HOF voting

[helf35]

These voters are jokes. If you are voting Bonds and Clemens why are you leaving Sosa and Mcgwire off and for that matter Palmerio should be back on the list. These are the voters who refuse to vote Mcgriff or Raines yet they vote Jeff Kent. Was Kent better than either of these 2. Personally I think every member of the Hall should be getting a vote to even it out so worthy candidates get elected in or at least get a fair shake.

[danesei@yahoo.com]

Re: HOF voting

I don't think that the argument of "If Bonds/Clemens, then everyone" holds. The reason that Bonds/Clemens get votes is their relative positions as arguably the greatest players in the game over their respective careers.

Clemens is arguably the top RH power pitcher of his generation.
Bonds is arguably the greatest power/speed combination of all time. He holds the all-time and single season HR records.

Even if we lump all PED users into a "PED pool," it wouldn't change the fact that these two individuals were exceptional among that pool.

Let's assume for a moment that all players in the 80s/90s/00s were PED users of some sort or another. You'd be forced to either ignore a generation of baseball or, at least, pick the best of the best:

Greg Maddux - Best finesse pitcher of the generation
Randy Johnson - Best LH power pitcher of the generation
Pedro Martinez - Best RH peak power pitcher of the generation
Roger Clemens - Best RH power pitcher of the generation
Mike Piazza - Best offensive catcher of the generation
Barry Bonds - Best offensive player & power/speed combination of the generation
Rickey Henderson - Best speed player of the generation
Tom Glavine - Possibly best LH finesse pitcher of the generation

I'm sure I missed a lot of players, but that is what I view as a list of players who would be arguably in, even if they used PEDs... along with the rest of the game.

Now, after that top tier of players, I would ask "Did this player use or was he suspected of using PEDs during his career?"

That's why Bonds and Clemens in, but not the other PED users.

[danesei@yahoo.com]

Re: HOF voting

On a side note, I'm in the camp of individuals who think Piazza took PEDs. I just don't think anyone cares, since he was generally nice to the media. I think, if Bonds and Clemens were so brash with the media, they might be up in the 50+ percentile, as well.

[earlywynnfan]

Re: HOF voting

I think the idea behind Bonds and Clemens but not the others is that there is a very clear line as to when they, uh, raised their careers to another level. But with Bonds and Clemens, they both had HOF careers before this happened. I'm not saying I would vote this way, it's just what I've read.

As for McGriff and Kent, if you are looking at stats on a piece of paper, McGriff wins. But if you put it on the field, Kent was far more valuable in terms of position. How many all-time teams do you pick before you get to Kent? How many 1B are there in front of McGriff? (And I love McGriff, and Raines.)

Ken

[3arod13]

Re: HOF voting

Ex-Yankees pitcher Brandon McCarthy is well known on Twitter -- he's got almost 150,000 follower -- for his strong opinions.

He issued another recently. McCarthy, who recently signed a four-year deal with the Dodgers, wrote about the Hall of Fame on Derek Jeter's website, PlayersTribune.com

McCarthy's proposition? Put everyone, including those suspected of steroid abuse, in the Hall of Fame.

From McCarthy's post:

Admittedly, it's a mess. The ramifications extend far and wide, but I believe the answer is to admit those players whose on-field accomplishments merit it and leave history to be the final judge and jury. Ultimately, I believe the greatest injustice would be to leave worthy players--some of whom are objectively among the greatest ever--out of the Hall of Fame, when there very well may be guys already enshrined who have used performance enhancing drugs. Who knows how many PED users are already in the Hall of Fame? And in the future, who knows how many PED users, who managed to stay under the radar, will join them in Cooperstown? The true shame would be knowing that players who got away with using PEDs were voted in, while others connected to PEDs--either by proof, or worse yet, suspicion--continue to be left out and villainized.

McCarthy then posted his own Hall of Fame ballot, which included Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens.

[johnsontravis@ymail.com]

Re: HOF voting

So there are lots of people who murdered others, but simply walk around and we don't know about it. So let's just let the ones we know just walk free so everyone can be in the same boat. Just release everyone from jail because it isn't fair they are locked up when others did the same thing and are free.

Sorry McCarthy that is some broken logic you hold. I'd be more accepting of someone saying PEDs are ok than what you suggested.

[danesei@yahoo.com]

Re: HOF voting

So there are lots of people who murdered others, but simply walk around and we don't know about it. So let's just let the ones we know just walk free so everyone can be in the same boat. Just release everyone from jail because it isn't fair they are locked up when others did the same thing and are free.

Sorry McCarthy that is some broken logic you hold. I'd be more accepting of someone saying PEDs are ok than what you suggested.

There's a huge logical fallacy at work here...

I think it's called "False Analogy" or something. After all, the difference between PED users and murderers is the degree to which they are punished. In the case of PED users, they're punished according to the MLB rules and uniform player agreement between MLB & MLBPA. The fact that HOF voters choose to exclude PED users and suspected users out of the HOF has nothing to do with the law.

If you wanted to parallel this to murderers, you could argue that murderers who have served their time and been released into society should not be discriminated against when it comes to hiring practices. Many employers do discriminate specifically on this basis, but the EEOC is finally taking the most blatant violators to court.

To this point, MLB has taken a "hands off" approach to directing the HOF voters, with the exception of individuals on the permanently ineligible list. If Selig really wanted to take a stand against PEDs, he could have pushed for all players (including those whose names were found on "anonymous" reports) who were found to have been users of any type of PED to be banned from the HOF. If he wanted a HOF that showcased the greatest statistical players of the era, he could have mandated that voters not hold PED use against players. It's possible, if not likely, that some voters would not adhere to the rule, for personal reasons, but I think journalists, as a whole, feel they have a high level of integrity, and they'd be honest in applying the mandate.

Now, if there is a total ban on known PED users from the HOF, MLBPA would insist on having a committee to determine what the defining line is for "PED user" (known to have used; admitted to use; failed test; Mitchell report; BALCO client; Biogenesis client). I have know idea where that line would be drawn.

[Roady]

Re: HOF voting

I think the idea behind Bonds and Clemens but not the others is that there is a very clear line as to when they, uh, raised their careers to another level. But with Bonds and Clemens, they both had HOF careers before this happened. I'm not saying I would vote this way, it's just what I've read.

As for McGriff and Kent, if you are looking at stats on a piece of paper, McGriff wins. But if you put it on the field, Kent was far more valuable in terms of position. How many all-time teams do you pick before you get to Kent? How many 1B are there in front of McGriff? (And I love McGriff, and Raines.)

Ken

No they didn't and for sure Bonds didn't.
Look at the stats again and ask yourself if you would vote either of them in the HOF if they quite before taking roids. Bonds was a 25-30 HR type player with the Pirates before steroids. I have no idea where people get the idea Bonds was so great before his San Fran days and roids. I believe his first full season taking roids was 1993, his first year with the Giants.
No way he was HOF worthy in just 7 good years with the Pirates.
Clemens didn't have the body of work to be a HOFer before his first bought with steroids either. If he started taking them in 1997 as most believe then look at his stats before that. No way a HOF player. A good pitcher for several years but in definite decline until the magic juice.

[danesei@yahoo.com]

Re: HOF voting

No they didn't and for sure Bonds didn't.
Look at the stats again and ask yourself if you would vote either of them in the HOF if they quite before taking roids. Bonds was a 25-30 HR type player with the Pirates before steroids. I have no idea where people get the idea Bonds was so great before his San Fran days and roids. I believe his first full season taking roids was 1993, his first year with the Giants.
No way he was HOF worthy in just 7 good years with the Pirates.
Clemens didn't have the body of work to be a HOFer before his first bought with steroids either. If he started taking them in 1997 as most believe then look at his stats before that. No way a HOF player. A good pitcher for several years but in definite decline until the magic juice.

What is your justification of 1993 for Bonds? Bonds was the reigning NL MVP going into 1993.

The general consensus has been that Bonds started using PEDs in response to Sosa's HR surge and McGwire's 70 HRs in 1998. That would imply that Bonds started using PEDs in 1999 or 2000. Going by that assumption (as opposed to your arbitrary 1993), Bonds was already the only 400/400 player in MLB history after 1998.

Let's say we go with your assumption of 1993. From 1986-1992, Bonds had 176 HR and 251 SB, through his age 27 season. Players typically hit their peak performance years from 27-31. That means Bonds was expected to see a spike in production from 1992-1996, based upon a typical aging curve. Bonds had a 204 OPS+ in 1992 and 206 OPS+ in 1993. From 1986-1999, his career looked pretty normal, so I think it's a reach to believe Bonds started using "steroids" (your word) in 1993.

If not for voters valuing batting average & hits over HR, SB, SLG, OBP, runs & RBI in 1991, Bonds would have won the NL MVP award for four consecutive seasons (1990-1993). I don't see how a player who had a reasonable shot at four consecutive MVP awards would be considered anything but great.

[3arod13]

Re: HOF voting

I find it amazing that many, including MLB, team owners, coaches, players, fans, collectors, media, ESPN, etc., all had an idea and/or knew back then that this was going on, yet cheered them on, with many benefitting from it and most enjoying the ride. Funny, how when things took a turn for the negative, many got on their high horse, look the other way, and now can't believe this even went on.

[3arod13]

Re: HOF voting

I find it amazing that many, including MLB, team owners, coaches, players, fans, collectors, media, ESPN, etc., all had an idea and/or knew back then that this was going on, yet cheered them on, with many benefitting from it and most enjoying the ride. Funny, how when things took a turn for the negative, many got on their high horse, look the other way, and now can't believe this even went on.

And now they're considered cheaters. Hilarious!!

[johnsontravis@ymail.com]

Re: HOF voting

Some things that go into voting:

Integrity-Nope
Sportsmanship-Nope
Character-Nope

I'm not sure why anyone still thinks Clemens or Bonds should be in the HOF. Especially Bonds! Who cares what they did before steroids. The matter of the fact is they both lack any good moral values and are cheaters.

[Roady]

Re: HOF voting

What is your justification of 1993 for Bonds? Bonds was the reigning NL MVP going into 1993.

That award does not give him the ability to hit .336 with 46 home runs.

[danesei@yahoo.com]

Re: HOF voting

That award does not give him the ability to hit .336 with 46 home runs.

Correct. His ability to hit for contact, hit for power and quick bat speed led to his hitting .336 w/ 46 HR.

1992 (age-27 season):
140 G, 109 R, 147 H, 36 2B, 5 3B, 34 HR, 103 RBI, 39 SB, 8 CS, 127 BB

1993 (age-28 season):
159 G, 129 R, 181 H, 38 2B, 4 3B, 46 HR, 123 RBI, 29 SB, 12 CS, 126 BB

He played 13.6% more games in 1993. He hit 35.3% more HRs in 1993. His batting average improved by 8%.

Those aren't extreme changes.

1994 (age-29 season):
112 G, 89 R, 122 H, 18 2B, 1 3B, 37 HR, 74 RB, 29 SB, 9 CS, 74 BB

1995 (age-30 season):
144 G, 109 R, 149 H, 30 2B, 7 3B, 33 HR, 104 RBI, 31 SB, 10 CS, 120 BB

If we go with your conclusion that Bonds used steroids from 1993, how do you explain 1994 and 1995? Did Bonds decide that he shouldn't use steroids anymore? His 1992 and 1995 seasons are nearly identical.

The simpler (and far more logical) conclusion is that Bonds matured during his prime and learned to maximize his skill set.

The difference in 1998 and 1999 statistics are far more drastic (and indicative of something changing).

1998 (age-33 season):
156 G, 120 R, 167 H, 44 2B, 7 3B, 37 HR, 122 RBI, 28 SB, 12 CS, 130 BB

1999 (age-34 season):
102 G, 91 R, 93 H, 20 2B, 2 3B, 34 HR, 83 RBI, 15 SB, 2 CS, 73 BB

Another thing to consider is that Bonds' career unfortunately also involved three home ballparks:

1986(21)-1992(27): Three Rivers Stadium (335 RF)
1993(28)-1999(34): Candlestick Park (328 RF)
2000(35)-2007(42): Pac Bell/SBC/AT&T Park (309 RF)

The 309 RF foul pole made that a left-handed pull-hitter's dream. If you got the ball over the 24 ft wall, it was a HR. If you didn't clear the wall, the ball would take a wicked bounce, and the batter would be awarded with a double or triple.

[Roady]

Re: HOF voting

In my mind Bonds is a cheater and got what he got with artificial help from illegal drugs. I believe wholly that he started taking PED's full time in 1993 and was experimenting with them in 1992. Bonds wanted to move to San Fran for a reason.

I can't say anymore because every time I defend my point of view on this site I get an email from administration because some people want me off of here and report my post as hostile or baiting. I am down to my last warning so I must be very careful of what I say.

Have a good day and believe what you want.