Hall of Fame Ballot Announced

[jingram058]

I don't see any of them as HOFers. Want another Harold Baines fiasco? The HOF is suffering from credibility as it is. Especially Schilling. He shouldn't get in on the strength of being an all-time moron. Right or wrong, that's how I feel.

[Vintagedeputy]

Don Mattingly was the greatest hitter I ever saw. You could throw loose dimes across the outfield and Donnie Baseball could hit them with a batted ball. All this nonsense about hitting against the shift / ban the shift would have meant nothing to Mattingly. He could put a ball on the field wherever he wanted to.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jingram058

I don't see any of them as HOFers. Want another Harold Baines fiasco? The HOF is suffering from credibility as it is. Especially Schilling. He shouldn't get in on the strength of being an all-time moron. Right or wrong, that's how I feel.

How are these eight like Baines?

3 are obviously statistically HOFers, but have the David Ortiz problem that was just ignored.

2 are punished for personality and/or politics.

2 are questionable but are the opposite of Baines; Mattingly and Murphy are peak players not accumulators.

McGriff comes the closest, but he hardly seems to be a Baines type choice at all.

Schilling, if elected, will be elected for his 79.5 WAR and statistical performance, not for being an “all-time moron”.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by G1911

How are these eight like Baines?

3 are obviously statistically HOFers, but have the David Ortiz problem that was just ignored.

2 are punished for personality and/or politics.

2 are questionable but are the opposite of Baines; Mattingly and Murphy are peak players not accumulators.

McGriff comes the closest, but he hardly seems to be a Baines type choice at all.

Schilling, if elected, will be elected for his 79.5 WAR and statistical performance, not for being an “all-time moron”.

Couldn't agree more, aside from my feeling that Schilling is the only deserving candidate of the lot. Having polarizing opinions is completely separate from your achievements in your career.

How does Ortiz just get in so effortlessly? It pisses me off. I never liked the guy, not that my opinion matters in the equation of his being inducted when all the other users aren't. None of them or all of them. You can't have it both ways. If Ortiz could be revoked, I would be a happy guy.

[Bigdaddy]

So for me the whole steroid thing boils down to this: There is a rule that any player banned from MLB is not eligible for the HOF - think Rose or Shoeless Joe. Bonds, Clemens and Palmiero are not banned from MLB and could in theory play again next year if they could make a roster. If MLB has a problem with them, then make a statement and ban them from the game. That would solve the HOF issue.

But just like the lame Bud Selig who did nothing when steroids were raging, MLB continues to turn a blind eye and not take a strong stance. Yes, I know there are now stronger penalties, but it took a congressional hearing to push the league to do something.

[GeoPoto]

This is the way I lean -- if baseball (and the union) didn't feel that PEDs were sufficiently identified as unacceptable that banning was appropriate, then it falls in the "I'll do anything I can to help my team win (and make myself money)" category. In 1998, Bonds (likely without PEDs) became the first player in MLB history to get 400 HRs and 400 SBs. Everybody was too busy celebrating the McGuire/Sosa assault on 61 HRs to notice Bonds. La Rusa was shaming sports writers for violating the sanctity of the clubhouse and writing about McGuire's cream. Bonds, not unreasonably, decided he could do what they were being lauded for.

Originally Posted by Bigdaddy

So for me the whole steroid thing boils down to this: There is a rule that any player banned from MLB is not eligible for the HOF - think Rose or Shoeless Joe. Bonds, Clemens and Palmiero are not banned from MLB and could in theory play again next year if they could make a roster. If MLB has a problem with them, then make a statement and ban them from the game.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by BillyCox3

Couldn't agree more, aside from my feeling that Schilling is the only deserving candidate of the lot. Having polarizing opinions is completely separate from your achievements in your career.

How does Ortiz just get in so effortlessly? It pisses me off. I never liked the guy, not that my opinion matters in the equation of his being inducted when all the other users aren't. None of them or all of them. You can't have it both ways. If Ortiz could be revoked, I would be a happy guy.

There is no longer even a pretense of objectivity. A political enemy is to be kept out for that reason, a steroid user who failed tests is to be kept out only if the media doesn’t like them or doesn’t care about them. A user who they salivate over is to be forgiven. Actually not even forgiven, the crime (treated as such for everyone else) is simply ignored. The blatant corruption and cronyism of the writers today is as bad as the Frisch days VC’s.

I am agnostic on if roiders should go in, I think it just be, ya know, logically consistent. Yes for Ortiz and no for Bonds and Clemens is nothing but an absolute joke.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by G1911

There is no longer even a pretense of objectivity. A political enemy is to be kept out for that reason, a steroid user who failed tests is to be kept out only if the media doesn’t like them or doesn’t care about them. A user who they salivate over is to be forgiven. Actually not even forgiven, the crime (treated as such for everyone else) is simply ignored. The blatant corruption and cronyism of the writers today is as bad as the Frisch days VC’s.

I am agnostic on if roiders should go in, I think it just be, ya know, logically consistent. Yes for Ortiz and no for Bonds and Clemens is nothing but an absolute joke.

Is Ortiz the only one who is in who had some chemical enhancement?

I thought Rickey was accused of also being on the sauce. And probably my paisan Piazza too.

But maybe the case for Ortiz being on something is a bit more obvious?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by raulus

Is Ortiz the only one who is in who had some chemical enhancement?

I thought Rickey was accused of also being on the sauce. And probably my paisan Piazza too.

But maybe the case for Ortiz being on something is a bit more obvious?

Question 1 is, of course, impossible for me to know. I can’t divine or know every action every player has taken in their life. I use a reasonable evidentiary basis as any reasonable person would.

Piazza has been accused. I don’t know about Rickey. Pudge I suspect probably did use. Bagwell has had suspicion. Ortiz though, failed a test unlike Bonds (who the evidence is for is common sense compelling) that the media got their hands on. That would seem to be reasonable evidence. He was the first one with real direct evidence to get in, and that event was just memory holed in the press as his much more accomplished peers were barred from admittance for the media darling to be shoveled in without any regard for consistency.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by G1911

Question 1 is, of course, impossible for me to know. I can’t divine or know every action every player has taken in their life. I use a reasonable evidentiary basis as any reasonable person would.

Piazza has been accused. I don’t know about Rickey. Pudge I suspect probably did use. Bagwell has had suspicion. Ortiz though, failed a test unlike Bonds (who the evidence is for is common sense compelling) that the media got their hands on. That would seem to be reasonable evidence. He was the first one with real direct evidence to get in, and that event was just memory holed in the press as his much more accomplished peers were barred from admittance for the media darling to be shoveled in without any regard for consistency.

I thought Canseco had accused Rickey in his book. Of course, we can debate how much weight to give to this source. But it's not nothing.

[cammb]

Originally Posted by G1911

How are these eight like Baines?

3 are obviously statistically HOFers, but have the David Ortiz problem that was just ignored.

2 are punished for personality and/or politics.

2 are questionable but are the opposite of Baines; Mattingly and Murphy are peak players not accumulators.

McGriff comes the closest, but he hardly seems to be a Baines type choice at all.

Schilling, if elected, will be elected for his 79.5 WAR and statistical performance, not for being an “all-time moron”.

What did he do that you labeled him a "moron" ?

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by cammb

What did he do that you labeled him a "moron" ?

He went on anti-Semitic public rants, plural, that made him appear to be a classic "moron" in every sense of the word. Go look it up...

[cammb]

Originally Posted by jingram058

He went on anti-Semitic public rants, plural, that made him appear to be a classic "moron" in every sense of the word. Go look it up...

I di look it up. It seemed he was labeled an anti semite for asking why Jews vote demoncrat in elections. Now a days, labels have become cheapened..

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cammb

What did he do that you labeled him a "moron" ?

I did not. Do you not know what quotation marks signify?

[cammb]

Originally Posted by G1911

I did not. Do you not know what quotation marks signify?

No, enlighten me.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cammb

No, enlighten me.

https://gprivate.com/62fwa

[cammb]

Originally Posted by G1911

https://gprivate.com/62fwa

Pretty clever, condescender.

[glynparson]

Originally Posted by jingram058

I don't see any of them as HOFers. Want another Harold Baines fiasco? The HOF is suffering from credibility as it is. Especially Schilling. He shouldn't get in on the strength of being an all-time moron. Right or wrong, that's how I feel.

LOL. What absurdity. This is ridiculous. Pretending baines was the first going a friend a favor moment with the hall is hysterical.