2022 Baseball Hall of Fame - tracker

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Last I read Manfred was spinning a story about how it could have been a false positive.

I'm fuzzy on the Bonds story now. Didn't he acknowledge using the "clear" but claimed his trainer told him it was a lawful supplement?

Anyhow there is no good answer to this once you make an exception for anyone. Even if you don't make an overt exception, you've almost certainly already let in people who used but managed to keep the lid on suspicions.

Peter, by Manfred saying there might be a false positive on Ortiz, he's admitting there was a positive, right? So Ortiz lied when he said he never failed a test.

You are correct about Bonds, admited in Grand Jury, he "unknowingly" took the Clear and the Cream but that it had no affect on him.

There are Steroid cheaters in the HOF, Pudge Rodriguez, just to name one. Does that mean they should make more mistakes? Just an analogy, because Jack the Ripper and the Zodiac were never caught, do we stop arresting people for murder?

[GeoPoto]

Originally Posted by Jim65

Peter, by Manfred saying there might be a false positive on Ortiz, he's admitting there was a positive, right? So Ortiz lied when he said he never failed a test.

I think Manfred's point is that many (I think he said 10-15) players who tested positive had explanations that would have negated the test results. Ortiz could have been one of them, but the adjudication process was truncated since, in theory, obtaining definitive results by player was never intended and would never be revealed or used for any purpose.

[SAllen2556]

The use of steroids was (and maybe still is) way more widespread than we'll ever know. It's pointless to try to figure out who did and who didn't. Why not just assume everyone did and take the best players from that era and put them in the hall of fame. Isn't that how hall of famers are typically determined, by how they compare to others of their own era?

Shouldn't Bonds and Clemens be in just because they were better than everyone else during their era?

Think back to the 80's and remember all the cocaine users in baseball: Willie Wilson, Gooden, Strawberry. Different era, different drugs. Amphetamines in the 70's were widespread.

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by SAllen2556

The use of steroids was (and maybe still is) way more widespread than we'll ever know. It's pointless to try to figure out who did and who didn't. Why not just assume everyone did and take the best players from that era and put them in the hall of fame. Isn't that how hall of famers are typically determined, by how they compare to others of their own era?



Shouldn't Bonds and Clemens be in just because they were better than everyone else during their era?



Think back to the 80's and remember all the cocaine users in baseball: Willie Wilson, Gooden, Strawberry. Different era, different drugs. Amphetamines in the 70's were widespread.

Cheaters shouldn't be in the Hall. They lessen the accomplishments of all the players who played fair. They set a terrible example for everyone who looked up to them and they influenced countless teenagers to take steroids too. It is the most important factor anyone should consider when voting. Their actions should never be normalized.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[skelly423]

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

Cheaters shouldn't be in the Hall. They lessen the accomplishments of all the players who played fair. They set a terrible example for everyone who looked up to them and they influenced countless teenagers to take steroids too. It is the most important factor anyone should consider when voting. Their actions should never be normalized.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I think there's an interesting conversation around the purpose of the Hall of Fame. If you subscribe to the idea that it's to honor the best and most virtuous of the players, your point is valid. That being said, there is a long list of guys racists, cheaters, abusers, and awful executives who should not be honored that are currently enshrined. (Anson, Landis, Yawkey, Perry, Ford, Puckett, Alomar, Piazza, Pudge, Selig)

If you think the purpose of the Hall of Fame is to tell the history of the game of baseball, warts and all, you simply can't tell that story without Bonds and Clemens (and Rose and Shoeless Joe).

For what my two cents are worth, the Hall has clearly failed to establish itself as a place honoring the virtuous. It should accept that, and try to tell the best, most complete history of the game. Bonds and Clemens belong in Cooperstown.

[SyrNy1960]

Originally Posted by skelly423

I think there's an interesting conversation around the purpose of the Hall of Fame. If you subscribe to the idea that it's to honor the best and most virtuous of the players, your point is valid. That being said, there is a long list of guys racists, cheaters, abusers, and awful executives who should not be honored that are currently enshrined. (Anson, Landis, Yawkey, Perry, Ford, Puckett, Alomar, Piazza, Pudge, Selig)

If you think the purpose of the Hall of Fame is to tell the history of the game of baseball, warts and all, you simply can't tell that story without Bonds and Clemens (and Rose and Shoeless Joe).

For what my two cents are worth, the Hall has clearly failed to establish itself as a place honoring the virtuous. It should accept that, and try to tell the best, most complete history of the game. Bonds and Clemens belong in Cooperstown.

Well said!!!!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

Cheaters shouldn't be in the Hall. They lessen the accomplishments of all the players who played fair. They set a terrible example for everyone who looked up to them and they influenced countless teenagers to take steroids too. It is the most important factor anyone should consider when voting. Their actions should never be normalized.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Would you put throwing illegal pitches in the same category of cheating or is that different? Genuine question, not arguing.

[skelly423]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Would you put throwing illegal pitches in the same category of cheating or is that different? Genuine question, not arguing.

How about guys with too much pine tar on their bats?

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Would you put throwing illegal pitches in the same category of cheating or is that different? Genuine question, not arguing.

I put throwing illegal pitches in the same category as corking a bat, steroids are different, IMO.

[skelly423]

Originally Posted by Jim65

I put throwing illegal pitches in the same category as corking a bat, steroids are different, IMO.

I am genuinely curious as to why you make this distinction. In all 3 cases, an unnatural foreign substance is added to try and gain an edge on the field of play. The choice was available for all players, and made by some.

[Fred]

This whole PED thing is a bit crazy. Look at the number of HOF eligible 500HR hitters not enshrined. 500HRs used to be the bar to reach to be enshrined.

Bonds (762 - Last year: 2007)
Sosa (609 - 2007)
McGwire (583 - 2001)
Palmeiro (569 - 2005)
Ramirez (555 - 2011)
Sheffield (509 - 2009)

Perhaps the voters are considering the players that "denied" the accusations of PEDs. On that list, the only one that admitted to using PEDs is McGwire, well at least until they were caught.

Clemens (354W - 2007) is somewhat similar in that he reached the 300W plateau but he also claimed he never used PEDs and was caught and continued to deny it. Maybe, just maybe the voters are looking at that.

The last year for Bonds, Sosa and Clemens was 2007. That would have been one hell of a HOF class to enshrine, but none are in.

We'll see what happens with A-Rod and Ortiz. I think being likable helps so Ortiz may stand a better chance than A-Rod, even though A-Rod clearly had the best offensive numbers (3K hits, 2K Runs, 2K RBIs and almost 700HRs).

PEDs and gambling. What a mess...

[Dead-Ball-Hitter]

50% of the ballots published. So Far:

Ortiz 83.7%
Bonds 78.1%
Clemens 77.0%

Let's go Big Papi... Love to sell your signed cards for some $$... Daddy needs a new pair of Red Hindu's!

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

Cheaters shouldn't be in the Hall. They lessen the accomplishments of all the players who played fair. They set a terrible example for everyone who looked up to them and they influenced countless teenagers to take steroids too. It is the most important factor anyone should consider when voting. Their actions should never be normalized.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

So do you think all the Astros players who cheated should have been ruled ineligible and permanently banned from the HOF?

[abothebear]

Originally Posted by BobC

So do you think all the Astros players who cheated should have been ruled ineligible and permanently banned from the HOF?

Maybe. It would have been better if MLB took real action and stripped them of the WS. Then it would be easier to deal with players about their Hall of Fame potential, having been penalized in an appropriate way. Same with the roiders, if MLB did real testing and had real punishments (not just suspensions, but statistical judgments, like removing HRs). Bonds would probably be in if MLB tested, he was guilty, and they took away 150 home runs. I have some sympathy for the Joe Jackson case for the Hall because he was banned from the game for his actions. He paid a price that affected his career performance (since his career was over). I also still see the case against him, throwing games is a foundational blow to the spirit of the game. I consider the kind of steroid use alleged by the biggest stars of the game - significantly distorting aging curves, salary economics, and the sacred record books - to also be a foundational blow to the spirit of the game, so if I was voting, I don't think I'd vote them in even if they were appropriately tested, caught, and punished. But it would make it easier to sort through these things if they had.

[abothebear]

What do y'all think about this... there are at least two kinds of cheating, cheating within the game, and cheating without (and brought within). Fixing games is taking cheating outside of the field of play and bringing it in. Fixing an at-bat for your buddy on the other team by telling him what pitch is coming, within the field of play. Performance-enhancing drugs like steroids are done outside the field of play and brought in. Doctoring a baseball, stealing signs, taking LSD (maybe), all within the field of play. If you can get away with it, more power to you. If you get caught, you get tossed. The Astros crossed a line by stealing signs outside the field of play (using video technology from outside) and bringing it in.

These two kinds are substantially different, and the consequences should be different. That doesn't mean one can't judge a within-the-game cheater, or a strong case can't be made against chronic ball-doctorers or the like, but I don't think those cases are well-argued when they equivocate one type of cheating with the other.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by SAllen2556

The use of steroids was (and maybe still is) way more widespread than we'll ever know. It's pointless to try to figure out who did and who didn't. Why not just assume everyone did and take the best players from that era and put them in the hall of fame. Isn't that how hall of famers are typically determined, by how they compare to others of their own era?

Shouldn't Bonds and Clemens be in just because they were better than everyone else during their era?

Think back to the 80's and remember all the cocaine users in baseball: Willie Wilson, Gooden, Strawberry. Different era, different drugs. Amphetamines in the 70's were widespread.

This is exactly my thought process. Every era has its "thing". If the MLB let's something affect results, then it's part of the game during the era it's allowed. They let roids save baseball.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by GeoPoto

I think Manfred's point is that many (I think he said 10-15) players who tested positive had explanations that would have negated the test results. Ortiz could have been one of them, but the adjudication process was truncated since, in theory, obtaining definitive results by player was never intended and would never be revealed or used for any purpose.

Understood but the point I was trying to make was, whether the test was questionable or not, Ortiz claimed he never failed a drug test and thats a lie.

[nat]

Rolen's defense is what makes him a HOF caliber player. Rfield measures expected runs saved defensively, numbers to follow are based on Rfield. Now, at 3B, nobody touches Brooks, but Rolen stacks up well against the next tier. He saved 35 more runs across his career than did Graig Nettles - to take one great defensive third baseman. He did this, moreover, in 700 fewer games than did Nettles. So, he was saving far more runs per-game than was Nettles. And his best season is equal to Nettles' best season (30 runs saved).

Nettles, of course, isn't a hall of famer. But Rolen hit like Paul Molitor (as noted above, both have career 122 OPS+), and fielded BETTER than Nettles. It's that combination that will get him into the hall.

Given historical voting patterns, he'll probably get in next year, maybe the year after. He's at 69% on the tracker, and vote percentages for most players go down some when the final vote tally is in. So Rolen will probably end up in the mid-to-high 60s. Players with vote percentages in the mid-to-high 60s, and no steroid taint, usually get in pretty quickly.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Jim65

Understood but the point I was trying to make was, whether the test was questionable or not, Ortiz claimed he never failed a drug test and thats a lie.

He has since admitted he failed.

[Dead-Ball-Hitter]

Originally Posted by Jim65

Peter, by Manfred saying there might be a false positive on Ortiz, he's admitting there was a positive, right? So Ortiz lied when he said he never failed a test.

What was the banned substance that Ortiz took? I don't believe we even know. Some banned substance, not necessarily steriods. Where do you draw the line?

[SyrNy1960]

If Barry Bonds isn't a Hall of Famer by the end of the day, it's a failure by the Hall of Fame

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/...lure-hall-fame