And it's in, Ortiz has been elected to the Hall

[Frank A]

I love it. All the criers on here rooting for the roid boys. I hope they never get in, and all their records should be trashed. Some of you guys must have hundreds of their rookie cards. Tough shit.

[jakebeckleyoldeagleeye]

Originally Posted by G1911

Only he is allowed to pop positive and face no repercussion in the vote. Bonds denied for the 10th time, Ortiz in. What a complete joke. Turning it off now.

Just goes to show if you have a cheese eating grin and a baseball has been berry berry good to me shtick you can go far. Best get him in before he gets shot again.

[jakebeckleyoldeagleeye]

Originally Posted by G1911

Bonds and Clemens didn’t test positive in all the years the testing was in place either. It makes zero logical sense that Ortiz and Ortiz alone is forgiven while everyone else continues to be denied. Ortiz was nowhere near as good as Bonds, Rodriguez, Clemens.

This years ballot seems to have very little to due with the 2 dominating factors of recent history: statistical performance and steroid status. Ortiz is let in for no consistent logical reason, Schilling is denied because for the first time ever people want to invoke the character clause for off field behavior (can anyone cite any single example of a player kept out of the hall for off field behavior?) to punish outspoken political views the media writers as a group hate, Vizquel has a historic plummet over his much more serious off the field allegations.

Hell, how does Gary Sheffield get more votes than Alex Rodriguez? This ballot appears the result of different than normal standards and outright double standards.

Ortiz couldn't hold Bonds glove or anyone's for that matter. Kid Clank makes Steve Bilko look like a Gold Glover.

[butchie_t]

Originally Posted by jakebeckleyoldeagleeye

Just goes to show if you have a cheese eating grin and a baseball has been berry berry good to me shtick you can go far. Best get him in before he gets shot again.

Chico Escuela is still not in the HOF. And he should be......

[jimjim]

Originally Posted by ajjohnsonsoxfan

Papi never tested positive in ALL the years after the rules were put in place. He's a deserving 1st ballot HOFer. I've never witnessed a better clutch hitter.

Having said that, I do also believe, Clemens and Bonds deserve to be in.

Arod never tested positive either. Those high PEDs were able to avoid detection for years. Not having a positive test means nothing in my opinion.

[JustinD]

I am again very blah about the Hall and their decision to continue to rely on electors that try to take moral stances instead of electing Hall of Fame deserving members. I gave up on caring about them forever ago as it is not the Hall of Fame and should be renamed "The Hall of Fairly Good Guys We Like". I will continue to just think it has the same luster now as a Gold Glove and just view this news in passing each year and forget in a month.

If these things still get you excited and happy please enjoy, this is just my opinion.

[jakebeckleyoldeagleeye]

Originally Posted by butchie_t

Chico Escuela is still not in the HOF. And he should be......

Ha Ha! How about Joe Shlabotnik?

[Orioles1954]

Originally Posted by JustinD

I am again very blah about the Hall and their decision to continue to rely on electors that try to take moral stances instead of electing Hall of Fame deserving members. I gave up on caring about them forever ago as it is not the Hall of Fame and should be renamed "The Hall of Fairly Good Guys We Like". I will continue to just think it has the same luster now as a Gold Glove and just view this news in passing each year and forget in a month.

If these things still get you excited and happy please enjoy, this is just my opinion.

Agreed. I used to look at the Hall of Fame as a sacrosanct accomplishment for immortals. Now, I just view the Hall for what it really is...an annual media award.

[D. Bergin]

There were HUUUUUGE paper trails for ARod/Bonds/Clemens that doesn't exist for Ortiz. Wish people would admit that.

This coming from a Yankee fan that despised Ortiz when he played.

That said, I'm pretty beyond caring whether most of these guys get in or not. It's not like people are ever going to forget who Bonds / Clemens / ARod / Pete Rose, etc......are.

I prefer seeing the guys who are nearly forgotten by time and fans, get brought back into view to be remembered and celebrated after most people have forgotten who they were, and what they might have accomplished or sacrificed in their careers.

I'll leave it to others to argue whether they "deserve" it or not.

As an aside, I've been to about 20 Boxing Hall of Fame inductions over the years. I gave up being upset about somebody getting in, that I thought didn't "deserve" it, when I saw how much it meant to the families and the many surviving boxers who had been beaten up and forgotten by time.

I'm not going to tell anybody that Harold Baines doesn't "deserve" to be in the HOF, just because Barry Bonds's head swelled to the size of a basketball over the course of his career.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by butchie_t

Time to move on from this. No amount of postulating from either faction will change the following facts:

Ortiz is in the HOF

Bonds is not in the HOF
Clemens is not in the HOF
Sosa is not in the HOF

Today is a new day, let's focus on who we hate for next years vote. Get an early start as there is plenty of time for it.

Personally I cannot wait until Todd Helton gets voted in. Gonna be a couple of years though. I can wait.......

One thing I believe we all can agree on is this: If a person that is issued a ballot to vote for the HOF and turns in an empty ballot, they should be removed from ever voting again for any further HOF ballots. And frankly if someone cannot muster at least 5 people to vote for, they should just never be able to vote again either. IMHO

If we follow this logic, that we should not discuss things that have happened in the past (including yesterday) because the past cannot be changed, then there would be almost nothing to talk about on a board about old items and baseball history.

[GasHouseGang]

I'm not happy with the Baseball HOF but at least they have a process. Don't even get me started on the Rock 'n' Roll HOF!

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Jim65

Papi failed a test. Manfred said it might have been a false positive but that he failed a test is a fact.

If Papi was a disliked guy, like Barry Bonds, writers would've used that test to justify not voting for him. But since hes well liked, enough writers gave him the benefit of the doubt or looked the other way to vote him in.

Writers have proven they cannot be fair and objective. Baseball needs a new voting system.

"Failing" a test that's riddled with problems and that itself is a failure is a big fat nothing.

https://www.masslive.com/redsox/2022...amer-says.html

From that article
Manfred said it was possible that Ortiz never registered a positive test in 2003 because of the questionable accuracy of those tests. He also said the 2003 testing should not come into play when determining players’ legacies (or Hall of Fame candidacies).

“I think whatever judgment writers decide to make with respect to players who have tested positive or otherwise been adjudicated under our program, that’s up to them,” Manfred said in Oct. 2016. “That’s a policy decision. They’ve got to look into their conscience and decide how they evaluate that against the Hall of Fame criteria. What I do feel is unfair is in situations where it is leaks, rumors, innuendo, not confirmed positive test results, that that is unfair to the players. I think that would be wrong.”

In most real testing programs, there's a backup sample that gets tested once the first one tests positive. That's to protect against lab mistakes. (and has been used years later to prove and retroactively punish doping once a specific test for say EPO becomes available. )

A wildly inaccurate test taken as fact by the NYT with no corroboration and no specifics is essentially worthless. You may as well just measure biceps and call anyone over a certain number a doper.
The real programs like the Olympic and cycling ones will clearly state what was found, and these days often how much it differs from the normal range or if there even is a normal range.

[npa589]

The only player I can't stand of the three is Clemens. I was privileged to have the opportunity to watch Bonds and Ortiz play. Even as a miserable 2004 Cubs fan, I'll never forget watching the 2004 Red Sox/Yankees series in my University of Miami dorm room and the moments provided by how clutch Ortiz was - and those great Joe Buck/McCarver calls.

That being said - at Ortiz's peak, at the pinnacle of his talent and ability, he was still no more than half of the ballplayer that Bonds was at Bonds' lowest ability level during Bonds' career. Before simply disregarding that, think it through. At no point was Ortiz ever even in the same realm as Bonds. Let's say Ortiz didn't do steroids, which is hilarious to believe (and I don't really blame them, can't say I wouldn't do the same thing given choice between meandering amidst a sea of steroid users, or leveling my own playing field - given that MLB didn't care at all), then STILL at no point was Ortiz anywhere near the ballplayer that Bonds was prior to his steroid use.

It's just pathetic, and clearly points to the media's hatred towards Bonds - who always hated them.

[triwak]

Originally Posted by jimtodd

Awesome, I wondered if there was a Buck O’Neill card in existence!

Thank you, Jim! Yes, there are VERY few cards of Buck O'Neill, all of them late 1940s Cuban issues. All extremely scarce. I was fortunate enough to acquire this team postcard from a fellow board member, and one of the hobby's top Cuban card collectors.

Now as to Bud Fowler cards... Not so much! I believe there might be ONE extant example of The Page Fence Giants team postcards, dating from the late 1890s. Thus, HOF collectors like myself probably have to be content with modern commemoratives like the 1994 example that I posted. So far, that seems to be the earliest - Fowler doesn't appear in the Laughlin sets issued in the 1970s. I could be wrong about there being anything else, made prior to 1994. I would be curious as to what others know about his cards?

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by steve B

"Failing" a test that's riddled with problems and that itself is a failure is a big fat nothing.

https://www.masslive.com/redsox/2022...amer-says.html

From that article
Manfred said it was possible that Ortiz never registered a positive test in 2003 because of the questionable accuracy of those tests. He also said the 2003 testing should not come into play when determining players’ legacies (or Hall of Fame candidacies).

“I think whatever judgment writers decide to make with respect to players who have tested positive or otherwise been adjudicated under our program, that’s up to them,” Manfred said in Oct. 2016. “That’s a policy decision. They’ve got to look into their conscience and decide how they evaluate that against the Hall of Fame criteria. What I do feel is unfair is in situations where it is leaks, rumors, innuendo, not confirmed positive test results, that that is unfair to the players. I think that would be wrong.”

In most real testing programs, there's a backup sample that gets tested once the first one tests positive. That's to protect against lab mistakes. (and has been used years later to prove and retroactively punish doping once a specific test for say EPO becomes available. )

A wildly inaccurate test taken as fact by the NYT with no corroboration and no specifics is essentially worthless. You may as well just measure biceps and call anyone over a certain number a doper.
The real programs like the Olympic and cycling ones will clearly state what was found, and these days often how much it differs from the normal range or if there even is a normal range.

I think your post kind of proves my point, people say the leaked info is flawed when it comes to Ortiz but writers use the same info to justify not voting for less popular players like Sammy Sosa and Carlos Delgado.

[darwinbulldog]

Popularity contest. I'll continue collecting cards of the best players, of which Hall membership is not a particularly accurate indicator.

[G1911]

Hell, many of the players being punished by the hall for steroids weren't even breaking any rule at all, test or no test. Andro wasn't banned when McGwire became known to be a user, and yet he, an obviously more deserving candidate than Ortiz, was ignored in the voting.

Ignoring Ortiz' test because it is known from a leak and the appeal and re-test processes wasn't in place (which seems to be what Manfred is actually referring to), while continuing to punish literally every other known user, including players who 1) didn't test positive at all and/or 2) were not even breaking the rules and/or 3) also tested positive in 2003 before the institution of the current procedures takes some truly incredible mental gymnastics to justify the obvious: Ortiz is held to a completely different standard from every other player. Reason should tell this is absurd.

[lowpopper]

[MINES_MINT]

The excuses being made on behalf of Ortiz and others such as Bonds and Clemens are just pathetic in my opinion. As fans and historians of baseball we should have integrity and respect for the game and expect the same from the players. Unfortunately, based on some of the responses I have read online, I am seriously beginning to question the character of the average baseball fan in modern culture.

When Ortiz first spoke publicly about his positive test, his response was "my results leaked because so many Yankees tested positive". Why wasn't his initial reaction to the article to deny that he had ever used PEDs in the first place? No defamation suit? No libel? In my opinion that initial reaction shows guilt, and no amount of walking it back will change that.

Manfred cosigning Ortiz for the Hall is just another blemish to his already questionable tenure as commissioner, and if you don't see the spin he put on this whole situation I'm guessing you've never hit a curve ball.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by MINES_MINT

The excuses being made on behalf of Ortiz and others such as Bonds and Clemens are just pathetic in my opinion. As fans and historians of baseball we should have integrity and respect for the game and expect the same from the players. Unfortunately, based on some of the responses I have read online, I am seriously beginning to question the character of the average baseball fan in modern culture.

When Ortiz first spoke publicly about his positive test, his response was "my results leaked because so many Yankees tested positive". Why wasn't his initial reaction to the article to deny that he had ever used PEDs in the first place? No defamation suit? No libel? In my opinion that initial reaction shows guilt, and no amount of walking it back will change that.

Manfred cosigning Ortiz for the Hall is just another blemish to his already questionable tenure as commissioner, and if you don't see the spin he put on this whole situation I'm guessing you've never hit a curve ball.

How does Manfred have a choice?

[GeoPoto]

Originally Posted by MINES_MINT

Manfred cosigning Ortiz for the Hall is just another blemish to his already questionable tenure as commissioner, and if you don't see the spin he put on this whole situation I'm guessing you've never hit a curve ball.

So, the world you wish to live in is one where a player, gullible enough to accept MLB's (Manfred's) word that a test would be confidential, have no consequences and, therefore, would skip over due-process, would end up "convicted" of a "failed test" and publicly shamed out of consideration for the Hall of Fame. Ortiz and the other players who were "tricked" into agreeing to be tested, participated in a key step toward getting the player's union to support driving steroids out of baseball (for the most part, at least). It seems to me you could replace "gullible" with "courageous" in my first sentence above.

[lowpopper]

Barry Bonds is king...HOF or not.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by GeoPoto

So, the world you wish to live in is one where a player, gullible enough to accept MLB's (Manfred's) word that a test would be confidential, have no consequences and, therefore, would skip over due-process, would end up "convicted" of a "failed test" and publicly shamed out of consideration for the Hall of Fame. Ortiz and the other players who were "tricked" into agreeing to be tested, participated in a key step toward getting the player's union to support driving steroids out of baseball (for the most part, at least). It seems to me you could replace "gullible" with "courageous" in my first sentence above.

Ortiz failed a test. Nothing in your statement changes that fact.

[G1911]

Where was the outrage for the other players who failed in 2003 and are still being kept out of the hall? Ortiz’s actions are now “courageous” while every other roider is still a cheater? When these are the arguments to try and justify the obvious, you know there’s no logical counterpoint.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Wasn't Pedro on the list?

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Wasn't Pedro on the list?

I watched Pedro give an interview when he was trying to sell his book. He openly admitted he and the entire team was on PEDs. It was hilarious because the interviewer was doing everything he could to get Pedro to STFU. Pedro just kept running his mouth about a specific time when the whole team took PEDs together before a playoff game.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I watched Pedro give an interview when he was trying to sell his book. He openly admitted he and the entire team was on PEDs. It was hilarious because the interviewer was doing everything he could to get Pedro to STFU. Pedro just kept running his mouth about a specific time when the whole team took PEDs together before a playoff game.

Everything I have seen from Pedro is a denial. Odd. I have seen him claim 60 percent of baseball was using, but not an admission about himself, to the contrary.

[G1911]

Where is this video of Pedro admitting to use?

His name, as far as I can tell, was on a 2003 list that appeared on the internet with no sourcing or validation, not the apparently valid leak to the Times that Ortiz’ test became known from.

Can sourcing for these allegations be shared?

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Jim65

I think your post kind of proves my point, people say the leaked info is flawed when it comes to Ortiz but writers use the same info to justify not voting for less popular players like Sammy Sosa and Carlos Delgado.

Most of the players are tough decisions for me in a few ways.

Sosa, doubled his HR production at an age when many people start slowing down a bit. That's a bit surprising. Then there's the whole idea of comparing him to Maris, who had a similar bump, but only for one year and a bit earlier in his career.

Delgado? I haven't heard any accusations, and his career numbers are pretty consistent. I think he somehow got added to the suspect list when there's really no reason.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Article from a while back critical of Ortiz.

http://archive.boston.com/sports/col...ouble_kee.html

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Everything I have seen from Pedro is a denial. Odd. I have seen him claim 60 percent of baseball was using, but not an admission about himself, to the contrary.

It was after he was already in the HOF so he probably didn't care anymore.

Originally Posted by G1911

Where is this video of Pedro admitting to use?

His name, as far as I can tell, was on a 2003 list that appeared on the internet with no sourcing or validation, not the apparently valid leak to the Times that Ortiz’ test became known from.

Can sourcing for these allegations be shared?

It was an interview before a game on FOX. Not sure how to find it and am not going to waste my time looking. I have no reason to lie about it.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by bnorth

It was after he was already in the HOF so he probably didn't care anymore.



It was an interview before a game on FOX. Not sure how to find it and am not going to waste my time looking. I have no reason to lie about it.

I am not accusing you of lying. This is a new claim I have not heard before, asking for the evidence is not a criticism. If it's on video this should have been significant news among at least a subset of baseball fans. I can find no record of this.

[BCauley]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I watched Pedro give an interview when he was trying to sell his book. He openly admitted he and the entire team was on PEDs. It was hilarious because the interviewer was doing everything he could to get Pedro to STFU. Pedro just kept running his mouth about a specific time when the whole team took PEDs together before a playoff game.

I'm assuming you're talking about when Pedro said that before playoff games in 2004, the team would take a shot of alcohol and that Manny Ramirez would put Viagra in them. Something that is not banned and enhances a different kind of performance.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by MINES_MINT

The excuses being made on behalf of Ortiz and others such as Bonds and Clemens are just pathetic in my opinion. As fans and historians of baseball we should have integrity and respect for the game and expect the same from the players. Unfortunately, based on some of the responses I have read online, I am seriously beginning to question the character of the average baseball fan in modern culture.

When Ortiz first spoke publicly about his positive test, his response was "my results leaked because so many Yankees tested positive". Why wasn't his initial reaction to the article to deny that he had ever used PEDs in the first place? No defamation suit? No libel? In my opinion that initial reaction shows guilt, and no amount of walking it back will change that.

Manfred cosigning Ortiz for the Hall is just another blemish to his already questionable tenure as commissioner, and if you don't see the spin he put on this whole situation I'm guessing you've never hit a curve ball.

If integrity and respect for the game is your standard, then that has to apply to all involved.

A leak from un-named attorneys, corroborated by nothing.

I'm not sure about the other players, but Ortiz was never informed about a positive test, something you'd think they'd want to do.

Along with not being told, they couldn't tell him what he'd tested positive for. Which is in many ways the single most important piece of information. I can see not making it public, but not informing the player?

If they had the info, why not also release what each player tested positive for? To this day that has never happened. Some things that could be tested for are present in some pretty mundane stuff. Many over the counter supplements, at least one cyclist got in trouble over a poppy seed bagel....
So release that information.

The government got the info, and at least for Bonds the actual sample. (Note, only one sample, when every serious testing program takes two.)
The 2003 program didn't find anything, but the government testing sure did.

So right off, either the testing was for the wrong things, or was poorly done.


Having integrity and respect for the game would not be anonymously "releasing" information that was supposed to be confidential, and that wasn't properly done, making it unreliable.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Jim65

Ortiz failed a test. Nothing in your statement changes that fact.

Ok, since you must have inside info-

Failed in what way?
For what substance?
The testing was done by who?
And since we know it didn't follow internationally standard protocols, how was it done? Methodology? protection of chain of custody?

Anyone can be an anonymous source, but to me they are not credible if they don't have that sort of information.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by BCauley

I'm assuming you're talking about when Pedro said that before playoff games in 2004, the team would take a shot of alcohol and that Manny Ramirez would put Viagra in them. Something that is not banned and enhances a different kind of performance.

Yes and no. The version I watched he also talked about some type of PED Manny was bringing back from the DR and was also putting in it.

EDIT: To add, I don't care if he did PEDs I just don't like that he got in and arguably the GOAT pitcher and one of the best offensive players off all time didn't. Hell I think PEDs should be mandatory as it was a much better game when they didn't have to hide it and do untested PEDs that don't show up in tests like they do now.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by steve B

Ok, since you must have inside info-

Failed in what way?
For what substance?
The testing was done by who?
And since we know it didn't follow internationally standard protocols, how was it done? Methodology? protection of chain of custody?

Anyone can be an anonymous source, but to me they are not credible if they don't have that sort of information.

If you think Papi didn't use, what's your take on his transformation beginning in 03 from his Twins years?

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by steve B

I'm not sure about the other players, but Ortiz was never informed about a positive test, something you'd think they'd want to do.

That's false. Ortiz himself has confirmed that he failed a test.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Yes and no. The version I watched he also talked about some type of PED Manny was bringing back from the DR and was also putting in it.

So, while promoting his book in which he vehemently denied taking PEDs, he did an interview admitting he took PEDs? That makes no sense.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Tabe

So, while promoting his book in which he vehemently denied taking PEDs, he did an interview admitting he took PEDs? That makes no sense.

Maybe he was just trying to get people to buy the book. I have no idea I just know what he said.

Even if it was just(LOL) alcohol and Viagra how is that not distribution and consuming an prescription DRUG that is also a performance enhancer? That is several felony drug counts for us normal people.

I am still waiting on an explanation from the pro Ortiz crowd about his amazing year at 40 years old.

[yanks12025]

Originally Posted by ajjohnsonsoxfan

The first round of testing was supposed to be a blind test to see if there was cause to do more testing in the future. The NY Times leaked some of the results and named Ortiz as testing positive. Ortiz has always claimed that that was a hit piece by the NY media because there were a bunch of Yankees that had also tested positive and no one from Boston. I don't believe he ever admitted to using PED's. The fact that he never tested positive in ALL the years after even as the testing got better and more accurate says to me he either never took PED's or stopped after the league made it illegal. I have a hard time believing that he somehow evaded the hundreds of tests over the years with designer PED's.

Regardless, he's immortalized now and deservingly so. Loved watching him dismantle the Yankees in 2004.

Not testing positive for years means nothing. A-rod and a bunch of other players got caught and suspended around 2012/2013 with zero positive tests.

Also in the early years of testing, players names weren't released unless they failed more than one test.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by steve B

Ok, since you must have inside info-

Failed in what way?
For what substance?
The testing was done by who?
And since we know it didn't follow internationally standard protocols, how was it done? Methodology? protection of chain of custody?

Anyone can be an anonymous source, but to me they are not credible if they don't have that sort of information.

It was leaked in a NYT story that Papi failed a test in 2003. Papi has since admitted he failed the test. Manfred said Papi failed a test, but the testing resulted in some false postives and he never disclosed what banned substance it was and writers should use their judgement when voting for Ortiz.

Papi failed a drug test. No inside info.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

If you think Papi didn't use, what's your take on his transformation beginning in 03 from his Twins years?

I heard a Papi supporter claim it was all Fenway Park effect. lol

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Jim65

I heard a Papi supporter claim it was all Fenway Park effect. lol

My favorite was when one supporter said that huge mound of muscle was a dad bod.

[BCauley]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

If you think Papi didn't use, what's your take on his transformation beginning in 03 from his Twins years?

I'm not saying one way or the other if he used or not, but he had a few injuries to his wrist(s) and didn't get consistent playing time. Whenever the Twins sent him back down to the minors and he played regularly, he put up the numbers. When on the Twins, he didn't get that. Even when he got to the Red Sox in '03 he at first didn't play regularly due to Jeremy Giambi taking away from his playing time and he didn't do much. It was only when Ortiz started playing every day, about two months into the season, that he started producing.

I read some article the other day that mentioned something about the Twins stadium at the time and the park playing a factor as well with him. Something about him always trying to pull the ball to hit a home run instead of using the whole field or something and that the dimensions for Fenway made it easier for him to use the whole field/hit home runs. I don't remember the details on that though but that was the general idea.

[Fred]

Doesn't this all really boil down to Bonds, Clemens and others not being really friendly with the press and the amount of deception with the players (look at Palmeiro, great example of deception).

I bet if Bonds wasn't such a dick with the press and he was a "darling" of the press, then he'd be in.

The guy was a MONSTER for the Giants. Incredible numbers and look at the respect/fear they had for him when they gave him 120 free intentional passes (and a total of 232 BB) in 2004.

Papi = nice guy = HOF induction.

Who'd you rather have on your team? A-Rod or Papi?
Papi = in HOF
A-Rod = less than 50% of the required votes for HOF

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Fred

Doesn't this all really boil down to Bonds, Clemens and others not being really friendly with the press and the amount of deception with the players (look at Palmeiro, great example of deception).

I bet if Bonds wasn't such a dick with the press and he was a "darling" of the press, then he'd be in.

The guy was a MONSTER for the Giants. Incredible numbers and look at the respect/fear they had for him when they gave him 120 free intentional passes (and a total of 232 BB) in 2004.

Papi = nice guy = HOF induction.

Who'd you rather have on your team? A-Rod or Papi?
Papi = in HOF
A-Rod = less than 50% of the required votes for HOF

That's absolutely what this boils down to though, in the case of Bonds (domestic violence) and Roger Clemens (Mindy McCready), it's not just "well, he was mean to the press" that they dislike them for.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Fred

Doesn't this all really boil down to Bonds, Clemens and others not being really friendly with the press and the amount of deception with the players (look at Palmeiro, great example of deception).

I bet if Bonds wasn't such a dick with the press and he was a "darling" of the press, then he'd be in.

The guy was a MONSTER for the Giants. Incredible numbers and look at the respect/fear they had for him when they gave him 120 free intentional passes (and a total of 232 BB) in 2004.

Papi = nice guy = HOF induction.

Who'd you rather have on your team? A-Rod or Papi?
Papi = in HOF
A-Rod = less than 50% of the required votes for HOF

I would take A-Roid of Ortiz any day of the week.

Off topic like several posts. Since Alex played a little more than half his career at 3B. Career wise is he considered a shortstop or third baseman? If third baseman were does he fit on the all time best list for third basemen? Top 3 are easy with Mike Schmidt first. Wade Boggs and Eddie Mathews are second and third with no wrong order for those 2 legends. With only half his career at third I can't see Alex ahead of those 3.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Off topic like several posts. Since Alex played a little more than half his career at 3B. Career wise is he considered a shortstop or third baseman? If third baseman were does he fit on the all time best list for third basemen? Top 3 are easy with Mike Schmidt first. Wade Boggs and Eddie Mathews are second and third with no wrong order for those 2 legends. With only half his career at third I can't see Alex ahead of those 3.

Tough to say. I would say, at their peaks, Alex was better than Schmidt at 3B. Career-wise, Schmidt at 3B is ahead of Alex. But Alex also has half a career as the best SS of all-time.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BCauley

I'm not saying one way or the other if he used or not, but he had a few injuries to his wrist(s) and didn't get consistent playing time. Whenever the Twins sent him back down to the minors and he played regularly, he put up the numbers. When on the Twins, he didn't get that. Even when he got to the Red Sox in '03 he at first didn't play regularly due to Jeremy Giambi taking away from his playing time and he didn't do much. It was only when Ortiz started playing every day, about two months into the season, that he started producing.

I read some article the other day that mentioned something about the Twins stadium at the time and the park playing a factor as well with him. Something about him always trying to pull the ball to hit a home run instead of using the whole field or something and that the dimensions for Fenway made it easier for him to use the whole field/hit home runs. I don't remember the details on that though but that was the general idea.

Ortiz had maybe 50 more HR on the road for his career than at home. A lot more 2B at home though and a much better BA. This is for whole career and I haven't filtered out the Minn years btw.