ESPN Reporting: Highly possible no one voted into the HOF this year

[mlbsalltimegreats]

I've seen Maddux suggested as a no-brainer for next year. I've heard at least as much suspicion about him scuffing baseballs as I've heard of Piazza/Bagwell using PEDs. For those who don't want suspected PED users in, how about those suspected of cheating in other manners?

Come one ::facepalm::


He is getting in period!
Even if so, it what effected 1 or 2 games 1 or 2 players? Peds Effects a whole players career. It makes guys who shouldnt be MLB players AVG Players and AVG Players Stars and Star Players Legends+

 

[bcubs]

Biggio is the only member of the 3,000 hit club who is eligible with no accusations of PED usage not in the HOF. I did a quick look so I could be wrong but I also believe he is also the only one not elected on his 1st year of eligibility.

 

[mlbsalltimegreats]

The sickening thing about a guy like Bonds is had he not taken Steriods the Guy would have ended up with Willie Mays Numbers WTF is wrong with that??? What a complete idiot, and wasnt enough for him. He would have not been pitched around as much pretty much insuring 3000 hits. Im sure he couldnt himself see his own future but without Peds Bonds was a 600HR 3000HIT guy.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

- player's record,
- playing ability,
- sportsmanship,
- contributions to the team(s) on which the player played

You left two things out. The rule you copied and pasted in your post is this:

5. Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

Why would you selectively choose some criteria but omit others from the very same sentence?

 

[Mighty Bombjack]

So your saying the baseball writers should have the ability to decide who took steriods and who didnt. The fact that 2 guys who have NO PROOF they took steriods, and would have been locks if they played at other times didnt get in, that is a joke

I'm not saying that they should or they shouldn't, I'm saying that they DO. And in that vein, they should, unless you want to take voting away altogether or take "integrity," as a highly subjective thing, off of the voting criteria. What I definitely think they should do is simply recognize, as you have, that they actually know jack squat about the extent of the problem and are placing most of these judgements arbitrarily. But they are grown men and have to make that decision/realization themselves.

 

[MojoDan]

I'd be very surprised if Maddux doesn't top Seavers percentage for all time highest vote next year. Maddux, Glavine, Thomas and probably Biggio get in.


Mac- I guess the point hat I'm trying to make is this...

I'm probably looking at a different picture when it comes to this than some. I place added value on someone that can play for two decades in an era that tainted the game. Whether it was for the paycheck, or the love of the game that's still twenty years of baseball at the highest level. Thousands of games where at times your statistics were compared against players with an advantage and still bring stability and consistency to your club. That's an intangible that I can't overlook.

 

[U L Washington Rookie]

You left two things out. The rule you copied and pasted in your post is this:

5. Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

Why would you selectively choose some criteria but omit others from the very same sentence?

Are you not following your own conversation?

Me - Note that all the other terms besides character and integrity reference the game.
You - Where do you see this?
Me - notes the references to the game in all the other criteria.

So can you tell me how 'character' and 'integrity' apply to only their application to baseball? After all, that's what you and I have been discussing.

 

[U L Washington Rookie]

You left two things out. The rule you copied and pasted in your post is this:

5. Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

Why would you selectively choose some criteria but omit others from the very same sentence?

I'll make it easier for you to follow:
5. Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

- the player's record: obviously talking about baseball
- playing ability: obviously talking about baseball
- integrity: not obviously talking about baseball
- sportsmanship: obviously talking about baseball
- character: not obviously talking about baseball
- contributions to the team(s) on which the player played: obviously talking about baseball

Yet you stated: Of course character and integrity only apply to the game itself...

 

[Austin]

Biggio is the only member of the 3,000 hit club who is eligible with no accusations of PED usage not in the HOF. I did a quick look so I could be wrong but I also believe he is also the only one not elected on his 1st year of eligibility.

Nope, five players with 3,000 hits, besides tainted Palmeiro, were not elected on their first ballot:
Paul Waner
Cap Anson
Eddie Collins
Tris Speaker
Napolean Lajoie

 

[MojoDan]

Nope, five players with 3,000 hits, besides tainted Palmeiro, were not elected on their first ballot:
Paul Waner
Cap Anson
Eddie Collins
Tris Speaker
Napolean Lajoie

Correct!

 

[U L Washington Rookie]

Come one ::facepalm::


He is getting in period!
Even if so, it what effected 1 or 2 games 1 or 2 players? Peds Effects a whole players career. It makes guys who shouldnt be MLB players AVG Players and AVG Players Stars and Star Players Legends+

Seriously. Where do you draw the line on cheating? I'm not saying that the guy won't get in the Hall. I'm actually a big fan of Maddux and expect him to be voted in first ballot.

But if you go after the cheating 'roid users (note that my question was to the people who don't want to vote in suspected PED users), why not go after the cheating ball-scuffers? Maddux is legendary largely due to the nasty movement on his pitches. Scuffing balls can aid in that quite well. Not that maddux is a proven cheater; neither are Piazza or Bagwell who appear to be suspected cheaters.

If your answer is that there are degrees of cheating, that's fine. But your first sentence and face-palm seems like an over-reaction to a reasonable question.

 

[200lbhockeyplayer]

Nope, five players with 3,000 hits, besides tainted Palmeiro, were not elected on their first ballot:
Paul Waner
Cap Anson
Eddie Collins
Tris Speaker
Napolean Lajoie

Considering they only allowed 5 players to be elected with the first HOF class...none of these players is a shock. Not sure which of the following you'd eliminate for any of the above; Cobb, Ruth, Mathewson, Wagner and Johnson. And you'll see that Cy Young wasn't there either.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

I'll make it easier for you to follow:
5. Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

- the player's record: obviously talking about baseball Says who?
- playing ability: obviously talking about baseball Says who?
- integrity: not obviously talking about baseball Says who?
- sportsmanship: obviously talking about baseball Says who?
- character: not obviously talking about baseball Says who?
- contributions to the team(s) on which the player played: obviously talking about baseball Says who?

Yet you stated: Of course character and integrity only apply to the game itself...

See remarks in blue above.

What if Babe Ruth were a crappy hockey player and had a poor hockey record? By your reasoning he shouldn't be in the BASEBALL Hall of Fame because one could arbitrarily choose which criteria to apply and not to apply.

Of course all the baseball hall of fame voting criteria apply to baseball, one doesn't get to pick and choose. The votes today indicate as much.

Besides its dumb to think a HOF voter could judge someone in an unprofessional, personal capacity and suddenly apply it to a professional (baseball) one.

 

[hive17]

As uniquebaseballcards keeps rightly pointing out, the voting is and has been subjective. Writers' opinions matter, and that includes an opinion over what a player put into their body while they played. Now, for anybody to pretend that they know who took what when is preposterous. This is why I like this outcome; it is going to cause some much-needed soul-searching from voters.

You can't have an opinion about what someone put into their body. That's like having an opinion on someone being left-handed or what that person ate for breakfast. If someone did or did not cheat using PEDs is a fact, one way or another; but it's an unknowable fact until proof is presented.

Writers can think they know what happened, but until proof surfaces, said writer is just waiting to be wrong or right on the FACT that a player used.

I don't know what this means for voting for the HoF, but if PEDs are a criteria for said writer, than if said writer uses his "opinion", he's being intellectually dishonest.

 

[Mighty Bombjack]

You can't have an opinion about what someone put into their body. That's like having an opinion on someone being left-handed or what that person ate for breakfast. If someone did or did not cheat using PEDs is a fact, one way or another; but it's an unknowable fact until proof is presented.

Writers can think they know what happened, but until proof surfaces, said writer is just waiting to be wrong or right on the FACT that a player used.

I don't know what this means for voting for the HoF, but if PEDs are a criteria for said writer, than if said writer uses his "opinion", he's being intellectually dishonest.

That is the very point and the reason I used the word "opinion." "Intellectually dishonest," on the other hand, nails it better than I have. I've been calling it "self-serving, empty moralizing."

 

[hive17]

That is the very point and the reason I used the word "opinion." "Intellectually dishonest," on the other hand, nails it better than I have. I've been calling it "self-serving, empty moralizing."

Those are good too.

Basically, these guys are saying "Well, it's MY opinion that he used, and I'm entitled to it." OK, try using that on your next True/False test in college, or the next time you try and buy a house: "Well, it's MY opinion that I make THIS much per year, and you can't tell me I'm wrong mister bank-man!"

 

[nappyd]

Braves were pretty good in the early 80s. They just were awful in the mid and late 80s.

yeah i don't remember the early 80's... mid 80's and late 80's, those i unfortunately remember.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

Those are good too.

Basically, these guys are saying "Well, it's MY opinion that he used, and I'm entitled to it." OK, try using that on your next True/False test in college, or the next time you try and buy a house: "Well, it's MY opinion that I make THIS much per year, and you can't tell me I'm wrong mister bank-man!"

The entire HOF voting process is an opinion about whether or not a particular player, executive, umpire, etc should be in the HOF.

Its always been this way... and if it wasn't that way the HOF would be a Hall of Stats where obtaining certain numbers gained a candidate automatic entry into the Hall of Stats... which would obviously make baseball a very boring, non-team sport.

While some people here may want a Hall of Stats, anyone who really knows baseball understands that baseball is more than stats.

 

[U L Washington Rookie]

What if Babe Ruth were a crappy hockey player and had a poor hockey record? By your reasoning he shouldn't be in the BASEBALL Hall of Fame because one could arbitrarily choose which criteria to apply and not to apply.

Wow. You didn't read my posts very well.

 

[U L Washington Rookie]

Besides its dumb to think a HOF voter could judge someone in an unprofessional, personal capacity and suddenly apply it to a professional (baseball) one.

Yes, I'm dumb and you're smart.