THE Hall of Fame this year and next:

[clydepepper]

If nobody gets voted in this years...which looks possible, next years ballot will included:

Schilling, Bonds and Clemens in their 10th and last year on the ballot.

and

Ortiz and A-Rod in their first year on the ballot.




If not this year, next year is when 'the rubber meets the road' - where all arguments come to a head and the most difficult decisions as to the role of a player's character have to be made.

Thoughts?


.

[sportscardpete]

I think Bonds is in. Clemens, not sure.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Never understood the pass Ortiz gets. I guess being lovable forgives a lot of sins.

[AGuinness]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Never understood the pass Ortiz gets. I guess being lovable forgives a lot of sins.

Bud Selig, who's career was built on the backs of steroid users, is in.

Anybody who played in that era, before testing, and whose career numbers are worthy, should be in. Likewise for those players who never tested positive after testing was implemented.

I don't understand how people accept the double-standard with Selig in the Hall and Clemens and Bonds not being in.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by AGuinness

Bud Selig, who's career was built on the backs of steroid users, is in.

Anybody who played in that era, before testing, and whose career numbers are worthy, should be in. Likewise for those players who never tested positive after testing was implemented.

I don't understand how people accept the double-standard with Selig in the Hall and Clemens and Bonds not being in.

Easy. Two wrongs don't make a right. Should everyone with better stats than Harold Baines or Tommy McCarthy be elected to the HOF?

[AGuinness]

Originally Posted by rats60

Easy. Two wrongs don't make a right. Should everyone with better stats than Harold Baines or Tommy McCarthy be elected to the HOF?

This is nothing about "two wrongs," this is about the criteria for enshrinement and a double standard for Selig vs. Bonds and Clemens. And I'm not sure how that can reasonably be a jumping off point to connect it to Baines or any other Hall of Famer who people think don't belong.

[riggs336]

Originally Posted by AGuinness

Bud Selig, who's career was built on the backs of steroid users, is in.

Anybody who played in that era, before testing, and whose career numbers are worthy, should be in. Likewise for those players who never tested positive after testing was implemented.

I don't understand how people accept the double-standard with Selig in the Hall and Clemens and Bonds not being in.

I totally agree. I was a Clemens fan and not a fan of Bonds, but both should be in the Hall based on their early careers at least.

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by riggs336

I totally agree. I was a Clemens fan and not a fan of Bonds, but both should be in the Hall based on their early careers at least.

That's not a good argument. You want to say your Moser card should get a PSA 7 because that's what it was before it was doctored, but it doesn't work that way. Bonds and Clemens' careers were fraudulently altered, so they don't get a grade.

And Bud Selig needs to be booted from the Hall, that man is much more of a disgrace to the game than any player, because he knew what was going on with steroids and condoned it.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by AGuinness

Bud Selig, who's career was built on the backs of steroid users, is in.

Anybody who played in that era, before testing, and whose career numbers are worthy, should be in. Likewise for those players who never tested positive after testing was implemented.

I don't understand how people accept the double-standard with Selig in the Hall and Clemens and Bonds not being in.

Well Selig doesn't belong, so I'm at least consistent! He did more damage to baseball than any modern executive.

[jjp3rd]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Never understood the pass Ortiz gets. I guess being lovable forgives a lot of sins.

Me neither...he was nothing in MN, got to Boston, took the juice and voila!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by jjp3rd

Me neither...he was nothing in MN, got to Boston, took the juice and voila!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If it wasn’t for mandatory testing, then this would be a possible thing.

[AGuinness]

Originally Posted by jjp3rd

Me neither...he was nothing in MN, got to Boston, took the juice and voila!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I guess it's easier to try and rewrite history and wildly speculate rather than look at the facts. This is from Puckett's Pond, so it's from a Twins perspective:

"Ortiz flew through the Twins’ minor league system, hitting almost everything on the way, before making his major league debut at the end of 1997, hitting .327 and one home run in 49 at-bats. In 1998, Ortiz wanted to be the team’s starting first basemen, but manager Tom Kelly had other plans.

Kelly was a good manager for the team, but he valued defense and avoiding strikeouts, and Ortiz wasn’t amazing at either of those parts of his game. Because of this, Ortiz was forced to sit for almost half of the season, only producing a .277 batting average, nine homers, and 46 RBI in 86 games.

Despite his strong hitting, he had to fight for playing time with Doug Mientkiewicz, as Mientkiewicz was a better defender. He was forced to spend 1999 in the minors, where he destroyed Triple-A pitching and greatly outperforming the players in the majors.

Ortiz improved every season, and by 2002, he was a twenty-six year-old who had just hit .272, 20 home runs, and 75 RBI. He was expected to get a large raise over the next offseason, but the Twins were worried about paying him despite his .266 BA, 58 homers, and 238 RBI, and that he was a playoff hero just entering his prime."

[Shoelessseb]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Never understood the pass Ortiz gets. I guess being lovable forgives a lot of sins.

Exactly. As a Yankees fan it’s pissing me off

[vintagewhitesox]

Originally Posted by sportscardpete

I think Bonds is in. Clemens, not sure.

I'm with you on this one. I think Bonds gets in. at least he should.
so should clemens.

[Harliduck]

Originally Posted by vintagewhitesox

I'm with you on this one. I think Bonds gets in. at least he should.
so should clemens.

I agree. I hate those guys, hate that era full of cheaters, hate that some iconic records were broke. I still LOVE baseball, and I recognize that era will be historically remembered like many other eras and taken in that vein. With that said, I am TIRED of players with crooked numbers not being in the HOF. I think Rose, Bonds, Clemens, eventually Arod...they just need to be in. When I look at the back of a baseball card and see Bonds stats compared to Barry Larkin, it's just not right. I consider myself a purist, but the old argument that there are already a bunch of a$$holes in the HOF is true. They were the greatest players of that era, and with everyone juiced they still stood out (and without would have still made it, which is frustrating).

Just my .02$

[bbcard1]

If you have an organization where Harold Baines, Rabbit Maranville and Lloyd Waner are in but Pete Rose, Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens are not...well it's kind of counterintuitive to what the Hall of Fame is supposed to be.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by bbcard1

If you have an organization where Harold Baines, Rabbit Maranville and Lloyd Waner are in but Pete Rose, Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens are not...well it's kind of counterintuitive to what the Hall of Fame is supposed to be.

Not really. In 1936 Shoeless Joe Jackson received 2 votes for the Hall of Fame. In 1937 he received 0. It is pretty clear from the beginning that character was a major component of election to the Hall of Fame.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by sportscardpete

I think Bonds is in. Clemens, not sure.

Curious why you think Bonds would get in but not Clemens. Their vote totals are usually almost the same each year so it looks like most voters either are a yes or no on both of them with very little splitting their votes.

[AGuinness]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

If not this year, next year is when 'the rubber meets the road' - where all arguments come to a head and the most difficult decisions as to the role of a player's character have to be made.

Thoughts?


.

I think nobody will be elected. And I also don't think next year will necessarily see the rubber hitting the road. At this point, the writers have seemed to embrace punting on Clemens and Bonds (Schilling is a different case) to let the Hall's Era Committees handle it. For other players, very likely with Rodriguez, the same could be the case.
I think Rolen will eventually make it, if not next year then shortly after. Wagner, Sheffield, Helton and Jones seem to have made sizable jumps this year, if the numbers fall in line with the pre-results. They bear watching, although all of them are still on the fence, so to speak, with where they are at.
Vizquel seems to have dropped and I'm guessing the recent news about him would likely continue the drop in future years. He's probably not going to be elected via the writers at this point, but I'd think the Era Committees might put him in down the road.

[Kutcher55]

This is a complex issue. Normally I have always been against moralizing but then I think Bonds and Clemens both blatantly disrespected the game. I would probably vote for them if I had a vote but you gotta admit the ceremony would be pretty awkward. Yes there's plenty of guys who weren't saints in the HOF, the spitballers, the guys who didn't welcome the black players in the 50s, and there are probably a few women beaters in there as well (law of averages).
I don't blame anyone who wouldn't vote for Bonds or Clemens. Like I said complex, highly subjective issue and you can defend either position quite well.

I would personally vote for Schilling (worthy of induction, played the game the right way), Manny Ramirez (I know a HOFer and this guy is a HOFer) and I'd hold my nose and vote for Clemens and Bonds as well. But that's just me. It makes for great debate.

[Mike D.]

Nobody elected in 2021. On the bright side, if there is an induction ceremony, they have the 2020 class to honor.

[Mike D.]

Ortiz’s situation is significantly different than Bonds, Clemens, and Arod...I expect he’ll have a good showing in 2022. May not get 75% (some people still believe in the whole “skipping first year” thing).

[PowderedH2O]

A HOF without the HR champion, Hits champion, the guy with the most Cy Young Awards, and arguably the best postseason pitcher of the last 50 years... But Selig is in. Cap Anson is in. What a joke.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by PowderedH2O

A HOF without the HR champion, Hits champion, the guy with the most Cy Young Awards, and arguably the best postseason pitcher of the last 50 years... But Selig is in. Cap Anson is in. What a joke.

And don't forget Tony LaRussa.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by PowderedH2O

A HOF without the HR champion, Hits champion, the guy with the most Cy Young Awards, and arguably the best postseason pitcher of the last 50 years... But Selig is in. Cap Anson is in. What a joke.

And 100 guys who used amphetamines.

[AGuinness]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

Nobody elected in 2021. On the bright side, if there is an induction ceremony, they have the 2020 class to honor.

Plus there's always a writer who gets elected, I believe. I _think_ in a normal year there would still be a ceremony, but I then I don't think there has been a shutout on the writer's ballot since 1996.

[riggs336]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

If nobody gets voted in this years...which looks possible, next years ballot will included:

[B]Schilling, Bonds and Clemens in their 10th and last year on the ballot.



.

Well, as you surmised, no one got in. It will be tough for Bonds and Clemens to pick up over 50 votes next year. Schilling might make it.

[Mike D.]

Of note that Schilling said some pretty unpopular things AFTER voting was over this year...probably doesn’t bode well for next year.

[ThomasL]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

Of note that Schilling said some pretty unpopular things AFTER voting was over this year...probably doesn’t bode well for next year.

Honestly I dont think that should matter, nor should a persons voting record or who the stump for politically. Pragmatism of voters should look past that kind of thing and doesnt fall into the purview of the moral clause as who is to dictate who someone can vote for? Say you replace the "issues" with Schilling over to Mike Trout, if we all agree Trout is a lock HOFer would he then not be one simply based on who he voted for or supported as president? Or some jack-assy things he says after his career is over? I argue it shouldnt and this is an ugly precedent being set by voters and a misuse of the morality clause (in Schilling's case). But that's just my take right now.

PED guys, my issue is I would bet there are multiple PED users already in and Selig who turned a blind eye to it is in, plus was what they did against the rules at the time? I dont like it very much but I dont think it is fair to keep Bonds or Clemens out...but would be fair for Ortiz and Ramirez as their infractions came after the bans.

To be nihilistic about it...I dont see anyone getting elected with 75% from now on save for maybe a Trout or Kershaw...unless they vote for the wrong person and are vocal about it

Feel free to tell me Im wrong., as I hope I am.

[ThomasL]

also Rose knew exactly what he was doing and the consequences of it...fully support his banishment as that was very clear what would happen if you bet on baseball games (doesnt matter if you are manager, player, umpire, owner or bat boy...read up on the rule's history when it was created in 1926-27).

Now when he dies you have a case as I think a lifetime ends when someone dies

[Tyruscobb]

I respect the voters’ decision to make these guys wait. Most were never suspended and went unpunished for their actions. Keeping them out, at least temporarily, is their punishment for knocking other Hall of Farmers down in the record books. Bravo voters.

[AGuinness]

Originally Posted by ThomasL

Honestly I dont think that should matter, nor should a persons voting record or who the stump for politically. Pragmatism of voters should look past that kind of thing and doesnt fall into the purview of the moral clause as who is to dictate who someone can vote for? Say you replace the "issues" with Schilling over to Mike Trout, if we all agree Trout is a lock HOFer would he then not be one simply based on who he voted for or supported as president? Or some jack-assy things he says after his career is over? I argue it shouldnt and this is an ugly precedent being set by voters and a misuse of the morality clause (in Schilling's case). But that's just my take right now.

I hear you and don't want to go down the political rabbit hole here, but I think the case against Schilling isn't necessarily his politics.
I posted something to this effect on CooperstownCred earlier today:
I agree about the larger world of politics (blue/red, Dem/Rep) being kept out of the discussion when it comes to the HOF. Although I see the situation differently regarding Schilling, because his comments have denigrated groups of people (Islam, for instance). That’s not politics.
Along these lines, I think that some players have earned something with voters for having endured racial prejudices in society during their career. Hank and Jackie are two obvious ones. Furthermore, I think that in the future, a number of candidates who will be considered during Eras Committees will be discussed with the context of racism and social justice. As examples, Dick Allen, Minnie Minoso and Buck O’Neil are three potential candidates that could be discussed as early as later in 2021. These players all experienced racism, and I expect that experience will be considered when they are up for Era Committee election.
So in the same line of thought, shouldn’t electors also consider when a HOF candidate contributed (and continues to contribute) and promoted racist rhetoric? If some players are honored for their perseverance in the face of societal racism, shouldn’t those players who helped create that same societal racism have repercussions?

[ThomasL]

Originally Posted by AGuinness

I hear you and don't want to go down the political rabbit hole here, but I think the case against Schilling isn't necessarily his politics.
I posted something to this effect on CooperstownCred earlier today:
I agree about the larger world of politics (blue/red, Dem/Rep) being kept out of the discussion when it comes to the HOF. Although I see the situation differently regarding Schilling, because his comments have denigrated groups of people (Islam, for instance). That’s not politics.
Along these lines, I think that some players have earned something with voters for having endured racial prejudices in society during their career. Hank and Jackie are two obvious ones. Furthermore, I think that in the future, a number of candidates who will be considered during Eras Committees will be discussed with the context of racism and social justice. As examples, Dick Allen, Minnie Minoso and Buck O’Neil are three potential candidates that could be discussed as early as later in 2021. These players all experienced racism, and I expect that experience will be considered when they are up for Era Committee election.
So in the same line of thought, shouldn’t electors also consider when a HOF candidate contributed (and continues to contribute) and promoted racist rhetoric? If some players are honored for their perseverance in the face of societal racism, shouldn’t those players who helped create that same societal racism have repercussions?

I believe Schilling apologized publicly for those comments I think you're referring to didnt he? If so why cant we accept that and move on (as far as HOF voting goes)

What about his ALS charitable work or does only a persons mistakes, errors and terrible moments count here?

Im not intending to sound like a Schilling schill here but only trying to be pragmatic about his HOF candacy is all

I think he's a HOFer based on his postseason work on the field. Perfect person...far from it...someone worthy of ignoring his baseball career and good deeds based on things he's said (some if not all of which he apologized for) I think is pushing the meaning of the moral clause too far...again just my opinion and I may be wrong and that's fine with me too.

I will also add I love drinking Guinness

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by riggs336

Well, as you surmised, no one got in. It will be tough for Bonds and Clemens to pick up over 50 votes next year. Schilling might make it.

No on Schilling, unless the Veterans Committee elects him some day. He has asked to be removed from consideration in his final year of eligibility.

As for Bonds and Clemens, it will be interesting. Arod and Ortiz will be on the ballot, and both have an excellent shot. Under normal conditions, I believe Clemens and Bonds would indeed fall short. But it may be tough for voters to justify Ortiz and Arod while shunning Bonds and Clemens... especially on their final ballot.

[conor912]

Originally Posted by perezfan

No on Schilling, unless the Veterans Committee elects him some day. He has asked to be removed from consideration in his final year of eligibility.

I get the PED argument bc that affects performance, but Schill being left out for what mostly boils down to political views is disappointing. I can understand why he'd be fed up with the process.

[riggs336]

Originally Posted by perezfan

No on Schilling, unless the Veterans Committee elects him some day. He has asked to be removed from consideration in his final year of eligibility.

As for Bonds and Clemens, it will be interesting. Arod and Ortiz will be on the ballot, and both have an excellent shot. Under normal conditions, I believe Clemens and Bonds would indeed fall short. But it may be tough for voters to justify Ortiz and Arod while shunning Bonds and Clemens... especially on their final ballot.

Certainly a feasible perspective. We could have an All-PED class next year. On the other hand there were fourteen blank ballots this year; I predict many more blanks next year as a measure of protest.

[FrankWakefield]

I think Pete Rose was a great hitter. And I'm certain he shouldn't get into the Hall except for when he's purchased an admission ticket. Read The Fix Is In, by Daniel Ginsburg. After reading that, you can still be a Rose fan, but your brain will understand why Pete can't get in, even if your heart wants him in.

Some, a few, of the peds guys were using stuff before there were rules prohibiting use of some of the substances. I don't like the use of that stuff at all, but I see a difference in using something illegal, and in using something that hasn't been ruled on at the time.

I'm a bit biased about McGwire. I think he should one day get in, and definitely Bonds and Sosa. I think A-Rod should get in. Baseball already got their vengeance on him by banning him for a year.

I don't think Clemons should get in. And I think Schilling falls a bit short of my opinion of what a HOFer should be. He was a great pitcher, and great big game pitcher. A smart, thinking pitcher. But short of HOF caliber.

There's a dozen or more folks I'd unvote, if I were the Grand Poobah of the Hall. Kirby Puckett would be the first one out. Baines would be out. There are more who'd go. But fortunately for baseball fans I'm not the Grand Poobah.

Back to Rose... I saw him play in 1964. And I saw him get the hit to pass Ty Cobb's career hits record (I went to the game before that, no hits, and in the parking structure this guy was melting down about no hits, having to work the next night, and he had 4 tickets for the next night. My friends and I bought those tickets, I think $30 each, and saw history). I saw Pete lots. But gambling is what stymied the development of professional baseball at its inception, and only the strict prohibitions about gambling allowed the game to thrive. Pete knew this. He knew not to gamble on the games. BS on telling anyone he only bet for the Reds to win, what the hell is the bookie to think when Pete placed some bet but didn't want to bet on the outcome of the Reds' game??? Pete deserves his hit record, he was a hustling, hitting, pitcher studying machine. But he doesn't deserve the Hall. And hopefully the Hall doesn't go so far downhill that it deserves Pete.

[Ricky]

Originally Posted by FrankWakefield

I think Pete Rose was a great hitter. And I'm certain he shouldn't get into the Hall except for when he's purchased an admission ticket. Read The Fix Is In, by Daniel Ginsburg. After reading that, you can still be a Rose fan, but your brain will understand why Pete can't get in, even if your heart wants him in.

Some, a few, of the peds guys were using stuff before there were rules prohibiting use of some of the substances. I don't like the use of that stuff at all, but I see a difference in using something illegal, and in using something that hasn't been ruled on at the time.

I'm a bit biased about McGwire. I think he should one day get in, and definitely Bonds and Sosa. I think A-Rod should get in. Baseball already got their vengeance on him by banning him for a year.

I don't think Clemons should get in. And I think Schilling falls a bit short of my opinion of what a HOFer should be. He was a great pitcher, and great big game pitcher. A smart, thinking pitcher. But short of HOF caliber.

There's a dozen or more folks I'd unvote, if I were the Grand Poobah of the Hall. Kirby Puckett would be the first one out. Baines would be out. There are more who'd go. But fortunately for baseball fans I'm not the Grand Poobah.

Back to Rose... I saw him play in 1964. And I saw him get the hit to pass Ty Cobb's career hits record (I went to the game before that, no hits, and in the parking structure this guy was melting down about no hits, having to work the next night, and he had 4 tickets for the next night. My friends and I bought those tickets, I think $30 each, and saw history). I saw Pete lots. But gambling is what stymied the development of professional baseball at its inception, and only the strict prohibitions about gambling allowed the game to thrive. Pete knew this. He knew not to gamble on the games. BS on telling anyone he only bet for the Reds to win, what the hell is the bookie to think when Pete placed some bet but didn't want to bet on the outcome of the Reds' game??? Pete deserves his hit record, he was a hustling, hitting, pitcher studying machine. But he doesn't deserve the Hall. And hopefully the Hall doesn't go so far downhill that it deserves Pete.

Frank, curious as to why you think bonds and Sosa should definitely get in but not Clemens?

[FrankWakefield]

At a point in time when the rules were clear, he continued using, and lied about using.

Imagine a count of all the Clemens fans back then... subtract out everyone under 13 and over 25, then subtract out those guys and gals not playing baseball or softball... what's left are a bunch of possible imitator kids who were good candidates for trying peds because they wanted to do better at high school or college ball.

I admit I'm biased against Clemons. I think he was a HOF caliber pitcher who persisted in fooling with peds way too long. It was bad for him, bad for baseball, bad for baseball fans, and bad for a bunch of kids.

And I think I'm in the minority and there's a bunch of Clemons fans and supporters. I understand we live in a democracy of sorts. I'm ok with going along with what the majority votes. But that doesn't mean the majority is right... sometimes they are, and sometimes in some instances a majority can be mistaken or wrong.