Let's talk about Hall of Fame candidates who have been "neglected"

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

wtf?

My 82 year old mother would tell you that those three letters stand for "well that's fantastic"

[molenick]

You can get elected as a pioneer or early years selection...that committee last had an election in 2016 and no one got in (top vote-getters were Doc Adams, Bill Dahlen, and Harry Stovey). The last people to get in via this committee were Hank O'Day, Jake Ruppert, and Deacon White in the 2013 election (results announced in 2012). The next scheduled meeting of the committee is this December.

One problem is that they cover a very broad range of years. There are four different veterans committees and the one called Early Baseball currently covers 1871-1949. So in the last election, Bucky Walters and Marty Marion were on the ballot along with pioneers and actual early players (I don't think of Marty Marion as an early player). The first hurdle is getting on the ballot and it is much harder when you are competing against people over such a wide range of years. This to me is four eras (pioneer/pre-league, organized 19th century, dead ball, pre-integration live ball). The other three committees are much more focused (for example, the Golden Days committee covers 1950-1969).

The other problem is that after this year's election, they are not meeting again for another ten years! So basically if Adams, Barnes, Creighton, Dahlen, Ferrell, Magee, Mathews, etc. don't make it this time they are not getting in for a long time (unless the HOF changes its rules).

[cammb]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

wtf?

And Clemente is a very good player with 3000 hits. So whats the problem?

[maniac_73]

Originally Posted by tiger8mush

Clemens and Bonds?

Its my understanding that over half the league is thought to have been using PEDs at the time, which MLB knew about but did nothing to stop. Pitchers faced hitters on PEDs, hitters faced pitchers on PEDs. MLB started serving suspensions for PED usage in 2005; Bonds & Clemens finished their careers playing 2005 and 2006 and 2007 (in their 40s) w/o a suspension. Both were SOOO dominant, their stats are just crazy. And they faced opponents who were also on PEDs.

How many years have pitchers been doctoring the ball with spider tack and other substances, which is against MLB rules, but was never stopped until now? None of the Astros lost their stats nor rings for cheating and many of those same coaches and players are still playing today. Many old timers, including HOFers, have admitted to (or been accused of) cheating in one way or another.

I was on the fence in the past, but am leaning towards induction for them both. Thoughts?

Im very pro those guys and steroid era guys getting in but figured that would take this thread in a way different direction lol

[Orioles1954]

Good article. I also wonder how Hodges would have performed in the pitcher's era of the 1960s.

https://halloffameindex.com/2019/09/...-vs-norm-cash/

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by tiger8mush

Clemens and Bonds?

Its my understanding that over half the league is thought to have been using PEDs at the time, which MLB knew about but did nothing to stop. Pitchers faced hitters on PEDs, hitters faced pitchers on PEDs. MLB started serving suspensions for PED usage in 2005; Bonds & Clemens finished their careers playing 2005 and 2006 and 2007 (in their 40s) w/o a suspension. Both were SOOO dominant, their stats are just crazy. And they faced opponents who were also on PEDs.

How many years have pitchers been doctoring the ball with spider tack and other substances, which is against MLB rules, but was never stopped until now? None of the Astros lost their stats nor rings for cheating and many of those same coaches and players are still playing today. Many old timers, including HOFers, have admitted to (or been accused of) cheating in one way or another.

I was on the fence in the past, but am leaning towards induction for them both. Thoughts?

I agree with you. And even though it shouldn't be, I would imagine that the steroid era is treated a lot differently because most other cheating in baseball (past and present) is a lot more subtle.

If a pitcher doctors the ball or a hitter is gulping greenies by the handful to really sharpen their edge in various ways, you usually don't see a thing. But on the flipside, what's more noticeable than Bonds and McGwire turning into highly bulked up action figures at the plate (and then hitting 70+ homers in a season to smash a decades-long record)?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cardsagain74

I agree with you. And even though it shouldn't be, I would imagine that the steroid era is treated a lot differently because most other cheating in baseball (past and present) is a lot more subtle.

If a pitcher doctors the ball or a hitter is gulping greenies by the handful to really sharpen their edge in various ways, you usually don't see a thing. But on the flipside, what's more noticeable than Bonds and McGwire turning into highly bulked up action figures at the plate (and then hitting 70+ homers in a season to smash a decades-long record)?

I agree with this. I think it's a combination of how visible it is, the absurd statistics it produced (Gaylord Perry chucking spitters pithed very well, but he didn't obliterate records like a video game character), and the sense that the cheating is somehow unnatural. A 'boys will be boys' cheating of scuffing a ball or throwing a spitter sometimes feels different to many, than using the latest lab drugs to fundamentally change the field of play every single at-bat where they appear like the Hulk. Perhaps it should not feel different, but I think that it does to many.

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by G1911

I agree with this. I think it's a combination of how visible it is, the absurd statistics it produced (Gaylord Perry chucking spitters pithed very well, but he didn't obliterate records like a video game character), and the sense that the cheating is somehow unnatural. A 'boys will be boys' cheating of scuffing a ball or throwing a spitter sometimes feels different to many, than using the latest lab drugs to fundamentally change the field of play every single at-bat where they appear like the Hulk. Perhaps it should not feel different, but I think that it does to many.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Q_KQ5f8PAY

[SD]

Real question is, is the hall of fame a history of the greatest performers during there era, regardless of character flaws or the writers way to only elect players they enjoyed being around.
Should Integrity and humility really have a place in the hall? Or should it only be based on numbers. Does the era played truly get taken into account? If so, the steroid era is no different then any other era of baseball. All had rule breakers trying to get an advantage. Was steroids really much different then players intentionally fixing games, doctoring balls or belittling another player based on ethnicity? All, knowingly cheated or showed lack of integrityans can be easily found in the hall. If so, Rose, Bonds, Clemens, Schilling and McGwire all are deserving.

Sent from my SM-A716U1 using Tapatalk

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by SD

Real question is, is the hall of fame a history of the greatest performers during there era, regardless of character flaws or the writers way to only elect players they enjoyed being around.
Should Integrity and humility really have a place in the hall? Or should it only be based on numbers. Does the era played truly get taken into account? If so, the steroid era is no different then any other era of baseball. All had rule breakers trying to get an advantage. Was steroids really much different then players intentionally fixing games, doctoring balls or belittling another player based on ethnicity? All, knowingly cheated or showed lack of integrityans can be easily found in the hall. If so, Rose, Bonds, Clemens, Schilling and McGwire all are deserving.

Sent from my SM-A716U1 using Tapatalk

...

[SD]

Originally Posted by Mark17

...

What I was meaning to say above is there is a lot of players in the hall that have been accused of cheating and still got in.
So do all those players now get an asterisk?
Clemens and Bonds have denied their use. So if they get in, asterisk?
Or do we embrace the steroid era and accept that it was sort of baseballs fault for not dealing with it in the 90s. MLB teams will always push their players to push the boundaries of whats legal. Technology has just help expose the cheating in the game after it helped those players get an advantage.

Sent from my SM-A716U1 using Tapatalk

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by SD

What I was meaning to say above is there is a lot of players in the hall that have been accused of cheating and still got in.
So do all those players now get an asterisk?
Clemens and Bonds have denied their use. So if they get in, asterisk?
Or do we embrace the steroid era and accept that it was sort of baseballs fault for not dealing with it in the 90s. MLB teams will always push their players to push the boundaries of whats legal. Technology has just help expose the cheating in the game after it helped those players get an advantage.

Sent from my SM-A716U1 using Tapatalk

Of course. I don't know why I bother posting this every couple of years, but the best players of the 50s/60s/70s were using the best substances available to them at the time to enhance their performance, and so were the best players of the 80s/90s/2000s. There's no good reason to think that Bonds and Clemens wouldn't have used greenies if they had been born a generation earlier and no good reason to think that Aaron and Mays wouldn't have used "PEDs" (TM) if they had played a generation later. Being pleased that two of those guys are in the Hall and that the other two are not then is tantamount to endorsing discrimination on the basis of birth year, which is silly.

[Ricky]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

Of course. I don't know why I bother posting this every couple of years, but the best players of the 50s/60s/70s were using the best substances available to them at the time to enhance their performance, and so were the best players of the 80s/90s/2000s. There's no good reason to think that Bonds and Clemens wouldn't have used greenies if they had been born a generation earlier and no good reason to think that Aaron and Mays wouldn't have used "PEDs" (TM) if they had played a generation later. Being pleased that two of those guys are in the Hall and that the other two are not then is tantamount to endorsing discrimination on the basis of birth year, which is silly.

Aaron didn’t use greenies. In his autobiography he said he tried them once and the way they made him feel scared him so never again.

[jingram058]

At the end of the day, the one guy not in that seems totally idiotic that he isn't is Gil Hodges. Go ahead and ignore this, and yack ad-nauseum or write a PhD dissertation about this guy, that guy, the other guy, whatever. The Hall of Fame has lost credibility big-time over the past few years over some really bad decisions, and you can't explain, ignore or deny it away. Perception is reality. I used to think I really wanted to visit Cooperstown, but as Dylan said, things have changed.

[SD]

Originally Posted by jingram058

At the end of the day, the one guy not in that seems totally idiotic that he isn't is Gil Hodges. Go ahead and ignore this, and yack ad-nauseum or write a PhD dissertation about this guy, that guy, the other guy, whatever. The Hall of Fame has lost credibility big-time over the past few years over some really bad decisions, and you can't explain, ignore or deny it away. Perception is reality. I used to think I really wanted to visit Cooperstown, but as Dylan said, things have changed.

Exactly, the election process for the hall is flawed. If Ortiz gets in 22, then the flood gates will open.

Sent from my SM-A716U1 using Tapatalk

[vintagechris]

I'll try to limit my list as admittedly I'm that guy that thinks we should let more in.
Gil Hodges
Steve Garvey
Deacon Phillippe
Dave Parker
Kenny Lofton
Luis Tiant
Ken Boyer
Jack Glasscock
Minnie Minoso
Tony Oliva
Dave Concepcion(I don't know why great defense is not more of a consideration but heck the guy has over 2300 hits too).

[SD]

Was Garvey worse than Tommy McCarthy, Rizzuto, Mazeroski, George Kelly or Baines? If thats the standard to get in, there's a lot of players who have been overlooked.

Albert Belle averaged a homer every 3.5 games during his carrer, ended with a average right under 300, better then Baines. Had less then half the amount of ABs as Baines but more HRs and a way higher ops, war and slugging %. But no he is not a HOF in my book.
Shoot Harold McCrae averaged better per season #s then Baines.
I don't even want to start on George Kelly....



Sent from my SM-A716U1 using Tapatalk

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by SD

Was Garvey worse than Tommy McCarthy, Rizzuto, Mazeroski, George Kelly or Baines? If thats the standard to get in, there's a lot of players who have been overlooked.

Thankfully, the “the mistakes of the past are the new criteria” approach isn’t the one widely used.

[SD]

From Verducci'd SI article on the matter about Bagwell.

[Here are some facts about Bagwell: he hired a bodybuilder (later hired by Luis Gonzalez) in 1995 to make him "as big as I can," flexibility be damned; took the steroid precursor andro (as well as supplements such as creatine, HMB, zinc, etc.), underwent a massive body change; maintained a bodybuilder weightlifting regimen; called the whistle-blowing in 2002 by Caminiti "a shame" and the one in 2005 by Jose Canseco "very disappointing . . . whether it's true or not;" promulgated the red herring that drugs don't help baseball players ("Hand-eye coordination is something you can't get from a bottle," he said of his andro use); and as recently as 2010 in an ESPN interview openly endorsed steroid use by anyone from a fringe player ("I have no problem with that") to superstars such as Bonds and McGwire ("I know you took it but it doesn't matter") as well as the HGH use by an injured Andy Pettitte ("That's not a performance enhancer").]

Again no denial of use. If you didnt use, wouldnt you deny the accusations?

Here is the full article

https://www.si.com/mlb/2013/01/08/ha...-roger-clemens

Sent from my SM-A716U1 using Tapatalk

[packs]

I don't remember there being very much proof that Buck Weaver took money to throw a World Series he hit 324 in. But he is still banned, no?

When did proof become more important than belief in baseball?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by packs

I don't remember there being very much proof that Buck Weaver took money to throw a World Series he hit 324 in. But he is still banned, no?

When did proof become more important than belief in baseball?

He wasn’t banned for rigging games, he was banned for knowing others were rigging games and keeping his mouth shut as it happened, of which there was some evidence.

[G1911]

Aaron's home runs, in the friendly Atlanta park:

1966: 44, led league
1967: 39, led league
1968: 29
1969: 44
1970: 38
1971: 47
1972: 34
1973: 40
1974: 20

Highlighting his age 34 season in 1968 (the year of the pitcher, at that) as a baseline to then discredit later years does not make sense, it was a down year for him, which happens in every long-term players career. Why don't we use his age 32, 33 or 35 seasons?

Perhaps Aaron used something that gave an unfair advantage, but this is not a good or fair argument, it's cherry picking his worst and best rates, ignoring the plethora of seasons close to his best rate, and then pretending the cherry picked lower number is his "normal" somehow by which to discredit the higher figure.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by G1911

He wasn’t banned for rigging games, he was banned for knowing others were rigging games and keeping his mouth shut as it happened, of which there was some evidence.

But if he did not take money or do anything to actually throw a game then why, there was no such rule in place when that happened? He was retroactively banned by Landis, who was basically paid off by the owner's to be their hit man. In fact, there was actually no law on the books that made throwing a baseball game a criminal activity at the time either. The Black Sox trial was for alledgedly cheating others out of money they would have gotten had they won the series. If I remember correctly, I believe White Sox teammate Shano Collins was listed as the injured party in the trial, or one of them at least.

And if you are going to retroactively ban someone for one rule, then shouldn't the same be true for all rules? In which case, shouldn't the rule be retroactively applied to anyone taking amphetamines before they were banned then? And since it is basically a known fact that virtually all ballplayers back in the 50's and 60's were taking, or at least tried, greenies/amphetamines, there is an even more compelling case for most of the HOFers from back then to be banned from baseball permanently as well. I believe the current rule is three strikes for PEDs and you're out forever, right?

And before even one of you jumps on here to say you can't prove anyone did greenies because they didn't test for amphetamines back then, go look up all the stories and admissions. I believe Mays even admitted to going to his doctor for a prescription to help him get through the season, and conveniently said he didn't know what was in the pills he got though so he could always feign ignorance of knowingly taking amphtamines. I believe you could find enough evidence and support to permanently ban quite a few HOFers if that rule against PEDs were retroactively applied, like the gambling rule apparently was against Weaver.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by BobC

But if he did not take money or do anything to actually throw a game then why, there was no such rule in place when that happened? He was retroactively banned by Landis, who was basically paid off by the owner's to be their hit man. In fact, there was actually no law on the books that made throwing a baseball game a criminal activity at the time either. The Black Sox trial was for alledgedly cheating others out of money they would have gotten had they won the series. If I remember correctly, I believe White Sox teammate Shano Collins was listed as the injured party in the trial, or one of them at least.

And if you are going to retroactively ban someone for one rule, then shouldn't the same be true for all rules? In which case, shouldn't the rule be retroactively applied to anyone taking amphetamines before they were banned then? And since it is basically a known fact that virtually all ballplayers back in the 50's and 60's were taking, or at least tried, greenies/amphetamines, there is an even more compelling case for most of the HOFers from back then to be banned from baseball permanently as well. I believe the current rule is three strikes for PEDs and you're out forever, right?

And before even one of you jumps on here to say you can't prove anyone did greenies because they didn't test for amphetamines back then, go look up all the stories and admissions. I believe Mays even admitted to going to his doctor for a prescription to help him get through the season, and conveniently said he didn't know what was in the pills he got though so he could always feign ignorance of knowingly taking amphtamines. I believe you could find enough evidence and support to permanently ban quite a few HOFers if that rule against PEDs were retroactively applied, like the gambling rule apparently was against Weaver.

I didn’t say he should be banned, I said that the reason cited for his banning was factually wrong. He was banned for guilty knowledge and effectively helping cover it up, not throwing the series himself.

Whether he should have been for that is a legitimate question. I think that a player can reasonably be banned for doing something that common sense should tell you is very wrong, even if there is not a specific rule. For example, I don’t believe MLB has a rule specifically saying you can be banned for assault with a deadly weapon or attempted homicide, but I think Juan Marichal could reasonably have been banned for life for trying to smash John Roseboro’s head open with a bat.

Likening covering up the biggest scandal in sports history that ruined public trust in the game to every player that has taken a greenie, amphetamine, or sought an unfair advantage (which is probably almost every player in history) is not reasonable. The obvious difference here is that seeking an unfair competitive advantage is a different kind of bad thing from covering up the throwing of the World Series, trying to win vs. covering up trying to lose. Weaver can be defended on the reasonable ground that the line should be drawn at direct participation and not guilty knowledge. This is a better argument, and one I don’t necessarily disagree with.

[mr2686]

Originally Posted by BobC

But if he did not take money or do anything to actually throw a game then why, there was no such rule in place when that happened? He was retroactively banned by Landis, who was basically paid off by the owner's to be their hit man. In fact, there was actually no law on the books that made throwing a baseball game a criminal activity at the time either. The Black Sox trial was for alledgedly cheating others out of money they would have gotten had they won the series. If I remember correctly, I believe White Sox teammate Shano Collins was listed as the injured party in the trial, or one of them at least.

And if you are going to retroactively ban someone for one rule, then shouldn't the same be true for all rules? In which case, shouldn't the rule be retroactively applied to anyone taking amphetamines before they were banned then? And since it is basically a known fact that virtually all ballplayers back in the 50's and 60's were taking, or at least tried, greenies/amphetamines, there is an even more compelling case for most of the HOFers from back then to be banned from baseball permanently as well. I believe the current rule is three strikes for PEDs and you're out forever, right?

And before even one of you jumps on here to say you can't prove anyone did greenies because they didn't test for amphetamines back then, go look up all the stories and admissions. I believe Mays even admitted to going to his doctor for a prescription to help him get through the season, and conveniently said he didn't know what was in the pills he got though so he could always feign ignorance of knowingly taking amphtamines. I believe you could find enough evidence and support to permanently ban quite a few HOFers if that rule against PEDs were retroactively applied, like the gambling rule apparently was against Weaver.

It would be hard to ban players for taking greenies back in the day. They didn't get them off the street, and they didn't need to get them from their personal doctor. They were pretty much readily available from the team doctors in the clubhouse. Read Ball Four and you'll see they pretty much kept them in the clubhouse by the box full. As far a Steroids go, I have no problem with players that took them BEFORE they were banned. After, well that's another story.

[SD]

Didn't Aaron, Davey Johnson and Darrell Evans all have 40+ HRs in 73? All on the Braves together? Basically career years for both the latter. NOT CLAIMING AARON TOOK STEROIDS. NOT TRYING TO SPREAD FALSE INFORMATIO .

But the reality is PED's, steroids included, have been used by various athletes in all major sports by the early 60s at the latest. Look at the Russians in the 50s but Olympic athletes weren't even tested for steroids until the mid 70s. That's a long time for players to experiment with substances that weren't banned yet.



Sent from my SM-A716U1 using Tapatalk

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by SD

Didn't Aaron, Davey Johnson and Darrell Evans all have 40+ HRs over the age of 40 in 73? All on the Braves together? All part of Selig's team? If Aaron was using, he had the right guy to brush it under the rug on his side.

Reality is PED's, steroids included, have been used by various athletes in all major sports by the early 60s at the latest. Look at the Russians in the 50s but Olympic athletes weren't even tested for steroids until the mid 70s. That's a long time for players to experiment with substances that weren't banned yet.



Sent from my SM-A716U1 using Tapatalk

Johnson and Evans were 30 and 26.

Aaron also hit 34 the year before and 47 the year before that so it wasn't so out of line.

[SD]

Nelson Cruz will probably end his career right behind Bonds for HRs after 35.

Sent from my SM-A716U1 using Tapatalk

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by SD

Nelson Cruz will probably end his career right behind Bonds for HRs after 35.

Sent from my SM-A716U1 using Tapatalk

If not for his late start we might be looking at HOF worthy numbers for his career.

[YankeeHotelFoxtrot]

Dale Murphy should be in.

Roy Face deserves in before he dies

[G1911]

What's the mathematical argument for Face? An ERA 9% better than the league in less than 1,500 innings. 18-1 relief decisions in a single year is not a career achievement.

[SD]

Only pitcher w/ more career K's than Total Bases Allowed (min. 1,000 K’s): Wagner 1,196 K - 953 TB

1,382 pitchers have thrown 900+ innings in their career. 2 have a WHIP -1.000:
Wagner & Addie Joss

Guy was dominant.

Sent from my SM-A716U1 using Tapatalk