2013 HOF

sportscardtheory · Dec 17, 2012

Here's something that people always seem to fail to recognize; the Baseball Hall of Fame is separate from MLB. It's their rules and they can ask their voters to vote however they please. So all this "the writers are being hypocrites" nonsense is just that... nonsense. MLB may have looked the other way on PEDs for decades, but the Baseball HOF sure doesn't have to.

uniquebaseballcards · Dec 17, 2012

Mighty Bombjack said:
There is big time subjectivity involved, which means a term like "OK" is far too simplistic for the discussion. Keep them all out? Let them all in? Use it as another criterium, given that we know almost nothing about who used hat when?

There has ALWAYS been subjectivity involved in the voting process - heck most of the voting criteria are subjective. This is a problem when there's a small number of people voting, but there isn't.

uniquebaseballcards · Dec 17, 2012

sportscardtheory said:
Here's something that people always seem to fail to recognize; the Baseball Hall of Fame is separate from MLB. It's their rules and they can ask their voters to vote however they please. So all this "the writers are being hypocrites" nonsense is just that... nonsense. MLB may have looked the other way on PEDs for decades, but the Baseball HOF sure doesn't have to.

^^^ its as simple as this! OH yeah, the writers are separate too

U L Washington Rookie · Dec 17, 2012

uniquebaseballcards said:
Sure, it was a part of the game and its history, but that doesn't mean that it was OK for players - especially HOF players - to have taken PEDs. We're not talking all players in this thread, we're only talking about HOFers and potential HOFers. HOFers are held to a different standard.

Also, PEDs involve more than simple stats; stats are only one criteria/component of HOF voting - so yes there is some subjectivity involved here.

Does anybody know, without a doubt, what players didn't use PEDs? I'm confident that there are plenty of users who you don't suspect.

also, new era -> new method of PEDs. Many of the guys who played decades ago (and many who presumably were elected into the Hall) used/abused amphetamines. You kicking those guys out?

MansGame · Dec 17, 2012

U L Washington Rookie said:
Does anybody know, without a doubt, what players didn't use PEDs? I'm confident that there are plenty of users who you don't suspect.

also, new era -> new method of PEDs. Many of the guys who played decades ago (and many who presumably were elected into the Hall) used/abused amphetamines. You kicking those guys out?

Willie Mcgee

uniquebaseballcards · Dec 17, 2012

U L Washington Rookie said:
Does anybody know, without a doubt, what players didn't use PEDs? I'm confident that there are plenty of users who you don't suspect.

also, new era -> new method of PEDs. Many of the guys who played decades ago (and many who presumably were elected into the Hall) used/abused amphetamines. You kicking those guys out?

I'm saying voting has always been subjective and will continue to be... I'm not saying PEDs are a black and white issue like many/most of you guys are. As such I'm saying some voters will never vote for guys who used or were suspected to use, while other voters will vote for players who seemingly only used a little bit. Then there are the voters who'd vote for anyone regardless of PED use. Nothing surprising here.

Voters vote according to the egregiousness of the real or perceived offense, which is all anyone could expect. Voters may or may not have considered amphetamines serious enough to keep players out and/or they may have thought a particular player didn't abuse them enough to keep the player out of the hall.

Voters will of course be making subjective determinations, but most of the voting criteria are subjective anyway (sportsmanship, integrity, contributions to the game, character). Voters are entitled to vote this way, the Hall's rules demand it.

homerun28aa · Dec 17, 2012

After further consideration...if I was a voter I'd vote Bonds in (maybe Clemens)...let's face it if Bonds had zero connection to PEDs he would be the closest to a unanimous first ballot ever...there have been a plethora of PED users and few could even be mentioned in the same sentence as Bonds as a ballplayer...so at least to me he's obviously a HOF talent regardless of PED use...but the problem is this doesn't adequately punish for PED use and lying about it, so the only hurdle for me is how to put him in with the acknowledgement of PED use maybe put an asterisk on his plague or something

MansGame · Dec 17, 2012

homerun28aa said:
After further consideration...if I was a voter I'd vote Bonds in (maybe Clemens)...let's face it if Bonds had zero connection to PEDs he would be the closest to a unanimous first ballot ever...there have been a plethora of PED users and few could even be mentioned in the same sentence as Bonds as a ballplayer...so at least to me he's obviously a HOF talent regardless of PED use...but the problem is this doesn't adequately punish for PED use and lying about it, so the only hurdle for me is how to put him in with the acknowledgement of PED use maybe put an asterisk on his plague or something

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Bonds somewhat hated by a lot of people regardless of his PED use? With that said, no chance he would of come close to unanimous first ballot.

homerun28aa · Dec 17, 2012

MansGame said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Bonds somewhat hated by a lot of people regardless of his PED use? With that said, no chance he would of come close to unanimous first ballot.

Whether or not you liked him that doesn't have anything to do with HOF voting, look at Ty Cobb he was a horrendous person but I think everyone in here would agree he was rightfully along with the first players to every be in the HOF. Bonds was a 7 time MVP...we all know about his HRs both all time and single season...he was a hell of a ballplayer he would have been first ballot no question...since no one was ever unanimous obviously I don't know how high he would have come I don't think he's the best player in history so it might have been an exaggeration, but he would have had very high approval in his first time on the ballot

MansGame · Dec 17, 2012

homerun28aa said:
Whether or not you liked him that doesn't have anything to do with HOF voting, look at Ty Cobb he was a horrendous person but I think everyone in here would agree he was rightfully along with the first players to every be in the HOF. Bonds was a 7 time MVP...we all know about his HRs both all time and single season...he was a hell of a ballplayer he would have been first ballot no question...since no one was ever unanimous obviously I don't know how high he would have come I don't think he's the best player in history so it might have been an exaggeration, but he would have had very high approval in his first time on the ballot

Albert Belle would beg to differ

MansGame · Dec 17, 2012

But really though... I had a thread about Belle being a HOFer and nearly everyone BASHED the idea of him being in the Hall 100% because people didn't like him and he wasn't a liked person. Period.

Not saying I agree with it but now to hear you say that isn't an issue... that makes my head spin LOL

uniquebaseballcards · Dec 17, 2012

homerun28aa said:
After further consideration...if I was a voter I'd vote Bonds in (maybe Clemens)...let's face it if Bonds had zero connection to PEDs he would be the closest to a unanimous first ballot ever...there have been a plethora of PED users and few could even be mentioned in the same sentence as Bonds as a ballplayer...so at least to me he's obviously a HOF talent regardless of PED use...but the problem is this doesn't adequately punish for PED use and lying about it, so the only hurdle for me is how to put him in with the acknowledgement of PED use maybe put an asterisk on his plague or something

Subconscious speaking here LOL?

homerun28aa · Dec 17, 2012

MansGame said:
Albert Belle would beg to differ

Perhaps it can marginally effect your chances...in my opinion (absolutely no disrespect to you or your collection) Belle in my opinion again...was a bit short of the hall anyways...Bonds and Cobb are not Albert Belle lol. Plus from what I've read about him I didn't watch him much, he was kind of a ******, as was Bonds.

homerun28aa · Dec 17, 2012

uniquebaseballcards said:
Subconscious speaking here LOL?

Haha, plaque, bad typo

uniquebaseballcards · Dec 17, 2012

Some people talk about how Bonds was an MVP before he started using PEDs (which makes no difference to me BTW). But Belle had far more HRs than Bonds for their first 10 (400+AB) seasons.

Frankly Bonds only averaged one HR more per 162 games than Belle, and averaged 23 fewer hits, and a whopping 22 fewer RBIs than Belle !

jkeys · Dec 17, 2012

Biggio and Piazza. Schilling waits on a veterans vote way down the line. The PED's never get in...ever.

MansGame · Dec 17, 2012

uniquebaseballcards said:
Some people talk about how Bonds was an MVP before he started using PEDs (which makes no difference to me BTW). But Belle had far more HRs than Bonds for their first 10 (400+AB) seasons.

Frankly Bonds only averaged one HR more per 162 games than Belle, and averaged 23 fewer hits, and a whopping 22 fewer RBIs than Belle !

U L Washington Rookie · Dec 17, 2012

jkeys said:
Biggio and Piazza. Schilling waits on a veterans vote way down the line. The PED's never get in...ever.

Right or not, the bolded may keep Piazza out (at least suspicions about him being a user) for at least a while.

toadfan106 · Dec 17, 2012

uniquebaseballcards said:
Some people talk about how Bonds was an MVP before he started using PEDs (which makes no difference to me BTW). But Belle had far more HRs than Bonds for their first 10 (400+AB) seasons.

Frankly Bonds only averaged one HR more per 162 games than Belle, and averaged 23 fewer hits, and a whopping 22 fewer RBIs than Belle !

As much as I think Belle should have gotten more consideration for the HOF, the HR/162, hits and RBI aren't great stats to use to try to compare the two (Bonds actually had a higher slugging % than Belle). I looked at baseball-reference for both their age 24-33 seasons (Basically the ages Belle played full seasons) and while Belle comes close to Bonds in a number of stats, Bonds also had an OBP 50 points higher than Belle, an OPS plus 35 points higher, stole about 250 more bases, played better defense and finished in the top 5 in the MVP vote 7 times (vs. Belle's 3). Not to mention that one of the seasons for Bonds, he was batting leadoff (his age 24 season in 1989), which would probably account for the difference in the HR and RBI numbers.

Mighty Bombjack · Dec 17, 2012

jkeys said:
Biggio and Piazza. Schilling waits on a veterans vote way down the line. The PED's never get in...ever.

I think Piazza used PEDs, but don't know for sure. Do you?

Who are "the PEDs"?

Welcome to our community

Be apart of something great, join today!

2013 HOF

Active member

New member

New member

Active member

Active member

New member

Active member

Active member

Active member

Active member

Active member

New member

Active member

Active member

New member

Banned

Active member

Active member

Member

Active member

Similar threads

Log in