - 1 with an 0.70 ERA and 42 saves.

That's 50 post-season wins for your team when you had Rivera in the pen. That cannot be denied or diminished. Not to mention that before he even pitched the baseball, you already knew what he was going to throw. And you still couldn't hit it. He was exceptional and extraordinary, everything a HOFer should be.

Rivera pitched about 1 inning per game in 40% of the games the Yankees played in. 70 or so innings per year. I simply cannot see anyone who played less than 5% of the innings that his team played during the season as being a Hall Of Famer. No matter how much he dominated in those 5% of team innings. Now....he was easily the best ever for what he was. No one even close really. To me, the best of a flawed bunch who played so few innings is simply not Hall Of Fame worthy.

And yes, he was a flawed starter. He was a two pitch pitcher when he came up. He got lit up as a starter where he got exposed the second time through the lineup. He was put into the bullpen where his limited arsenal would get better results. Then he perfected the cutter and that pitch was so good that until the last few years of his career he was a one pitch pitcher. He would never get away with that as a starter.

I certainly respect the opinions of those who believe he should be there, and he likely will be a first ballot inductee. I simply do not value the position of relief pitcher much.

Tom C

bnorth 01-06-2015 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog (Post 1363091)
I think there's at least as much reason to suspect Rickey Henderson as to suspect Bagwell or Piazza.

Suspect Rickey LOL Rickey looked like he was juicing so hard at the end of his career that it was amazing he was not walking around with a needle sticking out his butt cheek.

To those comparing greenies to coffee, WOW. Ok to be fair 1 greenie would be like coffee if you could down 50 gallons of it in 5 minutes.

My all-time favorite player is Wade Boggs. He was never caught cheating(in baseball) but like your favorite player I can guarantee he did. Whether it was greenies, steroids, corked bat or something else they cheated. The poster boy of baseball Mickey Mantle did do greenies, had a corked bat, and was rumored to do steroids. Yes steroids were in sports during his time and the 50 years before his time. I am not saying Mantle did steroids because it was way before my time, just that it was rumored he and Maris both juiced.

Also David Ortiz should never be allowed in the HOF unless it is to visit with friends.

Right or wrong these are my opinions and till proven wrong I stand by them.

glchen 01-06-2015 09:34 AM

I don't think that greenies matter that much. I'm in the camp that it's more like coffee. Look for modern steroids, people have a lot of stats like for Bonds, pre-steroids, he hit X many home runs per year, and post (suspected) steroid use, his HR production went way up.

For any of the suspected greenie users, are there any stats out there that show that before the player used greenies, his stats were ordinary and that after he started using greenies, BOOM, he had HOF numbers? I don't know if anyone has ever shown this.

packs 01-06-2015 10:05 AM

There is a huge difference between greenies and steroids in my opinion. Unless I'm mistaken, greenies don't alter your body in the sense that a 165 pound player (like Pudge was when he came up) will morph into a 200 plus pound player in a season or two (like Pudge did) from taking greenies.

Greenies and steroids are both I guess PEDs, but they are in totally different leagues. You can't pop a greenie and go from hitting 40 homers to 70 homers. You can do that with steroids. I would argue that a greenie enables a player to play to their standard of play. Steroids enables a player to play above and beyond their standard of play. That's a big difference to me.

dgo71 01-06-2015 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by packs (Post 1363135)
There is a huge difference between greenies and steroids in my opinion. Unless I'm mistaken, greenies don't alter your body in the sense that a 165 pound player (like Pudge was when he came up) will morph into a 200 plus pound player in a season or two (like Pudge did) from taking greenies.

Greenies and steroids are both I guess PEDs, but they are in totally different leagues. You can't pop a greenie and go from hitting 40 homers to 70 homers. You can do that with steroids. I would argue that a greenie enables a player to play to their standard of play. Steroids enables a player to play above and beyond their standard of play. That's a big difference to me.

Bingo.

MVSNYC 01-06-2015 10:48 AM

I was on the HOF's website, and they have nice write ups about each candidate...thought this sentence was interesting about Biggio:

"Only player in baseball history with at least 3,000 hits, 600 doubles, 400 stolen bases and 250 home runs."

http://baseballhall.org/hof/2015-bbwaa-ballot

sycks22 01-06-2015 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bnorth (Post 1363114)
Suspect Rickey LOL Rickey looked like he was juicing so hard at the end of his career that it was amazing he was not walking around with a needle sticking out his butt cheek.

To those comparing greenies to coffee, WOW. Ok to be fair 1 greenie would be like coffee if you could down 50 gallons of it in 5 minutes.

My all-time favorite player is Wade Boggs. He was never caught cheating(in baseball) but like your favorite player I can guarantee he did. Whether it was greenies, steroids, corked bat or something else they cheated. The poster boy of baseball Mickey Mantle did do greenies, had a corked bat, and was rumored to do steroids. Yes steroids were in sports during his time and the 50 years before his time. I am not saying Mantle did steroids because it was way before my time, just that it was rumored he and Maris both juiced.

Also David Ortiz should never be allowed in the HOF unless it is to visit with friends.

Right or wrong these are my opinions and till proven wrong I stand by them.


Guarantee Boggs cheated? He looked more like a beer vendor than a ball player. Did the 'roids or whatever you possibly claim he took help him flare thousands of balls to left field? He wasn't fast, didn't have much power and had an average arm. Which part of his game was aided by juicing? Just because someone is good doesn't mean they cheated.

Runscott 01-06-2015 11:06 AM

Enjoying the discussion on MLB Network. Costas seems to understand what the HOF actually is, much better than most. There's a doofus on there who is hanging in the conversation purely through yelling. I'm thinking we should invite him to join our forum.

bcbgcbrcb 01-06-2015 11:36 AM

Let's look at it this way, if we go my route and allow for steroid use since it was massively prevalent from around 1986 - 2006, the only ones hurt that way were the minority of players who were "clean" and never cheated, correct?

Give me a list of those "clean" players during this era whose stats warrant HOF selection. I bet we don't get much past a half-dozen or so, which is a far less impact than banning everyone we think or know did PED's. Anyway, those half-dozen or so would likely get in the Hall anyway. By doing this, we avoid the annual arguments about who did PED's, suspected of PED's, etc. which will never be definitively proven.

Runscott 01-06-2015 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb (Post 1363176)
Let's look at it this way, if we go my route and allow for steroid use since it was massively prevalent from around 1986 - 2006, the only ones hurt that way were the minority of players who were "clean" and never cheated, correct?

Give me a list of those "clean" players during this era whose stats warrant HOF selection. I bet we don't get much past a half-dozen or so, which is a far less impact than banning everyone we think or know did PED's. Anyway, those half-dozen or so would likely get in the Hall anyway. By doing this, we avoid the annual arguments about who did PED's, suspected of PED's, etc. which will never be definitively proven.

The PED users are already hurting the clean players, just by creating a log-jam on the ballot. You can only cast 10 votes. Go ahead and remove all the stats of the PED users for us - that way we can see who remains. Also, remove all the stats of clean players when they faced steroid users such as Clemens, or the stats of clean pitchers when they faced guys like Sosa, Bonds, McGwire, etc. (it's a long list). After you've removed all the PED-induced stats, show us the new stats of the top remaining players.

Runscott 01-06-2015 12:15 PM

No plot twists this time: Biggio, Martinez, Smoltz, Johnson. I was surprised Bagwell got over 55%.

Prediction for next year: Griffey Jr. and Piazza.

bcbgcbrcb 01-06-2015 01:06 PM

Agree with Scott for next year, Griffey & Piazza, that's it.

Runscott 01-06-2015 01:26 PM

Thoroughly enjoying the interviews with the HOF inductees - everyone but Johnson so far. Hoping we get to hear a good interview with Griffey Jr next year.

darwinbulldog 01-06-2015 01:43 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Harumph.

Runscott 01-06-2015 01:49 PM

I heard an interesting comparison of Raines and Mattingly. The argument against Mattingly is not enough great years. All Raines did was play a lot longer;however, he had fewer HOF years than Mattingly.

darwinbulldog 01-06-2015 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Runscott (Post 1363222)
All Raines did was play a lot longer;however, he had fewer HOF years than Mattingly.

By my count, Raines had 6 "HOF years" (1983-1987, 1992) and Mattingly had 4 (1984-1987). How did they define a HOF year?

Runscott 01-06-2015 02:45 PM

Not sure Glenn, but it sure is nice to be able to post someone else's opinions on this, rather than my own, to avoid nasty fights with forum members who think my opinions are rubbish :)

earlywynnfan 01-06-2015 02:55 PM

I came in at the end: Scott's opinions are rubbish.

Now, what are we talking about?

Actually, to start throwing stacks of 2 cents around:
Piazza and Jr. next year...
Greenies did give an advantage, although not as much as steroids...
David Ortiz is a giant cheater...
Want to see Raines get in so my collection is more valuable...
Mattingly is NOT a HOFer, sorry yankees fans...
With the clarity of hindsight, would anybody draft Biggio for their team over Piazza, knowing what they would do in their careers?


Ken

bnorth 01-06-2015 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sycks22 (Post 1363164)
Guarantee Boggs cheated? He looked more like a beer vendor than a ball player. Did the 'roids or whatever you possibly claim he took help him flare thousands of balls to left field? He wasn't fast, didn't have much power and had an average arm. Which part of his game was aided by juicing? Just because someone is good doesn't mean they cheated.

I never said Boggs did steroids, I said cheated.

Since most are way smarter than me in this area and was not stupid enough to try them I will describe how they really work. Your level of steroid use is what makes the difference. Its like Barry Bonds and his few insane years and Roger Clemens and his amazing long career.

Heavy users: These guys but up insane #s but only for a few years because your body just cant handle it. Look at Giambi, Bonds, and McGwire and how after they had the big steroid years they had crazy injuries.

Moderate users: These were the guys that put up really good #'s for a longer time before the injuries hit them.

Light/occasional user: These are the smart guys. Because they never had huge years but had long productive careers. This is the 75% of baseball players Canseco was talking about. They used them to stay healthy. IMHO at this level of use they received the same benefits as the guys using Greenies.

Runscott 01-06-2015 03:25 PM

I will offer one tiny bit of potential rubbish: I would trade Mattingly's 1989 for Raines' 1992.

deadballfreaK 01-06-2015 05:16 PM

Pleased with this year's class and I'll enjoy the inductions, but generally the HOF has gotten so screwed up that I'm not that interested. Plenty of guys in because they had high up cronies greasing the skids. Deserving guys who just played in the wrong city don't get a sniff. Now we have PED use. No way to decide who did and didn't. I generally just keep my own HOF in my head.

bcbgcbrcb 01-06-2015 05:24 PM

Not sure why Sheffield's name keeps coming up on MLB Channel all day for HOF. He was a known user, if Bonds & Clemens aren't getting in, no way Sheffield is. People are forgetting BALCO?

As an aside, since we talked all day about how dominating Randy Johnson & Pedro were as pitchers, just a moment to reflect back on 1986 and Mike Scott. You will recall the NY Mets were unstoppable that season, except when they played Houston and Mike Scott pitched. I'll always remember the NLCS, with Scott shutting out the Mets in Game 1 and again in Game 4 and then Game 6 going on forever with the Mets knowing that a loss would mean facing Scott again in Game 7. Of course the Mets ended up winning the longest playoff game in NL history and avoided Mike Scott in Game 7. To this day, both Darryl Strawberry & Dwight Gooden, the team's two biggest stars in 1986 will tell you that there was no way they were going to win a Game 7 against Scott.

wolf441 01-06-2015 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb (Post 1363314)
Not sure why Sheffield's name keeps coming up on MLB Channel all day for HOF. He was a known user, if Bonds & Clemens aren't getting in, no way Sheffield is. People are forgetting BALCO?

As an aside, since we talked all day about how dominating Randy Johnson & Pedro were as pitchers, just a moment to reflect back on 1986 and Mike Scott. You will recall the NY Mets were unstoppable that season, except when they played Houston and Mike Scott pitched. I'll always remember the NLCS, with Scott shutting out the Mets in Game 1 and again in Game 4 and then Game 6 going on forever with the Mets knowing that a loss would mean facing Scott again in Game 7. Of course the Mets ended up winning the longest playoff game in NL history and avoided Mike Scott in Game 7. To this day, both Darryl Strawberry & Dwight Gooden, the team's two biggest stars in 1986 will tell you that there was no way they were going to win a Game 7 against Scott.

+1 on Sheffield.

and Scott was clearly scuffing the ball in 1986.

bcbgcbrcb 01-06-2015 06:09 PM

C'mon, Steve, now that would be cheating.............

Tabe 01-06-2015 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robextend (Post 1362892)
I'm really torn when it comes to closer's. Can they be considered failed starters...maybe, but they are an accepted part of the game these days and there probably should be a place for them in the HOF. With that said, I would think you need to be a completely dominant one to get in, and I am not sure there are any in that I would consider dominant.

Even Eckersley, who is regarded as a top closer of all-time...take a look at his 11 year stretch as closer as far as ERA:

1987 - 3.03
1988 - 2.35
1989 - 1.56
1990 - 0.61
1991 - 2.96
1992 - 1.91
1993 - 4.16
1994 - 4.26
1995 - 4.83
1996 - 3.30
1997 - 3.91

His dominance fizzled after 5 years or so...his starting numbers were good, but certainly not HOF worthy as maybe a Smoltz would be considered.

So why is Eckersley in the HOF?

I've been asking that for awhile now. I didn't think he belonged when he got elected.

Tabe 01-06-2015 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by conor912 (Post 1362879)
Awful defense? You don't win that many rings as a team with awful defense behind the plate. Either way, I'm not saying I think he should be in, I'm saying I think he'll get in based on the team he was on. Phil Rizzuto got in strictly for being on the great Yankee teams in the 50's. His career numbers are a joke compared to the rest of the HOF. Compare his numbers to Posadas and they are freakishly similar, down to identical lifetime batting avgs. Posada even had more hits and did it from both sides of the plate. I'm not making an argument for him over anyone else, I'm just saying don't be surprised if/when he gets in.

Yes, awful defense. 7 times in 17 years he had a negative dWAR. He was a bad defensive catcher. That's just a fact.

Runscott 01-06-2015 07:46 PM

Phil - thanks for the 86 memories. What an almost-magic year for Houston. I remember very well thinking "just get us to Scott". He was superman that year.

Regarding Sheffield, I watched mlb channel all day, and I didn't think there was much pro-Sheffield except for the one goober who wanted to ignore peds.

baseball tourist 01-06-2015 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan (Post 1363255)
Jr. next year...
Greenies did give an advantage, although not as much as steroids...
David Ortiz is a giant cheater...
Want to see Raines get in
Mattingly is NOT a HOFer, sorry yankees fans...

I have paraphrased Ken, as I agree with most....and would add:

-as a Jays fan I am sad to see Carlos Delgado fall off the ballot;
-rooting for McGriff for the same reason (former Jay);
-Mariano isn't a HOF'er in my book nor are any closers, relivers or strictly DHs;

UnVme7 01-06-2015 11:15 PM

I think cheating is cheating. Whether it's PED's or a corked bat. In my opinion, yes, I do feel Piazza, Biggio, Bagwell and Thome used. I would vote for Thome but I never saw Bagwell as a HOF caliber player.

That being said, it's a known fact that Jim Rice and Pete Rose used corked bats. Should we kick Jim Rice out?

Also too-- about a year ago, a Mickey Mantle game used bat had surfaced that was corked. It was being auctioned off as such, and the Mantle family found out about the auction and threatened to sue the auction house if they did not remove the auction due to ruining the family name, etc. It was removed and that was that. So take that for what you will....

tjb1952tjb 01-07-2015 01:23 AM

Crime Dog...........
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by eastonfalcon19 (Post 1362933)
Yeah I don't see Vizquel getting in either right away but I could see him getting in down the road. The same thing with Fred McGriff ending his career with 493 HRS. If he had indeed reached the 500 club would that of made him an automatic pick?

Could McGriff eventually get in with his numbers?

I've always thought the Crime Dog deserves more love.......underappreciated.

EvilKing00 01-07-2015 04:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb (Post 1362801)
I'm very surprised that we are now heavily into the PED time frame of HOF balloting and no one has commented on the fact that the most recent selectees are almost all pitchers, Maddux, Glavine, Pedro, Big Unit, Smoltz (most likely) with only Frank Thomas being a position player. This could continue with guys like Schilling & Mussina garnering more votes as the PED position players begin to show up more and more on future ballots. Is it realistic to think that the only "clean" players during this era were pitchers? Why do we assume that they were not using?

In my opinion, Bagwell was a user. His minor league and amateur resume just do not add up to his major league power numbers. I know anything's possible but.......

Piazza's minor league numbers match up somewhat better but did anyone see him during is first year or two in the minors? Was there a big difference in body size and type from his major league physique?

I would also like to make a comprehensive list of known users who finished with the best career stats. Off the top of my head, these are the ones that I can think of:

Bonds
McGwire
Sosa
Sheffield
Clemens
Pettitte
Palmeiro
M. Ramirez
I. Rodriguez
A. Rodriguez
Bagwell (IMHO)
J. Gonzalez
M. Tejada
Braun
Canseco

Does anyone else have any others that would be surefire HOF'ers based on their career stats?

sheffield

bcbgcbrcb 01-07-2015 04:40 AM

Steve:

Sheffield is on my list there.......

bcbgcbrcb 01-07-2015 05:00 AM

Regarding Tim Raines' candidacy, have we all forgotten the drugs? The same issue seemed to derail Dave Parker's HOF chances many years ago. I realize that Raines was a little better player than Parker for his career, although Parker had a higher peak IMHO. Although less qualified, Keith Hernandez too.........

bcbgcbrcb 01-07-2015 05:19 AM

I just took a look at the eligible players for the HOF going out to 2019, which is as far forward as you can go right now. I do not see any names going forward who have good enough numbers to get in but have strong suspicions of PED use. This does not include the confirmed users that I have already listed elsewhere in this thread (just added Ortiz to my list today).

The way I see it then, the only questionable names going forward are: Bagwell, Piazza & Kent (I might be in the minority on him). I think Bagwell is a user and should not get in, Piazza is a good possibility but nothing definitive so I would be willing to let him in at this point & Kent is also a good possibility, but no evidence. With poor defense and base running, I would say that he's on the borderline but it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world if he gets in either.

To me, none of the confirmed users get in until after Bonds & Clemens, which isn't happening anytime soon, maybe never.

So I guess going forward, the cloudy issue of who used and didn't use PED's may not be hovering over the HOF vote for too much longer. Ultimately, the decision will have to be made as to whether any confirmed PED users will get in though.........

h2oya311 01-07-2015 06:14 AM

Palmeiro?
 
It's amazing how quickly Rafael Palmeiro fell off the HOF ballot and off the radar for discussion. He had the sweetest left-handed swing I ever saw (even better than Griffey's), and at the time his career ended, was one of only three players with 500 HR and 3,000 hits. In fact, I don't know if anyone else has even accomplished that yet.

Anyone remember him? I haven't heard his name mentioned in several years.

As for Biggio, I couldn't be happier! It was only a matter of time. Just cause all you East and Left Coasters had never heard of him doesn't mean he wasn't a huge influence on the people in the Houston metropolitan area. He was the key ingredient to the rotating list of names that comprised the killer B's. No major league pitcher wanted to face the Astros line-up that featured Biggio, Bagwell, and D. Bell (or Berkman or Beltran in later years).

Before someone like J. Kent gets in, I'd love to see Crime Dog or Dale Murphy get their due. Murphy was the equivalent of A. Dawson during the '80s. He just didn't have as long of a playing career. The stats don't burst any eye-balls, but they did during the early to mid '80s when 30 HR was a Herculean accomplishment. They got swamped when the juice hit the game. Too bad IMO. Murphy is the kind of guy the HOF needs to have in its halls.

Jobu 01-07-2015 07:53 AM

Quite a thread here. My responses to a number of topics:

Mariano Rivera is 100% a HOFer. He was dominant for his entire career and is the greatest to play his position. Ranking the relative worth of different positions is a slippery slope. Even if you aren't a fan of closers, the top few guys at each position deserve to be in - once you move beyond the top 1-2 players at each spot for the era I can understand arguing against certain positions. The fact that Mo wasn't a successful starter at 21 years of age should not be a factor - lots of young guys with 1-2 awesome pitches struggle until they find a third and there is no reason to suggest Mo wouldn't have developed another pitch to become a great starter.

I think the PEDers will get in eventually. Right now they are paying the price for cheating, and getting caught for many of them, which I think is 100% fair. They did everything they could to win games, just like guys from every era (as has been pointed out here by many). Once they are in people will always look at their numbers and say "yeah, but...", epecially following not getting elected for a number of years, which to me is enough. If you were the best during an era when everyone cheated you belong in - the alternative is having a 20-year strectch of baseball where the guys who were clearly the best players are not included in the group that is supposed to contain the best players.

bnorth 01-07-2015 07:53 AM

I would have liked to see Fred McGriff get in. I actually collected baseball cards for a couple years before I ever watched baseball. Either the first or second game I ever went to was the Twins vs The Jays in Minnesota. I was amazed by what seemed like 100's of "McGriff is McGreat" signs. So after that game I followed his career and McGriff was McGreat.

packs 01-07-2015 08:01 AM

I've been reading a lot of articles from people who hold similar views on PEDs and the need to "prove" something when it comes time to punishing players. I've come away with this:

The HOF is entirely based on opinions: the opinion that someone was a HOFer. So if a voter has the opinion that someone cheated, that's all that matters. You don't have to prove anything. You just have to be of the opinion. Same principle that was used to vote in seemingly less-than HOFers.

bcbgcbrcb 01-07-2015 08:11 AM

I know, Derek. I grew up wanting to draft Dale Murphy every year in fantasy baseball leagues during the 1980's. To me, he comes out to be about the same as Don Mattingly with a little longer peak time and a little longer career overall. This makes him just a little more deserving than Mattingly, in my opinion. Maybe one day, he gets the Veteran's Committee vote.........

As far as McGriff, I think he is one of the most harmed players from the steroids era which made everyone's numbers so big. I also think McGriff gets in one day via Veteran's Committee vote, much more likely than Murphy, in my opinion.

rats60 01-07-2015 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baseball tourist (Post 1363430)
-Mariano isn't a HOF'er in my book nor are any closers, relivers or strictly DHs;

Then should we kick out all the Negro League players? I am a small hall guy, but I also think we should be inclusive of all players. I want DHs and relieves but only the best. They are important to the game. Yes to Rivera, no to Hoffman. Hoffman was an accumulator, only 2 time Rolaids winner. Yes to Big Hurt and Molitor, no to Edgar and Ortiz.

rats60 01-07-2015 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jobu (Post 1363487)

I think the PEDers will get in eventually. Right now they are paying the price for cheating, and getting caught for many of them, which I think is 100% fair. They did everything they could to win games, just like guys from every era (as has been pointed out here by many). Once they are in people will always look at their numbers and say "yeah, but...", epecially following not getting elected for a number of years, which to me is enough. If you were the best during an era when everyone cheated you belong in - the alternative is having a 20-year strectch of baseball where the guys who were clearly the best players are not included in the group that is supposed to contain the best players.

I disagree. I don't think they ever get in. Joe Jackson has a better case and he has been waiting since 1936, 78 years. If you want to put Joe in next year, start t he clock on Rose, Bonds, and Clemens. When you get to 79 years of waiting, put them in.

earlywynnfan 01-07-2015 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb (Post 1363454)
Regarding Tim Raines' candidacy, have we all forgotten the drugs? The same issue seemed to derail Dave Parker's HOF chances many years ago. I realize that Raines was a little better player than Parker for his career, although Parker had a higher peak IMHO. Although less qualified, Keith Hernandez too.........

Thank you for bringing this up! Raines seems to be the darling of the knowledgeable fans of non-steroid users. Yet he's a guy who slid headfirst so he wouldn't break his crack vial in his back pocket!

Jobu 01-07-2015 09:00 AM

I think Rose and Jackson are different than PED users. They aren't in because they tried to lose, fix games, or bet so frequently that it is hard to think they never factored their bets into how the game was played (I know there are arguments that Jackson didn't throw the series, but that is the accepted reason). The PED guys, on the other hand, tried everything they could to win, likely including sacrificing some years off the end of their lives, and PED use has nothing to do with throwing games.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rats60 (Post 1363508)
I disagree. I don't think they ever get in. Joe Jackson has a better case and he has been waiting since 1936, 78 years. If you want to put Joe in next year, start t he clock on Rose, Bonds, and Clemens. When you get to 79 years of waiting, put them in.


ElCabron 01-07-2015 09:08 AM

So much stupid. This thread is filled with so much stupid.

-Ryan

darwinbulldog 01-07-2015 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan (Post 1363516)
Thank you for bringing this up! Raines seems to be the darling of the knowledgeable fans of non-steroid users. Yet he's a guy who slid headfirst so he wouldn't break his crack vial in his back pocket!

Powdered cocaine, sir. Get your facts straight.

conor912 01-07-2015 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan (Post 1363516)
Thank you for bringing this up! Raines seems to be the darling of the knowledgeable fans of non-steroid users. Yet he's a guy who slid headfirst so he wouldn't break his crack vial in his back pocket!

Why did he need crack while running the base paths? Did he carry his pipe, wallet and car keys in his other pocket?

rats60 01-07-2015 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jobu (Post 1363521)
I think Rose and Jackson are different than PED users. They aren't in because they tried to lose, fix games, or bet so frequently that it is hard to think they never factored their bets into how the game was played (I know there are arguments that Jackson didn't throw the series, but that is the accepted reason). The PED guys, on the other hand, tried everything they could to win, likely including sacrificing some years off the end of their lives, and PED use has nothing to do with throwing games.

Actually Joe Jackson was banned for knowing about the fix. There is no evidence that he took money or tried to lose a game. His stats for the 1919 World Series were very good.

The more important fact in Jackson's case was that throwing games in those days wasn't looked down on. Guys like Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker are known to have fixed a game. It was just that the spotlight of the World Series gave the game a black eye.

Bored5000 01-07-2015 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jobu (Post 1363487)

I think the PEDers will get in eventually. Right now they are paying the price for cheating, and getting caught for many of them, which I think is 100% fair. They did everything they could to win games, just like guys from every era (as has been pointed out here by many). Once they are in people will always look at their numbers and say "yeah, but...", epecially following not getting elected for a number of years, which to me is enough. If you were the best during an era when everyone cheated you belong in - the alternative is having a 20-year strectch of baseball where the guys who were clearly the best players are not included in the group that is supposed to contain the best players.

I don't think Bonds, Clemens, Palmeiro, etc. will ever get in. Look at sprinter Ben Johnson from the 1980s and the East Germans of the 1970s. It has been a quarter century since Johnson lost his gold medal and 35-40 years since the East Germans were at their peak. In that time, Johnson and the East Germans have not been viewed more legitimately.

It seems hard to believe that the PED users in baseball will be viewed more legitimately a generation from now or two generations from now when that has not been the case in other sports.

Runscott 01-07-2015 01:10 PM

Ryan - a hearty +1

McGriff definitely makes the HOAF, as does Delgado and many who somehow made the HOF. I also think there should be a HOL (hall of longevity) for some of the guys receiving forum tears.

ALR-bishop 01-07-2015 01:55 PM

Votes
 
According to the WSJ, the following have received a vote for the HOF

2014--Jacques Jones
2013--Aaron Sele
2012--Eric Young
2011-- Benito Santiago
2010-- David Segui
2009--Jesse Orosco
2008--Shawon Dunston
2007--Jay Buhner
2006--Walt Weiss
2005-- Terry Steinbach
1980-- Sonny Jackson

Runscott 01-07-2015 05:08 PM

Al, I'm wondering if these weren't cases of a buddy voting for them just so they could say they received a vote. If they only gave each voter 5 votes, that might change.

conor912 01-07-2015 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Runscott (Post 1363774)
Al, I'm wondering if these weren't cases of a buddy voting for them just so they could say they received a vote. If they only gave each voter 5 votes, that might change.

Agreed. Anyone who legitimately thinks Jay Buhner belongs in the Hall should not be allowed to vote, period. It still irks me that guys like Jermaine Dye even make it on the ballot to begin with.

dgo71 01-07-2015 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by conor912 (Post 1363800)
It still irks me that guys like Jermaine Dye even make it on the ballot to begin with.

That's a great point. I thought the ballot was given a sanity check before being made final and some names were removed from consideration. Maybe that doesn't happen though, because every year there is outrage that someone voted for a guy who is on the ballot that had no business getting a vote. Well, if he doesn't deserve even 1 vote what the heck is he doing on the ballot in the first place? I agree that those guys named above are in no way HOFers and it's a joke to think otherwise. So just pull them off the ballot altogether. To me if their name is on the ballot then it doesn't stand to reason that someone shouldn't have the right to vote for them, regardless of how much sense it might make.

Kenny Cole 01-07-2015 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Runscott (Post 1363774)
Al, I'm wondering if these weren't cases of a buddy voting for them just so they could say they received a vote. If they only gave each voter 5 votes, that might change.

Scott, they tried that in 1946. It made the problem worse, not better. In times when there is a logjam and a number of candidates that are arguably qualified, lessening the number of candidates that can be voted for dilutes the vote for each of them and helps ensure that no one gets enough votes. I'm sure the problem was more acute in 1946, but I really don't see that as a fix that is workable. Most of the voters argue, and I think that I tend to agree, is that the fix is not to arbitrarily limit the number of votes that can be cast to 10. That way, if you want to vote for your buddy or hometown hero just because, it doesn't hurt the ones who are actually qualified and might deserve a vote.

Runscott 01-07-2015 08:41 PM

Gotcha. I personally do not have a problem with Sonny Jackson getting a vote. It is stupid but it does not put him in the hall.

earlywynnfan 01-08-2015 06:55 AM

Remember after Jim Deshaies retired, he said all he wanted to make his career complete was one HOF vote? He seemed to be having fun, and very down-to-earth. Some voter gave him one.

Tabe 01-08-2015 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dgo71 (Post 1363839)
That's a great point. I thought the ballot was given a sanity check before being made final and some names were removed from consideration.

It IS given a sanity check.

From the HOF site:

Quote:

A. BBWAA Screening Committee -- A Screening Committee consisting of baseball writers will be appointed by the BBWAA. This Screening Committee shall consist of six members, with two members to be elected at each Annual Meeting for a three-year term. The duty of the Screening Committee shall be to prepare a ballot listing in alphabetical order eligible candidates who (1) received a vote on a minimum of five percent (5%) of the ballots cast in the preceding election or (2) are eligible for the first time and are nominated by any two of the six members of the BBWAA Screening Committee.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:56 AM.