HOF Future Eligibles

[bcbgcbrcb]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Jobu

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.

[Jobu]

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.

Originally Posted by rats60

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.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Jobu

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]

Originally Posted by Jobu

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.

[bnorth]

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]

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]

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.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

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!

[ElCabron]

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

-Ryan

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

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]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

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?

[ALR-bishop]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Runscott

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]

Originally Posted by conor912

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.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by dgo71

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:

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.

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by Runscott

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.