HOF Future Eligibles

[Exhibitman]

On the juicers, it seems to me that the game has to decide whether integrity plays a role in the HOF. Bonds and Clemens were likely HOFers without the steroids but we will never know that in the end because they cheated, as have A-Roid and Palmiero and several others, which we know for a fact. I don't care if they can jack a ball into the upper deck or throw 100 mph. If I ever have a grandson and if I ever get to take him to Cooperstown I'd really prefer not to have to explain how the PED jocks are role models. I'd rather show him the stats these guys have and explain that they cheated and because of that they have never been given the honor of election to the hall. And yes, I do realize that there are some pretty shitty people in the HOF--racists, drunks, and jerks--but their presence is not a reason to add some more bad apples to the barrel. That said, if there is nothing in the Mitchell Report on a guy and nothing else showing he used I don't see how you can justify keeping him out on the basis of PED use.

[HRBAKER]

I fail to see the reason to be sympathetic to someone's plight for the HOF when they chose to cheat for the money, the fame, the records, the contracts. Being snubbed by the voters is part of paying the piper to me. It is no less of a HOF to me without these guys in it and that goes for Mr. Rose as well.

[conor912]

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.

[HRBAKER]

The stats although certainly there seem to be of limited importance to a number of writers who question their legitimacy.

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

The stats although certainly there seem to be of limited importance to a number of writers who question their legitimacy.

Yeah, and that's one of the things that I find to be so ironic and hypocritical. The stats are really important when one is championing a given player for induction. Black Ink, Gray Inc., HOF monitor, HOF standards, pure stats and advanced metrics. However, those same stats become "suspect," potentially illegitimate, and thus irrelevant when that same person is arguing against the induction of someone else. Funny how that works.

[johnmh71]

Every time one of the roid guys comes onto the ballot, it should force the Veterans Committee to take a hard look at some of the guys who dominated their era legitimately in the past. I would rather see them put in one of those guys from the 16 team days before one of the offenders.

[bcbgcbrcb]

To say that Bonds and Clemens should be in the Hall because their stats were good enough before PED's makes no sense. The same thing could have been said for Joe Jackson and Pete Rose. Does it look like those two will be getting in any time soon? Ever?

[bcbgcbrcb]

To me, the only valid argument for Bonds and Clemens is that you resign yourself to the fact that during the era of their playing careers, the majority of players were using PED's so if "all" of their contemporaries were doing it, the playing field was level and these two excelled in this environment above all others. Of course, now that opens the door for those players who were one level below the performance of Bonds & Clemens, namely Palmeiro, Ramirez, Pudge, etc. At least now you are judging everyone the same way as always, by stats and not PED use.

I know many people will hate reading this argument but it makes sense.

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

To say that Bonds and Clemens should be in the Hall because their stats were good enough before PED's makes no sense. The same thing could have been said for Joe Jackson and Pete Rose. Does it look like those two will be getting in any time soon? Ever?

Phil, I absolutely didn't say that. Rose doesn't get in because, as I said earlier, he violated the one rule -- the one that says that if you bet on baseball you are kicked out and ineligible -- that is on every clubhouse door. I am more sympathetic to Jackson's plight, since I believe that Comiskey and his cronies were evil bastards who are far worse character-wise than the players who they screwed.

Bonds and Clemens were probably HOFers before there was ever a PED issue involving them. But that's not the biggest issue to me. Rather, IMO, PEDs were a fact of baseball during most of their tenure and, at a minimum, I think baseball condoned it. I think it is hypocritical to jump on the bandwagon and shoot at them while idolizing the earlier HOF players who also cheated and/or suffered from even worse character flaws. Their body of work made them HOFers just as much as the racists, killers, thieves, other drug users and other cheaters are. I understand that my position here is probably in the minority, but at least it has the virtue of being consistent.

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by johnmh71

Every time one of the roid guys comes onto the ballot, it should force the Veterans Committee to take a hard look at some of the guys who dominated their era legitimately in the past. I would rather see them put in one of those guys from the 16 team days before one of the offenders.

So who dominated their era "legitimately"? I think the assumption that occurred is one of the biggest problems I have with this whole discussion. I would suggest that most of them cheated (wasn't it Durocher who said that "if you're not cheating, you're not trying"), and that your tolerance for the type of cheating that occurred really forms the basis for your viewpoint about who should be elected to the HOF. Are there levels of cheating such that some types are ok, while others should keep one out of the HOF? Please discuss.

[HRBAKER]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

Yeah, and that's one of the things that I find to be so ironic and hypocritical. The stats are really important when one is championing a given player for induction. Black Ink, Gray Inc., HOF monitor, HOF standards, pure stats and advanced metrics. However, those same stats become "suspect," potentially illegitimate, and thus irrelevant when that same person is arguing against the induction of someone else. Funny how that works.

That is what PEDs have given us.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by conor912

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.