whats your HOF philosophy???

[rainier2004]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

I, too, feel the BBWAA needs to stop playing judge and jury on who should get in based off anything other than their on the field play compared to their on the field counterparts.

Bonds may have used PEDs but so did Canseco. I would never consider Canseco a HOFer but Bonds undoubtedly is one of the most dominant players of the game even compared to his contemporaries. Just because someone used PED didn't make them good. It may have helped them drive the ball farther but they still had to make contact. PEDs didn't help Bonds strikeout less. Look at McGwire and Sosa. McGwire's K% (percent of PA that were Strike outs) was at 20.8% and Sosa's 23.3%. Bonds was only 12.2%, that has to do with good contact hitting and plate patience, if this was caused by PED then his number wouldn't be 10% lower. In fact Bonds only had one season with more than 100 strikeouts, and that was his RC season. In 2004 Bonds hit more home runs than he struck out (45 HR, 41 SO).

The problem is people had come up with milestone stats to determine HOF and the PED users skewed this a little bit by hitting more home runs. Yet when you compare them to their contemporaries you get a better picture of who the premier players were/are and Bonds is definitely one of them.

Andy - Everything you say is completely logical, well thought out, thorough and shows good application of stats for comparison sake. The fact that Bonds has those HR/K numbers is amazing in this day of baseball and resembles the power hitters of the 40s and 50s....but I still despise Bonds, we all know he was on PEDS regardless if he peed dirty and Mr. Aaron is still my HR king. I say keep him out...

[CurtisFlood]

The Hall of Fame is for the Famous.

That being said, if they exclude McGwire and Palmeiro they must also exclude Bonds, Clemens, and any other media darlings or hotpoint guys.

[Centauri]

I say let'em in but tell the story. I don't think we can assume any player from the era is entirely clean.

[z28jd]

Originally Posted by rainier2004

Andy - Everything you say is completely logical, well thought out, thorough and shows good application of stats for comparison sake. The fact that Bonds has those HR/K numbers is amazing in this day of baseball and resembles the power hitters of the 40s and 50s....but I still despise Bonds, we all know he was on PEDS regardless if he peed dirty and Mr. Aaron is still my HR king. I say keep him out...

Just asking you since you brought up Hank Aaron, who admitted to trying amphetamines once in his career. Do you seriously believe his story? He claimed to have no idea what it was and he only did it once because it made his nervous/anxious. We all know now that the players from the 60's took them quite often and while it didn't have the effect of steroids, it helped them compile stats because they were up for every game, so that is an obvious help. I just didn't like the "peer pressure" and only tried it once story that Aaron concocted. I'm not sure how people just let that go without calling bull.

Not trying to single out Aaron, but he was the one that came out with the crazy story. If someone hit 40 homers at age 39 nowadays, that would send up huge red flags. Since amphetamines are illegal now in the game, you could easily make a case for Ruth still being the home run king, but no one does.

[glchen]

I personally think that the PED users and suspected PED users should be left out of the HOF during this Baseball Writers round, and have their fates left to the Veteran's Committee. If existing HOFer's think that these players deserve to be their peers, then so be it.

[MacDice]

My philosophy is that if elected after I pass away, I have instructed my family to reject the nomination.

[z28jd]

Originally Posted by glchen

I personally think that the PED users and suspected PED users should be left out of the HOF during this Baseball Writers round, and have their fates left to the Veteran's Committee. If existing HOFer's think that these players deserve to be their peers, then so be it.

The problem with this is it's all hearsay. If Derek Jeter(fox example) did something, which I'm sure he did considering how much stuff became illegal when the testing did, how would you know? The only person that can say he was clean was him and who is going to believe him when it comes down to what these other players have gone through.

So we will never know if Jeter or any other player from the era is clean. Basically, they should all be suspected PED users because no one can tell you they were clean.

You could use Jeter and say, wait he slugs .552 in 1999 and never breaks .481 after that. Just one random off the charts year on a team filled with steroid guys in the middle of the era? Or look at Barry Larkin and say where did that 33 home run season come from? He wasn't a home run hitter. Or look at John Smoltz, his numbers start going down in 1993 and 94, then he comes back from the strike and starts pitching like an ace again during the higher offense years? No one has ever mentioned them, but you can find a season or time that stands out. How would anyone know what they did those years to get better?

On the flip side, guys like Rondell White and Carlos Baerga came back from the off-season jacked and it hurt because they may have got too big and lost range of motion, so even then you can't just look for seasons that stand out.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by z28jd

Just asking you since you brought up Hank Aaron, who admitted to trying amphetamines once in his career. Do you seriously believe his story? He claimed to have no idea what it was and he only did it once because it made his nervous/anxious. We all know now that the players from the 60's took them quite often and while it didn't have the effect of steroids, it helped them compile stats because they were up for every game, so that is an obvious help. I just didn't like the "peer pressure" and only tried it once story that Aaron concocted. I'm not sure how people just let that go without calling bull.

Not trying to single out Aaron, but he was the one that came out with the crazy story. If someone hit 40 homers at age 39 nowadays, that would send up huge red flags. Since amphetamines are illegal now in the game, you could easily make a case for Ruth still being the home run king, but no one does.

This wasn't a discussion for this thread maybe, but since it came up...

I would say that Ruth is still the Home Run King (if you exclude PED users). Ruth had 11.76 AB/HR. This ranks second behind McGwire, but had McGwire played another 6/7 years that definitely would have dropped, but he couldn't stay around. Aaron's AB/HR is only ranked 37 all time at 16.49. His career home run total is due to having 3319 more PA than Ruth.

If you look at people that had Game longevity (20+ years) and had AB/HR better than Aaron you are still left with 7 players.


Babe Ruth+ (22):11.76
Barry Bonds (22):12.92
Jim Thome (22):13.76
Harmon Killebrew+ (22):14.22
Alex Rodriguez (20, 38):15.01
Jimmie Foxx+ (20):15.23
Ken Griffey (22):15.56
Willie McCovey+ (22):15.73
Hank Aaron+ (23):16.38

Even if you take out the players convicted of PED (and played in the 90s, therefor guilty by association) you are still left with 4. Aaron only lead the league in home runs for 4 seasons. Of the other 4, Ruth led 12 times, Killebrew led 6, Foxx 4 times, and McCovey 3 times. So Killebrew and Ruth still led in HR more seasons and had better HR/AB. So it is hard for me to call Hank Aaron the Home Run King based off one stat, when a deeper look shows that Ruth dominated this stat in his era (as a side note even Bonds only led in home runs twice and McGwire 4 times).


I respect people not wanting to vote for people because of dislike, but if that were the case there are several people that wouldn't be in (Anson, Cobb, Hornsby...).

[rats60]

Originally Posted by z28jd

Not trying to single out Aaron, but he was the one that came out with the crazy story. If someone hit 40 homers at age 39 nowadays, that would send up huge red flags. Since amphetamines are illegal now in the game, you could easily make a case for Ruth still being the home run king, but no one does.

Illegal now is the key phrase. We don't punish spit ball pitchers who did it legally. Cobb and Speaker fixed a game pre Black Sox, but weren't punished. Guys who used greenies when they weren't banned shouldn't be punished after the fact.

In 1991, Fay Vincent sent a letter to all teams reminding them that steroids were banned under MLB drug policy. Those players who ignored the rules and cheated deserve their puishment. I don't have a problem with Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, Sosa, ect. never being in the HOF. It is a fitting punishment. Like Pete Rose, they thought they were bigger than the game, the rules don't apply.

That guy may want to see the best players from his era. I don't want to have to explain how these players knowingly cheated the game, but are now above the rules and given its highest honor.

[Kenny Cole]

I would suggest that almost everyone already in the HOF "knowingly cheated" the game in some form or fashion. Pud Galvin was an acknowledged PED user. Perry threw a spitter. Ford admittedly cut the ball. Mantle used corked bats. When he caught, Mack made a sound to try to make umps think that a ball was actually a foul tip. Impeding base runners was an art form in the 1890s. It has been a federal crime to use amphetamines without a prescription since 1970. Cocaine is obviously illegal to use as a performance enhancer. Human ingenuity being what it is, there are countless ways to cheat the game and that's always sort of been considered OK so long as you were cheating in order to try to win. Therein lies the huge difference that keeps Jackson out.

To those who want to talk about "integrity," I don't understand that argument very well. If player A cheats by using steroids and hits 70 homers, and player B cheats by using greenies and only hits 30 homers, which one has less integrity? In that example, it is my belief that the integrity of those two players is exactly the same. They both cheated, they both tried to get an unfair advantage, and one of the two was simply more successful. In that same vein, why is cheating more effectively now deemed worse than a less effective method of cheating? If two kids cheat on a test and once makes an A and the other a C, which kid has less integrity? The integrity argument has never made any sense to me and still doesn't.

Steroids happened, just as amphetamine usage and cocaine usage happened, just as corked bats, spitters, cutters, sign stealing, etc. still happen. Saying that steroid users shouldn't be elected because they are cheats is really just a way to try and avoid dealing with the issue, particularly when those who are making that claim seem to have absolutely no issue with any of the other methods of cheating employed by those who have already been elected.

I suspect that part of the reason why some people are more incensed at steroid usage is that there is a perception, valid or not, that the steroid usage type of cheating allowed cherished records to be broken. If so, all I can say, like I have already said, is that I cannot see any logical link between integrity and breaking records. If you tried to get an unfair advantage and simply did it more poorly than someone else, that doesn't give you greater integrity.

Because the HOF has a long and vaunted history of inducting players with somewhat less than perfect integrity, I don't have a problem with inducting those who were the best of their time or, in the case of Bonds and Clemens, among the best of all time. If the HOF wants to note that their accomplishments may have been aided by PEDs, so be it. But it simply cannot be denied that, at least between the lines, some of the greatest players ever were active during a time when everyone's performance is suspect.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

I would suggest that almost everyone already in the HOF "knowingly cheated" the game in some form or fashion. Pud Galvin was an acknowledged PED user. Perry threw a spitter. Ford admittedly cut the ball. Mantle used corked bats. When he caught, Mack made a sound to try to make umps think that a ball was actually a foul tip. Impeding base runners was an art form in the 1890s. It has been a federal crime to use amphetamines without a prescription since 1970. Cocaine is obviously illegal to use as a performance enhancer. Human ingenuity being what it is, there are countless ways to cheat the game and that's always sort of been considered OK so long as you were cheating in order to try to win. Therein lies the huge difference that keeps Jackson out.

To those who want to talk about "integrity," I don't understand that argument very well. If player A cheats by using steroids and hits 70 homers, and player B cheats by using greenies and only hits 30 homers, which one has less integrity? In that example, it is my belief that the integrity of those two players is exactly the same. They both cheated, they both tried to get an unfair advantage, and one of the two was simply more successful. In that same vein, why is cheating more effectively now deemed worse than a less effective method of cheating? If two kids cheat on a test and once makes an A and the other a C, which kid has less integrity? The integrity argument has never made any sense to me and still doesn't.

Steroids happened, just as amphetamine usage and cocaine usage happened, just as corked bats, spitters, cutters, sign stealing, etc. still happen. Saying that steroid users shouldn't be elected because they are cheats is really just a way to try and avoid dealing with the issue, particularly when those who are making that claim seem to have absolutely no issue with any of the other methods of cheating employed by those who have already been elected.

I suspect that part of the reason why some people are more incensed at steroid usage is that there is a perception, valid or not, that the steroid usage type of cheating allowed cherished records to be broken. If so, all I can say, like I have already said, is that I cannot see any logical link between integrity and breaking records. If you tried to get an unfair advantage and simply did it more poorly than someone else, that doesn't give you greater integrity.

Because the HOF has a long and vaunted history of inducting players with somewhat less than perfect integrity, I don't have a problem with inducting those who were the best of their time or, in the case of Bonds and Clemens, among the best of all time. If the HOF wants to note that their accomplishments may have been aided by PEDs, so be it. But it simply cannot be denied that, at least between the lines, some of the greatest players ever were active during a time when everyone's performance is suspect.

This post makes no sense. The player hitting 30 hrs taking greenies did so when it wasn't against the rules. McGwire hitting 70 home runs on steriods was. Comparing them is apples to oranges.

The best comparison that I can make is the Tour de France. In the 50s and 60s, doping was allowed. Most if not all riders were doing it. Just because Lance Armstrong doped and was stripped of his titles doesn't mean that a 60s rider who admitted to doping should be stripped of his title.

Let me ask you this. If what Bonds, Sosa, Clemens ect did wasn't wrong, why are they still lying about what they did? The guys that took greenies aren't denying what they did, because it was not against the rules. The PED guys are denying they doped, because they knew the rules and chose to dope. Now they are getting their just due by being kept out of the hof. To allow them in would be telling all future players that it is OK to cheat. Just like letting Rose in would make it ok to bet on games or fix games. I don't want that version of baseball.

[Kenny Cole]

Rats60,

They took greenies until at least 2004. That is 34 years after they were illegal. In 2007, Eric Chavez wondered what the replacement would be, because he didn't think players could go without them for a season. I hesitate to call you an idiot, but you are clearly clueless about the legality of amphetamines or their effect.

[Moonlight Graham]

I'm not going to pretend that I know everything about this steroid era, but I get the feeling that the powers that be look at cheaters in different ways. The cheaters from the old days, for the most part, did it for the team and winning was all that mattered. But the PED users of the 1990's-2000's did it for themselves. Hitting the farthest home runs and being on Sportscenter every night came first-team success was second. And of course the big contracts that came with all those homers. Same with some of the pitchers. Strike outs were the only outs that mattered to them. Again, I'm not saying that I personally believe this, but it's just the overall feeling I get. However, if some of these PED guy would have just come out and admitted it immediately and addressed the reasons why they did it, maybe it would be a different story at election time. If nothing else you could at least respect them more. Just my two cents.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

Rats60,

They took greenies until at least 2004. That is 34 years after they were illegal. In 2007, Eric Chavez wondered what the replacement would be, because he didn't think players could go without them for a season. I hesitate to call you an idiot, but you are clearly clueless about the legality of amphetamines or their effect.

You want to compare Mantle and Mays taking greenies with Bonds taking steroids aND you call me clueless? You are the definition of clueless. Those guys were retired long before greenies were outlawed. If you have evidence of players from the 80s forward post it. You'll get no argument from me. However, you posts are extremely ignorant. To call me names just proves that. How about sticking to facts instead of resorting to personal attacks?

[bcbgcbrcb]

You can't really compare today's situation to what Rose did. He was one single individual and thus easy enough to single out. It is believed that as many as 75% of players between 1986 - 2006 used PED's at some point during the era. Much easier to get rid of one person than the majority of players in an era.....

[conor912]

Originally Posted by z28jd

Just asking you since you brought up Hank Aaron, who admitted to trying amphetamines once in his career. Do you seriously believe his story? He claimed to have no idea what it was and he only did it once because it made his nervous/anxious. We all know now that the players from the 60's took them quite often and while it didn't have the effect of steroids, it helped them compile stats because they were up for every game, so that is an obvious help. I just didn't like the "peer pressure" and only tried it once story that Aaron concocted. I'm not sure how people just let that go without calling bull.

Not trying to single out Aaron, but he was the one that came out with the crazy story. If someone hit 40 homers at age 39 nowadays, that would send up huge red flags. Since amphetamines are illegal now in the game, you could easily make a case for Ruth still being the home run king, but no one does.

I have long thought there was something fishy about that 1973 Braves team. You have Aaron hitting 40 HR at age 39, Darrell Evans hitting 41 (he also saw a mysterious and significant jump in his power numbers after the age of 37), and Davey Johnson hitting 43, one behind the MLB HR leader for that year, Willie Stargell. Johnson's second highest HR total? 18.