OT: Who's your vote

[dgo71]

Originally Posted by itjclarke

ABSOLUTELY- a player's performance as compared with their peers of the same era means as much if not more than just their yearly or career totals... clearly there was an era prior to 1893 when the mound was closer, there was a dead ball era, there was seemingly a very live ball era in the 20'-30's.. didn't the league bat nearly .300 in 1930?? (is Lefty Grove any less dominant because his ERA ended up over 3.00 or over a run higher than Ed Walsh? No), the mound was lowered after the year of the pitcher in 1968, offense died and they created the DH, and on and on. Every one of these periods affected the statistics of the players in that era, and how a player performs relative to those of his era should be taken into account when judging greatness.

What you fail to realize is that not one of the factors you mentioned constituted cheating. Every player in those era was on a level playing field, which makes comparing them to those in their era valid. Steroids put players on a different field, and now it is unfair to say Player X was the best of his era when you don't know how much of this "greatness" was artificially induced.

Overall, I think "era" and "position" are taken into account a great deal. But people (voters) don't know how to treat the steroid era because you cannot apply the same rules across the board. That's why it was CHEATING.

Originally Posted by packs

I still think its ridiculous that people even consider Biggio. He was not a HOFer. Look at things this way. If Vizquel hung around and got 3,000 hits, would that make him a HOFer? Or is he already a HOfer? If we're talking about Biggio, no one would think he's a HOFer without his milestone, and even with it people don't think he is. So why would he even be considered at all? Seems like people throwing their votes away.

Again, taking "position" into account, Biggio played catcher and second base the majority of his career and was hands down one of the best in the game in his time, at his position. He is a sure-fire HOFer who would have been elected in his first year easily had his election come twenty years ago. He was unfairly punished by the era he played in by voters who aren't sure how to handle any player from that era.

And as far as "hanging around" goes, I will never understand how longevity became such a knock on a player. If someone is good enough to play at a high level, in the very best level of competition, how is that not a positive? Are you going to say Hank Aaron was a compiler? After all, he played 23 seasons.

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by dgo71

What you fail to realize is that not one of the factors you mentioned constituted cheating. Every player in those era was on a level playing field, which makes comparing them to those in their era valid. Steroids put players on a different field, and now it is unfair to say Player X was the best of his era when you don't know how much of this "greatness" was artificially induced.

Overall, I think "era" and "position" are taken into account a great deal. But people (voters) don't know how to treat the steroid era because you cannot apply the same rules across the board. That's why it was CHEATING.:

NOT my point at all.. I was only pointing out why I agreed that McGriff's 30+ HR and league leading years were more impressive in an era when fewer guys were doing it... It had little or nothing to do with the steroid issue.

[Big Ben]

I treated this poll as for whom I would vote to out into the Hall of Fame today. Limiting this to the options mentioned, my vote was for Biggio, and Lee Smith. I think that in time, more will come out as to who used and did not use PED's. I have read that according to some Hall of Fame players, the rumor is out there that a PED user is already in the Hall of Fame. Interesting.

[kmac32]

Big Lee is one of the all time great relievers and just an all around good guy. Know him well from my years at Cubs camp. Biggio should be in also. Hopefully next year.

[tbob]

Next year: Glavine not a Hall of Famer???? The guy won 305 games. If you let in Don Sutton because he won 300 games and include Ferguson Jenkins, Phil Niekro and Bert Blyleven, how in the world can you exclude Glavine? Glavine and Maddux are no-brainers next year. Thomas should also be in the Hall too.
I remember when Yogi Berra wasn't voted in the first year of his elgibility and Piazza couldn't hold Yogi's jock, so Piazza needs to be patient, like Carter he will get in eventually.
By the way- If I had one game to win I'd still take Jack Morris over Blyleven, Jenkins, Niekro or Sutton. I am beginning to doubt Black Jack ever gets in though, that would be a shame.
Personally until the veterans committee votes in Tony Oliva and Mike Donlin, I'll think the whole system is flawed.

[itjclarke]

I think Glavine needs to be a lock, 1st ballot, not only because he won 300 in an era when pitchers weren't supposed to reach 300 anymore.. but because he was one of the first and only players (Jeff Kent spoke out also) that had the nads to take a stand early on for the implementation of PED testing.

[Paul S]

Originally Posted by tbob

If I had one game to win I'd still take Jack Morris over Blyleven, Jenkins, Niekro or Sutton. I am beginning to doubt Black Jack ever gets in though, that would be a shame.
Personally until the veterans committee votes in Tony Oliva and Mike Donlin, I'll think the whole system is flawed.

I'd have to go with Jenkins -- having seen him pitch he was no nonsense, somewhat like Gibson.
Agree that the Vet Ctte is flawed re Oliva and Donlin.

[Jlighter]

Originally Posted by Big Ben

I have read that according to some Hall of Fame players, the rumor is out there that a PED user is already in the Hall of Fame. Interesting.

I have heard that as well. Heres a little article about it

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/20...-hall-of-fame/

I did a little statistical research and came up with 4 potential users.

Ryne Sandberg- http://www.baseball-reference.com/pl...andbry01.shtml

Wade Boggs- http://www.baseball-reference.com/pl...oggswa01.shtml

Carlton Fisk- http://www.baseball-reference.com/pl...fiskca01.shtml

Andre Dawson- http://www.baseball-reference.com/pl...awsoan01.shtml

This is only based on a players statistical output, not any character research.

[HRBAKER]

Biggio is probably the lone listee I would vote for.

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by Jlighter

I have heard that as well. Heres a little article about it

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/20...-hall-of-fame/

I did a little statistical research and came up with 4 potential users.

Ryne Sandberg- http://www.baseball-reference.com/pl...andbry01.shtml

Wade Boggs- http://www.baseball-reference.com/pl...oggswa01.shtml

Carlton Fisk- http://www.baseball-reference.com/pl...fiskca01.shtml

Andre Dawson- http://www.baseball-reference.com/pl...awsoan01.shtml

This is only based on a players statistical output, not any character research.

I think the guy was hinting that both the conversation and HR spike happened in the same year. So depending on what time during '88, he could've been referring to either the '87(if the conversation happened after), '88, or '89 season. Fisk's spike was in '85 and probably too early to coincide with the term "Canseco milkshake". Dawson's '87 is WAY suspicious.. And I agree so was Boggs' '87(his was way out of the ordinary, but I'm willing to concede that sometimes you just have one of those stretches. Sandbergs '90 looks off, but not nearly as suspicious as some others. And as much as it pains me to say this one(with him being my favorite player), Ripken's '91 looks quite a bit out of place.

[Jlighter]

Originally Posted by novakjr

I think the guy was hinting that both the conversation and HR spike happened in the same year. So depending on what time during '88, he could've been referring to either the '87(if the conversation happened after), '88, or '89 season. Fisk's spike was in '85 and probably too early to coincide with the term "Canseco milkshake". Dawson's '87 is WAY suspicious.. And I agree so was Boggs' '87(his was way out of the ordinary, but I'm willing to concede that sometimes you just have one of those stretches. Sandbergs '90 looks off, but not nearly as suspicious as some others. And as much as it pains me to say this one(with him being my favorite player), Ripken's '91 looks quite a bit out of place.

Dawson's was the one that stood most out to me. I didn't even want to look at Cal's, it would hurt me that another record would be tainted, so I honestly hope that he's clean. The only reason I put Fisk is because he never broke 30 HRs in a season then hits 37 at the age of 37. It can happen as we have seen with Raul Ibanez.

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by Jlighter

Dawson's was the one that stood most out to me. I didn't even want to look at Cal's, it would hurt me that another record would be tainted, so I honestly hope that he's clean. The only reason I put Fisk is because he never broke 30 HRs in a season then hits 37 at the age of 37. It can happen as we have seen with Raul Ibanez.

Yeah, I'd never noticed it with Cal before, but I looked for the hell of it. His HR's jumped to 34. His previous high was 28 in his rookie season. However, my concerns come from the years that surrounded it. SLG went from .415 in '90 to .566 and then back down to .366 in '92(although this low could have something to do with adjusting to the new ballpark) before he leveled back off to his career average of the low-mid .400s

[itjclarke]

Wasn't '87 also the year of "juiced ball" rumors? I haven't checked overall stats, but just remember there were a lot of ridiculous numbers put up that year. You had McGwire's 49 as a rookie.. Kevin Seitzer hit .327 with about 30 bombs, Matt Nolkes hit over 30, Boggs' 24, Dawson's 47... I think 1986 and 1988 were very tame by comparison. Offense had sagged for most of the 70's and 80's so I halfway believed those rumors... I was also a little kid and very impressionable.

[dgo71]

Originally Posted by itjclarke

NOT my point at all.. I was only pointing out why I agreed that McGriff's 30+ HR and league leading years were more impressive in an era when fewer guys were doing it... It had little or nothing to do with the steroid issue.

Sorry! Misunderstood your point, I agree McGriff doesn't get nearly the love he should.

[Runscott]

McGriff managed to last longer by saving his legs, as opposed to using steroids. I saw him on several occasions stand and watch to see if a ball he hit would go over the fence, then only make it to first when it bounced off the wall. McGriff - a big 'NO'.

It's interesting to see Biggio beating out Bonds - I thought Net54 was basically in favor of rationalizing steroid use?