I'm not sure if anybody on here cares about the Baseball HOF. I went to Cooperstown when I was a teenager and loved it. I'd like to take my own kids one day, but man the voting system just gets worse with each passing year. I would love if somebody could give me a legitimate argument for why Clemens and Bonds received about 36% each today, but Sosa received 12%? The voters are just picking and choosing here based on God knows what. If you take steroids out of the argument, Sosa is hands-down a first ballot HOF, without question. So, why did 24% choose Bonds/Clemens, but not Sosa? Makes no sense right?
And while I'm ranting, why is Mike Piazza not in? He is the greatest hitting catcher of all-time. His name was never linked to the Mitchell Report or any of these other anonymous hearsay investigations that may or may not have actually happened. Instead, there have simply been rumors that he appears like he may have taken steroids. I don't doubt that he did. But, once we start going purely on rumors, then where does it stop? Basically, if you appeared to by physically strong and hit a lot of homeruns during the late 90's, you aren't getting in? Ken Griffey Jr., he's skinny enough that I'm sure he'll be in on the first ballot. Craig Biggio looked pretty ripped to me, but I guess his lack of HR benefitted him because he came close with over 60% this year. So, he's less guilty than Piazza?
Once the voters are done making their political statements over the next few years, I think some of these players will start getting in. Stuff like this just devalues the whole thing though. I guess its always been like this though, so what can you do. Think if the NFL HOF voting went down like this! What a disaster.
I think the higher vote totals for Clemens and Bonds were that voters thought that these guys were hall of famers prior to their steroid use. The lack of votes for Sosa, is that prior to his steroid use, his play did not warrant consideration for the hall of fame. I am sure the corked bat for Sosa didn't help either. At least that is the way that I read it.
I think Bonds and Clemens will eventually get in, I am not sure about Sosa.
I don't really care about Bonds, Sosa, Clemens et al. Sure, most of these guys were Hall worthy regardless of PED's. However, it looks like none of them will go in until a collective decision is made on the entire class of players. I am fine with it if they never get in. They knew what they were doing. I have very mixed feeling about all of them. I am more interested in Jack Morris, Piazza, Tim Raines and Lee Smith. They all deserve to be in the Hall. They all deserve the recognition that they are not getting because too much attention is diverted to the users who we know are not going in for now.
Biggio, Schilling, Morris and Piazza deserve to get in, all the others on this years ballot, do not ever deserve to be in the HOF! They cheated and they know it! McGwires numbers continue to drop, Bonds will as well.
I don't care what the numbers say, Hank Aaron is still the HR King in my eyes.
Quote from: Tom McManus on January 09, 2013, 12:29:07 PM
I think the higher vote totals for Clemens and Bonds were that voters thought that these guys were hall of famers prior to their steroid use. The lack of votes for Sosa, is that prior to his steroid use, his play did not warrant consideration for the hall of fame. I am sure the corked bat for Sosa didn't help either. At least that is the way that I read it.
I think Bonds and Clemens will eventually get in, I am not sure about Sosa.
I agree that is the logic being used, Tom. I have a major problem with it. Both Bonds and Clemens maintain their innocence to this day. The voters do not have access to PED tests from throughout anybody's career. Most of the evidence we have is based on hearsay. So, how is anybody determining when exactly these players started or stopped using steroids? Basically, skinny = clean, muscular = guilty. Mike PIazza = guilty Ken Griffey Jr. = clean. Its BS. Believe it or not, even athletes who don't use illegal substances are capable of working out and getting bigger throughout their careers. So, I'd love to know what is the year we've decided these 3 guys started using steroids? Barry Bonds would not have made the HOF based on his 7 years in PIttsburgh alone. He hit .336 46 HR in 1993 his first year in SF, by far his biggest power production to that point. We're sure he wasn't using yet at that point?
As an avid baseball fan, I can tell you for sure that Sammy Sosa, Barry Bonds, and Mark McGwire all made significant changes in their swings and approaches at the plate prior to their best years. I guarantee that had a lot to do with their numbers as well. The difference is I know exactly when they made these changes. I have no clue, and neither do the voters, about when they started taking anything illegal. To base your vote completely on hearsay, or your perceived ability to look at another man and determine that he uses steroids, is ridiculous. This is why I am pissed off.
didn't several people confirm to seeing Bonds being injected?? girlfriends, his own trainer! that itself is enough in the voters eyes evidently??
no we can't prove it, but cmon Dan, a mans skull does not grow that much to me and you. I have worn the same hat size for 20 years. Bonds hat size almost doubled from his rookie year! :o
Being seen getting injected with a substance does not mean that the substance was a performance enhancer. But what's the answer to the HOF question? Should the MLB make a decision about what years they should be considered for? Or should they remove the people that they KNOW used illegal drugs from any HOF voting in the future and let people know that only those that are left should be considered worthy?
anyone linked to PED's don't get in! that's my vote! not only did they cheat baseball, they cheated millions of fans of their right to watch our past time as it should be played.
And I call BS on who knows what was being injected. Bonds, and all others knew what they were doing. Don't let them fool you too like they have fooled themselves!
Quote from: Jon Brakel on January 09, 2013, 04:20:48 PMOr should they remove the people that they KNOW used illegal drugs from any HOF voting in the future and let people know that only those that are left should be considered worthy?
I would be fine like this. Joe Jackson and Pete Rose didn't appear on the ballot because they were not eligible. Take the matter out of the hands of the voters, because if you let them decide, its going to make a joke of the HOF.
Doug, what does 'linked to PED's' mean? Your leaving a gray area the size of the Pacific Ocean with a statement like that. Unfortunately, this does seem to be the logic being used by many of the actual voters. Is Mike Piazza linked because some people have speculated that he had acne on his back which means he may have been taking steroids? (as if you've never seen a guy who doesn't use PED's with some bacne). Are Bagwell and Pujols linked because they are ripped like bodybuilders? If you have tested positive or if there is some other hard evidence, I'm fine with just leaving them off the ballot. Don't misinterpret my argument to mean I think Bonds/Clemens/Sosa are innocent. I know what they did. But, I am not okay with just picking and choosing which roided up players get in and which ones don't. Either vote them in based on the merits of their career on the field, or leave them all out.
The game of baseball was almost dead. The game was on life support until these big HR hitters came along. Vote them all in.
and why was the game almost dead? because of the players and their last strike! not because no one was hitting HR's! what's that saying...... Cheaters never win!
and Dan, I agree. if a positive test or other hard evidence, they should be left off the ballot! but, Bonds, Clemens, Sosa(cork) McGwire are guilty. Their testimony's showed that! I really don't think the voters will change their minds. I'd say almost all of their numbers drop in the next few years before they get closer to the 75% needed to get into the HOF! and I am fine if none of those guys get in ever!
My last thought on this. Who is the Baseball HOF for? It should be a museum displaying the history of baseball for the fans. The writers are intending to punish the guilty players by voting this way, but the fans are also being punished. Barry Bonds hit those 762 HR and nothing is going to change that now. A fan 75 years from now will see that in the record book. But, when that fan goes to the HOF, they will see nothing about Barry Bonds? No matter how morally wrong the steroid era was, it was still a part of the history of baseball. It should not be left out of baseball's museum as if it never happened. For that same reason, Joe Jackson and Pete Rose should also be in the HOF. And I despise Pete Rose. Don't let him ever get a job in baseball again, but lets not punish the fans by leaving out a very important player when discussing the game's history. Each player should be voted on for the HOF based solely on their on-the-field merits, and nothing else.
And along the lines of what Brett was saying..my favorite players growing up were Ryne Sandberg, Mark Grace, and Sammy Sosa. Obviously my opinion of Sosa changed in light of everything. But, that doesn't change that a lot of my best Cubs memories from 1996 - 2004 were of Sammy Sosa. Those were good times. I'm not going to pretend they didn't happen. His career should be memorialized like all the other great players. It doesn't mean we have to pretend he's a great guy. Feel free to include in his HOF plaque a full paragraph describing the negative aspects. But, if I go visit the HOF when I'm 50 years old, the best players from my youth should not be completely shutout like they never existed. Your penalizing the wrong people.
Dan is so right! It's nothing more than a museum. You can't leave out history of the game when it was allowed to happen. When a cheater is voted in all's they need to do is explain what they did wrong and how it affected the game. Tell it like it is! These people who vote have bigger heads than Barry Bonds ever grew.
Quote from: Dan Michler on January 10, 2013, 05:52:25 AM
My last thought on this. Who is the Baseball HOF for? It should be a museum displaying the history of baseball for the fans. The writers are intending to punish the guilty players by voting this way, but the fans are also being punished. Barry Bonds hit those 762 HR and nothing is going to change that now. A fan 75 years from now will see that in the record book. But, when that fan goes to the HOF, they will see nothing about Barry Bonds? No matter how morally wrong the steroid era was, it was still a part of the history of baseball. It should not be left out of baseball's museum as if it never happened. For that same reason, Joe Jackson and Pete Rose should also be in the HOF. And I despise Pete Rose. Don't let him ever get a job in baseball again, but lets not punish the fans by leaving out a very important player when discussing the game's history. Each player should be voted on for the HOF based solely on their on-the-field merits, and nothing else.
And along the lines of what Brett was saying..my favorite players growing up were Ryne Sandberg, Mark Grace, and Sammy Sosa. Obviously my opinion of Sosa changed in light of everything. But, that doesn't change that a lot of my best Cubs memories from 1996 - 2004 were of Sammy Sosa. Those were good times. I'm not going to pretend they didn't happen. His career should be memorialized like all the other great players. It doesn't mean we have to pretend he's a great guy. Feel free to include in his HOF plaque a full paragraph describing the negative aspects. But, if I go visit the HOF when I'm 50 years old, the best players from my youth should not be completely shutout like they never existed. Your penalizing the wrong people.
Dan has a point. Although I have no sympathy for the users I can see simply letting them all in. Do we bar a guy like Gaylord Perry because he threw a spitball? Ty Cobb was a racist asshole and that's the most sympathetic way of describing him. Still, he may be the greatest hitter and one of the greatest competitors of all time. The HOF should not be only for "good" guys. its for great players. The issue with PEDs is whether they made the players great. We are still too close to it. it may be that with time they will all go in and their descriptions will mention PEDs. Still, I don't have the same sympathy for Clemens as I did for a guy like Ron Santo. Its sad he never saw himself get enshrined. If Clemens doesn't live to see it I will not cry for him. I also think PED users diminished the accomplishments of players who did not use like Griffey or Frank Thomas or Jim Thome.. I have very little sympathy for Sosa. He may have given Dan a lot of joy. However, he was a talented skinny kid who excelled at making mental mistakes. All of the sudden he was cut like a greek God. I would be extremely surprised if it comes out that he never used. He was a guy who might hit 25-30 hrs in a good year before he became bionic. Bonds and Clemens are more depressing because they were clearly all time great players with or without PEDs. The could not resist the magic elixer to extend their careers. Screw them.
Many of you know that I am a huge cycling fan. I was a big fan of Armstrong. I wore a yellow bracelet. Screw him too. He reminds me of Bonds and Clemens. He may have won quite a bit without PEDs. He was that good. He, and they, will argue that in the era you had to take to win. Bull...(balderdasth)!!! Griffy, Thomas and others in cycling as well, proved this. You can hold your head high and compete. There were three kinds of users. marginals who wanted to stay in the big leagues- Would I take PEDs' so I could throw as far as Dan? Sosa was really one of these. Extenders- the older players who just couldn't let it go or needed something to come back from an injury. All those guys in their late 30's who seemed to get better. Then, there are the talented, arrogant flaming X#$%'s like Bonds, Clemens and Lance Armstrong. Being amongst the best was not good enough. They had the hubris to think they could be all time greats.
Jack Morris has some good #'s .
150 complete games wow
good message to send to those guys though
acutually impressed that the writers had the ba!!s to vote or not vote that way
Dave, I don't know how you seem to know when all these guys started using illegal PED's. I think its naive for any of us to assume we know who used what, and when they used it. They weren't being tested, so as far as I'm concerned you can suspect any of them. It was a shock to almost everybody that Roger Clemens was using. I will not be that naive again. I have no idea if Ken Griffey Jr. or Frank Thomas every tried anything illegal, and I'm certainly not going to make assumptions based on hearsay evidence. I've already been burned too many times.
As far as your statement that Sosa was a marginal player whose career was essentially made by PED's: can you let me know which year Sosa started using?
Here is a link to his stats. http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/s/sosasa01.shtml (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/s/sosasa01.shtml)
His career started taking off at age 24 when he joined the 30/30 club. He was an All-Star and hit 36 HR 119 RBI and 34 SB at age 26. Elite numbers in any era. So, when was it established that he would only be a marginal player?
With Lance Armstrong: there are plenty of rumors including from his ex-wife that he was using well before he had cancer and well before he ever won his first Tour. Why does he classify as being amongst the best without PEDs? How would we know?
Quote from: Sr. on January 10, 2013, 06:46:37 AM
Dan is so right! It's nothing more than a museum. You can't leave out history of the game when it was allowed to happen. When a cheater is voted in all's they need to do is explain what they did wrong and how it affected the game. Tell it like it is! These people who vote have bigger heads than Barry Bonds ever grew.
Why not just add a "Steroid Era" wing to the HOF? ???
Quote from: Dan Michler on January 10, 2013, 10:45:08 AM
Dave, I don't know how you seem to know when all these guys started using illegal PED's. I think its naive for any of us to assume we know who used what, and when they used it. They weren't being tested, so as far as I'm concerned you can suspect any of them. It was a shock to almost everybody that Roger Clemens was using. I will not be that naive again. I have no idea if Ken Griffey Jr. or Frank Thomas every tried anything illegal, and I'm certainly not going to make assumptions based on hearsay evidence. I've already been burned too many times.
Fair enough. We don't know for sure. I would not be surprised about just about anybody. I really think it walks like a duck etc That's the way I feel about Sosa. . No shock to me that Clemens was using. I recall thinking that he had a fork coming out of his backside when he was getting shelled in the world series for the Yankees. He then had a run of great years as an old man.
As far as your statement that Sosa was a marginal player whose career was essentially made by PED's: can you let me know which year Sosa started using?
My guess is around 1993 when his numbers shot up. He was a talented but mediocre hitter. I would like to see his height and weight next to his stats to help make this decision. Its possible that he simply got better. Lets assume his OPS went from the .500's to the .700s. Perhaps he started using in 1998 when he went from 36 to 66 home runs and began a four year run with an OPS over 1.000.
Here is a link to his stats. http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/s/sosasa01.shtml (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/s/sosasa01.shtml)
His career started taking off at age 24 when he joined the 30/30 club. He was an All-Star and hit 36 HR 119 RBI and 34 SB at age 26. Elite numbers in any era. So, when was it established that he would only be a marginal player?
With Lance Armstrong: there are plenty of rumors including from his ex-wife that he was using well before he had cancer and well before he ever won his first Tour. Why does he classify as being amongst the best without PEDs? How would we know?
I say this because PEDs can raise one's game but to win 7 times in a row even though you are cheating is amazing especially when many of the other riders were cheating as well. This is just a theory of mine. I don't know if he would have ever won absent PEDs but even with them , it took tremendous natural talent to be so dominant for so long. That's why I compare him to Bonds. What is amazing about Armstrong is how long he kept things under wraps. I have read the depositions given by many of his former teammates and was astonished by the systematic doping and how long it was kept under wraps at a time when the sport was actively fighting doping. I was drinking the kool aid for a long time in his regard. I think to some extent you are drinking a blue Sosa blend of that same drink. However, we do not know nearly as much about Sosa as we now know about Armstrong. I think we eventually will.
didn't Armstrong get stripped of his titles??
Dave said the HOF isn't just for good guys, it's for great players?? how do we know when they were great and when they started being enhanced? we don't therefore, no HOF vote for those guys.
museums are for art. the art of baseball is not with PED's. huge difference!!
the corked bat proved Sosa was a cheater. so how many of those HR's were with a corked bat. BS if you actually believe that was a batting practice bat. he knew it was in his hands during that AB! don't believe he didn't because you admire him.
Many writers today still agree that Hank Aaron is still the HR King. Isn't Bonds on probation or something for lying to the jury?? enough reason to keep him out. you can't take your kids to the HOF and say yes look son, Barry Bonds cheated the game and all of it's fans, but look he is in the HOF! he was a great player! If you honestly think that he never enhanced himself, you are crazy. but if you believe he used, and you still think he deserves to be in the HOF, you are still crazy! if you say he should be in then you are saying cheat all you can, get the best stats possible, and who cares about the game or the other (clean) players. wrong any way you look at it!
just my 2 cents. I'll leave it at that.
Quote from: pdga#7648 on January 10, 2013, 12:34:05 PM
didn't Armstrong get stripped of his titles??
Dave said the HOF isn't just for good guys, it's for great players?? how do we know when they were great and when they started being enhanced? we don't therefore, no HOF vote for those guys.
museums are for art. the art of baseball is not with PED's. huge difference!!
the corked bat proved Sosa was a cheater. so how many of those HR's were with a corked bat. BS if you actually believe that was a batting practice bat. he knew it was in his hands during that AB! don't believe he didn't because you admire him.
Many writers today still agree that Hank Aaron is still the HR King. Isn't Bonds on probation or something for lying to the jury?? enough reason to keep him out. you can't take your kids to the HOF and say yes look son, Barry Bonds cheated the game and all of it's fans, but look he is in the HOF! he was a great player! If you honestly think that he never enhanced himself, you are crazy. but if you believe he used, and you still think he deserves to be in the HOF, you are still crazy! if you say he should be in then you are saying cheat all you can, get the best stats possible, and who cares about the game or the other (clean) players. wrong any way you look at it!
just my 2 cents. I'll leave it at that.
MUSEUM:A museum is an institution that cares for (conserves) a collection of artifacts and other objects of scientific, artistic, cultural, or historical importance and makes them available for public viewing through exhibits that may be permanent or temporary.
If shattering records in MLB isn't historical importance for some, I must be crazy. It's a joke to MLB for not recognizing these circus side shows they made a killing off of. Nail files, spitballs, cork, thumbnails, and yes the juice. They let it happen, these players belong in the HOF and the baggage comes with them. Why hide the facts?
Are you guys interpretting my posts to mean I'm a Sammy Sosa supporter and don't think he did anything wrong? I'm not sure how I could be more clear. He's an asshole. He cheated. I'm not drinking any Sosa kool-aid. I do not admire him.
I just want to know how he is more guilty than Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens. Dave's suggestion that he knows Sosa wasn't a great player without steroids, but Bonds and Clemens were...I just don't get it. How do you know?
As far as your guess that Sosa started using in 1993. He was 24 years old. For you to assume you had his career pegged before he was 24 is ridiculous. A player's prime in baseball is typically late 20's early 30's.
Also, Sammy was still quite skinny in 1993. So, if he was using in 1993, why do you think Barry Bonds was not using in 1993? His power numbers shot up that year as well after signing a huge free agent deal. How you can put Sosa into a different bucket than these other guys is beyond me.
I can tell you for 100% that he made a significant change in his swing and approach at the plate in 1998. He opened his stance slightly, dropped his hands (previously he held the bat very high in his stance), and started using the toe-tap timing mechanism. This resulted in him driving balls to the opposite field, where previously he was a pure pull hitter. It was a major change that obviously made him a better hitter. I have no clue how many HR you can associate to his natural ability and how many you can chalk up to steroids. Nobody does, and nobody should pretend to. But, somehow you know that steroids alone took him from marginal big leaguer to 8th on the all-time HR list. Barry Bonds was an incredible talent. Sosa was not. I guess the baseball writers association has passed you their kool-aid and it must be delicious!
I don't know if that last part was directed at me, but let me clarify. Sosa falls under the category of linked to, or did use, just like Clemens, McGwire, Palmeiro, and Bonds. were they great, or above average before ever being accused? sure they were. that does not mean we draw a line at where we think they started using and draw up HOF credentials from that year. the fact that they became SOOOO much better after being accused is the last straw of sorts. they knew what they had as stats, and knew they could better them by a wide margin, and they did it. they decided to cheat, so pay the consequences! it's that simple. they didn't care about breaking records that have stood for alot of years, so why should we, or the voters care about what they did before PED's?? sure it's history, but it's tainted history. 762 HR's never happens without PED's and Bonds knew that!! he didn't care! why should I? or why lie to the future generation about him being great?? if he was great, he didn't need to cheat.
and one is not more guilty than any other, but they all are guilty, and they know it, just as we know it.
Quote from: pdga#7648 on January 10, 2013, 01:59:27 PM
I don't know if that last part was directed at me, but let me clarify.
None of my comments are directed toward you, only Dave. I understand you POV. If we know beyond a reasonable doubt that they used PED's, leave them out. I may not agree with it, but I at least understand your logic.
My debate is with Dave, who seems to be taking the side of the picking and choosing among the guilty, which also seems to be how the baseball writers association as a whole is basing their vote. I don't care about Sammy Sosa. I care about the baseball hall of fame, and about the accurate portrayal of the history of baseball. When we pretend to know things we can't possibly know based on personal opinions, we aren't providing an accurate portrayal of history.
Perhaps my Sosa comments were misleading. I do think he is different from at least to players who I suspect were users- Clemens and Bonds. Those guys were always good. Unless they were using during their entire careers they were great before they used. I am not so sure about Sosa. I think he went from (perhaps I was a bit harsh. Lets say....) good to great. I think Clemens and Bonds were already there. Bonds went from Great to cartoon character great. Clemens went from great to it makes no rational sense that he can still do it at this level great.
I think Palmiero was similar to Sosa. He was a good player when he was a Cub. I think he was a better player than Sosa was when he was with the White Sox. I don't think either guy was using at that stage. Palmiero later put up numbers that simply made no sense. That's when he was using. Did anybody ever think Palmiero was going to be a 500 hr guy?
One huge problem with the steroid era, and why it bothers me, is that its very hard to figure out who was and who was not using. Its possible that clean players are being falsly implicated and its also possible dirty ones are getting a pass. Dan is accusing me of making choices that don't have hard evidence. He is right. My suspicions may be nothing more than the suspicions that led to witch burning frenzies. Dan can correctly argue that saying Sosa was cut like a greek God is like a New England knucklehead saying that a woman had a haunting aura or an evil eye. The Hall of Fame is going to be like Salem until as Randy feels, they all go in, or more facts come to light. For now, I am ok with the writers denying those they think were users. I know that its inconsistent. We are not telling these accused that they cannot play baseball. You can still play unless you fail a test. Bonds and Sosa were never given suspensions. The HOF is a different matter. Suspicion may be enough for now.
Quote from: Chainmeister on January 10, 2013, 03:25:14 PM
One huge problem with the steroid era, and why it bothers me, is that its very hard to figure out who was and who was not using. Its possible that clean players are being falsly implicated and its also possible dirty ones are getting a pass. Dan is accusing me of making choices that don't have hard evidence. He is right.
Thank you. That is all I would like people to agree on. Lets talk about something less depressing now ;)
Didn't Sosa test positive for PED's in 2003?
When it comes to Armstrong it seems like the biking world is just as guilty as Armstrong. Its like they were keeping his illegal activities just below the surface until he was no longer of any use to them then they pursued their case against him. He put the sport in a spotlight that its never seen before. They were never going to turn that off until Armstrong was off the stage.
The HOF lost a great man yesterday! St. Louis on Opening Day just will not be the same not seeing Stan The Man being driven around the stadium in the convertble! All of baseball just lost a great individual, Cardinals fan or not! 1,815 hits at home, and 1,815 hits on the road!?? WOW :o un heard of!
Quote from: pdga#7648 on January 20, 2013, 09:48:43 AM
The HOF lost a great man yesterday! St. Louis on Opening Day just will not be the same not seeing Stan The Man being driven around the stadium in the convertible! All of baseball just lost a great individual, Cardinals fan or not! 1,815 hits at home, and 1,815 hits on the road!?? WOW :o un heard of!
I think this is what I miss about sports more than any other thing is guys staying with one team their entire career. It just doesn't seem like it is part of the equation anymore. Especially in baseball.
Besides the St. Louis fans, I think Stan Musial was under appreciated. He was one of the greatest players of all time.
Fun fact on Musial: He, Ken Griffey Sr. and Jr. are all from the same tiny town of Donora, PA. Thats 1257 HR and a combined 63 big league seasons from a town of about 10,000 people. Wierd.