The New Hall of Fame

[earlywynnfan]

Plus, you need to look at the context of the era. While Berkman and Mize and very similar, there are some noticable and, IMO, important differences between the two. Berkman had a quality season last year, but seems to be tailing off faster than Mize did,meaning his lifetime average is going to drop even farther below Mize. Mize is all over the leaderboards, meaning what he did as opposed to his contemporaries is more impressive. Berkman has reached or surpassed the totals Mize may have put up, but Mize lost 3+ nearly-prime seasons to fight in a war. Really, looking at pure totals, the only thing Berkman did better than Mize is hit doubles and walk. Many of those categories aren't even close. (Mize led the league in triples?? Who knew?)

Ken

[joelsabi]

I'm a Cardinals fan, but I put a former Rockie in my example for a reason. For one, I find it unfair to disregard stats just because a player performed well in a certain ballpark. Though players tend to hit more home runs in Colorado, there have still only been a few guys to do it well for a long time (Helton, Walker, Holliday). With the exception of Helton, these guys have performed well in other parks as well.

I remember the Cardinals getting Hollidya back in 2009 and hearing the constant talk that he was only an elite hitter because he played in Colorado. Then, when he STILL hits .300+ with 25+ home runs and 90+ RBIs, it became because he had Albert in front of him. Now that Albert is gone, the excuses have partially stopped and everyone has realized that he is an elite hitter. A park doesn't make a hitter HOF worthy ... his performance over time does.

As far as character plays into the hall of fame, that seems to be misunderstood as well. With more media in today's world, players are constantly watched. They can't make a mistake without it being well documented, and for this they are deemed unworthy of the Hall of Fame.
What about older generations of players famous for doctoring balls and gloves, corking bats, and taking other forms of performance enhancers.

Here is a clip from Zev Chafets's book on the Hall of Fame:

"In 1961, during his home run race with Roger Maris, Mickey Mantle developed a sudden abscess that kept him on the bench. It came from an infected needle used by Max Jacobson, a quack who injected Mantle with a home-brew containing steroids and speed. In his autobiography, Hank Aaron admitted once taking an amphetamine tablet during a game. The Pirates' John Milner testified at a drug dealer's trial that his teammate, Willie Mays, kept "red juice," a liquid form of speed, in his locker. (Mays denied it.) After he retired, Sandy Koufax admitted the he was often "half high" on the mound from the drugs he took for his ailing left arm."

But even though greats like Mantly, Aaron, and Koufax found their own way of "cheating," they are still considered superior to modern cheaters like Bonds.

Players have always tried to cheat, and it is ignorant to believe they wouldn't cheat in any way that they could. I'll leave this with the words of Mike Schmidt.

"Let me go out on a limb and say that if I had played during that era I would have taken steroids. ... We all have these things we deal with in life, and I'm surely not going to sit here and say to you guys, 'I wouldn't have done that.'"

Check out this link. I got some of the information from it. Great read on the subject.
http://www.aolnews.com/2009/06/22/ju...lways-cheated/

thanks for the link and summary