HOF announcement in a couple of minutes

[hofmichael]

Does anyone agree about limiting the time on the ballot to 5 years to prevent borderline/fringe players to get in?Is it to late to change it now?Have to many borderline fringe players been inducted already?I am just curious about evryone's thoughts.

 

[elmalo]

[quote="Krom":22mnp204][quote="elmalo":22mnp204][quote="Krom":22mnp204][quote="bondofan38":22mnp204][quote="Gonzaleznut":22mnp204][quote="Sean_C":22mnp204]I'm surprised by Bagwell's vote total, as I thought it would have been a lot higher. While I don't want to insult those that are fans of Juan Gone, I'm surprised he got even 5%.

What a crock!! While I acknowledge that I am a big fan of Juan. He is one of the best players of his era. Period. He deserved waaaaayyyyy more votes. The writers are egomaniacal wimps about the steroids era players.

Palmeiro should be in, so should McGwire, Bonds and Sosa. Anyone who says otherwise is just silly.

Either you let 'em all in or no players from 1990 - 2005 should be let in including pitchers because it is impossible to tell the clean players from the not so clean players.

Bonds is head and shoulders above those guys and its not even close. Bonds was the most dominate player arguably ever. If the steroid issue never came up he would be a top 5 all time guy. Any of the other steroid guys even in that discussion?

I don't think it matters. Bagwell, Mcgwire, Clemens or anyone suspected of juicing will not be voted in. I know i might be in the minority but i agree with that way of thinking, they will be left out.
Edit - I guess i am silly like that, there is so much debate as to the Hall being watered down, i think the voters would prefer that over it being tainted. I think Shoeless should be in over Palmeiro, Mac, Bonds or Sosa. Hell even Rose i can deal with betting as a manager over roiding.

Why? You would rather have guys who lost games on purpose in than guys who made themselves better players? That doesnt make any sense to me. And by the way, Rose had a lot to do with steroids.

Who lost on purpose? I think we would have heard by now from those who were forced to lose on purpose so Rose could make a few extra bucks.[/quote:22mnp204]
If ethics is gonna come into play then we need to remove a lot of guys from the Hall. There are a ton of pre-war guys, both plyers and managers that were known to associate with mobsters and gamblers. There are numerous drunks, racists, wife beaters, etc, etc that are in the hall.[/quote:22mnp204]
Agreed. Which is why Bonds. Clemens McGwire Palmeiro, et should get in.[/quote:22mnp204]
But it doesn't. You can't take Cobb out because he was a nasty human being, Mantle because he was a drunk etc. Also that way of thinking will not help the roiders, they have already kept them out (obvious ones) and will not let them in because some hofers were bad people so why not let the roiders in - it doesn't work that way.[/quote:22mnp204]
Cobb bet on baseball and was punished by the comisioner. Rogers Hornsby and Hal Chase as well. Did Roger Clemens ever fail a drug test and get punished by MLB? Barry Bonds? Mark McGwire?[/quote:22mnp204]
They all are believed to have and that will be enough. There doesn't have to be written proof for the voters to keep them out. If you think those 3 were clean through all of their careers you are crazy.[/quote:22mnp204]
There is no doubt in my mind that those guys did. But there is no doubt in my mind that a lot of other guys did as well. To keep some guys out bc of suspicion and give other guys a pass is ridiculous.

 

[Krom]

[quote="bondofan38":1fbvav07][quote="Krom":1fbvav07][quote="elmalo":1fbvav07][quote="Krom":1fbvav07][quote="bondofan38":1fbvav07][quote="Gonzaleznut":1fbvav07][quote="Sean_C":1fbvav07]I'm surprised by Bagwell's vote total, as I thought it would have been a lot higher. While I don't want to insult those that are fans of Juan Gone, I'm surprised he got even 5%.

What a crock!! While I acknowledge that I am a big fan of Juan. He is one of the best players of his era. Period. He deserved waaaaayyyyy more votes. The writers are egomaniacal wimps about the steroids era players.

Palmeiro should be in, so should McGwire, Bonds and Sosa. Anyone who says otherwise is just silly.

Either you let 'em all in or no players from 1990 - 2005 should be let in including pitchers because it is impossible to tell the clean players from the not so clean players.

Bonds is head and shoulders above those guys and its not even close. Bonds was the most dominate player arguably ever. If the steroid issue never came up he would be a top 5 all time guy. Any of the other steroid guys even in that discussion?

I don't think it matters. Bagwell, Mcgwire, Clemens or anyone suspected of juicing will not be voted in. I know i might be in the minority but i agree with that way of thinking, they will be left out.
Edit - I guess i am silly like that, there is so much debate as to the Hall being watered down, i think the voters would prefer that over it being tainted. I think Shoeless should be in over Palmeiro, Mac, Bonds or Sosa. Hell even Rose i can deal with betting as a manager over roiding.

Why? You would rather have guys who lost games on purpose in than guys who made themselves better players? That doesnt make any sense to me. And by the way, Rose had a lot to do with steroids.

Who lost on purpose? I think we would have heard by now from those who were forced to lose on purpose so Rose could make a few extra bucks.[/quote:1fbvav07]
If ethics is gonna come into play then we need to remove a lot of guys from the Hall. There are a ton of pre-war guys, both plyers and managers that were known to associate with mobsters and gamblers. There are numerous drunks, racists, wife beaters, etc, etc that are in the hall.[/quote:1fbvav07]
Agreed. Which is why Bonds. Clemens McGwire Palmeiro, et should get in.[/quote:1fbvav07]
But it doesn't. You can't take Cobb out because he was a nasty human being, Mantle because he was a drunk etc. Also that way of thinking will not help the roiders, they have already kept them out (obvious ones) and will not let them in because some hofers were bad people so why not let the roiders in - it doesn't work that way.[/quote:1fbvav07]
Cobb bet on baseball and was punished by the comisioner. Rogers Hornsby and Hal Chase as well. Did Roger Clemens ever fail a drug test and get punished by MLB? Barry Bonds? Mark McGwire?[/quote:1fbvav07]
They all are believed to have and that will be enough. There doesn't have to be written proof for the voters to keep them out. If you think those 3 were clean through all of their careers you are crazy.[/quote:1fbvav07]
There is no doubt in my mind that those guys did. But there is no doubt in my mind that a lot of other guys did as well. To keep some guys out bc of suspicion and give other guys a pass is ridiculous.[/quote:1fbvav07]
True, but not all juicers were/are hof quality players like Bonds and Clemens.

 

[SilverandBlack]

Does anyone agree about limiting the time on the ballot to 5 years to prevent borderline/fringe players to get in?Is it to late to change it now?Have to many borderline fringe players been inducted already?I am just curious about evryone's thoughts.

I couldnt agree with you more Mike. If you dont get voted in within the first few years are you really a Hall of Famer? I'd say no. I think 5 years is more then enough time to get in.

 

[scotty21690]

I HATE how people compare personal issues off the field to career issue on the field.


Being a drunk off the field IS NOT THE SAME as taking steroids/PEDs to enhance their performance on the field. Don't be an idiot.....PEDs are cheating. Don't relate the two.


Congrats to Alomar, and also congrats to myself so I won't have to listen to members bitch that Blyleven should be in the HOF......14 years later....

 

[Krom]

I HATE how people compare personal issues off the field to career issue on the field.


Being a drunk off the field IS NOT THE SAME as taking steroids/PEDs to enhance their performance on the field. Don't be an idiot.....PEDs are cheating. Don't relate the two.


Congrats to Alomar, and also congrats to myself so I won't have to listen to members bitch that Blyleven should be in the HOF......14 years later....

Thanked.

 

[elmalo]

I HATE how people compare personal issues off the field to career issue on the field.


Being a drunk off the field IS NOT THE SAME as taking steroids/PEDs to enhance their performance on the field. Don't be an idiot.....PEDs are cheating. Don't relate the two.


Congrats to Alomar, and also congrats to myself so I won't have to listen to members bitch that Blyleven should be in the HOF......14 years later....

The problem is that we dont know who did or who didnt. There wasnt testing before and the testing now is a joke.

 

[SilverandBlack]

I HATE how people compare personal issues off the field to career issue on the field.


Being a drunk off the field IS NOT THE SAME as taking steroids/PEDs to enhance their performance on the field. Don't be an idiot.....PEDs are cheating. Don't relate the two.


Congrats to Alomar, and also congrats to myself so I won't have to listen to members bitch that Blyleven should be in the HOF......14 years later....

Actually nobody said they were the same. What i said ws if people are going to bring ethics into the discussion then all that stuff would need to be considered. Obvioulsy steroids is cheating and being a drunk isnt.

 

[Krom]

I HATE how people compare personal issues off the field to career issue on the field.


Being a drunk off the field IS NOT THE SAME as taking steroids/PEDs to enhance their performance on the field. Don't be an idiot.....PEDs are cheating. Don't relate the two.


Congrats to Alomar, and also congrats to myself so I won't have to listen to members bitch that Blyleven should be in the HOF......14 years later....

Actually nobody said they were the same. What i said ws if people are going to bring ethics into the discussion then all that stuff would need to be considered. Obvioulsy steroids is cheating and being a drunk isnt.

Ethics is not an issue.

 

[scotty21690]

I HATE how people compare personal issues off the field to career issue on the field.


Being a drunk off the field IS NOT THE SAME as taking steroids/PEDs to enhance their performance on the field. Don't be an idiot.....PEDs are cheating. Don't relate the two.


Congrats to Alomar, and also congrats to myself so I won't have to listen to members bitch that Blyleven should be in the HOF......14 years later....

The problem is that we dont know who did or who didnt. There wasnt testing before and the testing now is a joke.

That's not the frackin point!!!!!!!

You said "Oh my yea those players had bad ethics and they are in the HOF....so why don't we let in all of the roiders as well! Same thing, right?!"


It doesn't matter who did and who didn't, that's not what I was trying to get across! Players who used steroids CHEATED, and they should not be in the HALL OF FAME if they had to cheat! Yes, there are some players in the HOF with personal issues....off the field, but they didn't cheat.


Considering you are sticking up for Bonds/Clemens,etc though, you must think noone was on steroids in the past few decades...am I right? Oh they never failed a drug test....that must mean they have been clean their whole career!


>>>FACEPALM<<<


Bondo, my post was not directed at you.

 

[jeff550]

Dont bother arguing with elmalo, he is schmidtfan part 2

 

[SilverandBlack]

I HATE how people compare personal issues off the field to career issue on the field.


Being a drunk off the field IS NOT THE SAME as taking steroids/PEDs to enhance their performance on the field. Don't be an idiot.....PEDs are cheating. Don't relate the two.


Congrats to Alomar, and also congrats to myself so I won't have to listen to members bitch that Blyleven should be in the HOF......14 years later....

The problem is that we dont know who did or who didnt. There wasnt testing before and the testing now is a joke.

That's not the frackin point!!!!!!!

You said "Oh my yea those players had bad ethics and they are in the HOF....so why don't we let in all of the roiders as well! Same thing, right?!"


It doesn't matter who did and who didn't, that's not what I was trying to get across! Players who used steroids CHEATED, and they should not be in the HALL OF FAME if they had to cheat! Yes, there are some players in the HOF with personal issues....off the field, but they didn't cheat.


Considering you are sticking up for Bonds/Clemens,etc though, you must think noone was on steroids in the past few decades...am I right? Oh they never failed a drug test....that must mean they have been clean their whole career!


>>>FACEPALM<<<


Bondo, my post was not directed at you.

Fair enough

 

[elmalo]

I HATE how people compare personal issues off the field to career issue on the field.


Being a drunk off the field IS NOT THE SAME as taking steroids/PEDs to enhance their performance on the field. Don't be an idiot.....PEDs are cheating. Don't relate the two.


Congrats to Alomar, and also congrats to myself so I won't have to listen to members bitch that Blyleven should be in the HOF......14 years later....

The problem is that we dont know who did or who didnt. There wasnt testing before and the testing now is a joke.

That's not the frackin point!!!!!!!

You said "Oh my yea those players had bad ethics and they are in the HOF....so why don't we let in all of the roiders as well! Same thing, right?!"


It doesn't matter who did and who didn't, that's not what I was trying to get across! Players who used steroids CHEATED, and they should not be in the HALL OF FAME if they had to cheat! Yes, there are some players in the HOF with personal issues....off the field, but they didn't cheat.


Considering you are sticking up for Bonds/Clemens,etc though, you must think noone was on steroids in the past few decades...am I right? Oh they never failed a drug test....that must mean they have been clean their whole career!


>>>FACEPALM<<<


Bondo, my post was not directed at you.

First off, you should settle down
Secondly, steroids have been a problem in baseball since the late 60's. Now all of the sudden we are going to pick or chose who gets into the hall of fame based on suspicions? We have no idea who was on them bc baseball didnt test for them. And even now that they do we still have no idea bc 1.the stuff that these guys use is undetectable and 2 baseballs testing policy is designed not to catch anyone.
There are pople who think Hank Aaron took steroids at the end of his career, so should we take him out of the hall of fame. We know that Aaron and Mays and a majority of players were on greenies, should we kick them out of the hall of fame? Is that not cheating? Gaylord Perry cheated, should we kick him out of the hall of fame? I really dont understand the hang up with steroids. And I dont understand why people cant accept that they have been and will continue to be a part of athletics.

 

[scotty21690]

EDIT: NVM, done arguing...

 

[elmalo]

Dont bother arguing with elmalo, he is schmidtfan part 2

Yes, bc God forbid I would actually have the audacity to defend my opinion. I should just say you know what you are right, what was I thinking every time someone disagrees with me.

 

[Krom]

I HATE how people compare personal issues off the field to career issue on the field.


Being a drunk off the field IS NOT THE SAME as taking steroids/PEDs to enhance their performance on the field. Don't be an idiot.....PEDs are cheating. Don't relate the two.


Congrats to Alomar, and also congrats to myself so I won't have to listen to members bitch that Blyleven should be in the HOF......14 years later....

The problem is that we dont know who did or who didnt. There wasnt testing before and the testing now is a joke.

That's not the frackin point!!!!!!!

You said "Oh my yea those players had bad ethics and they are in the HOF....so why don't we let in all of the roiders as well! Same thing, right?!"


It doesn't matter who did and who didn't, that's not what I was trying to get across! Players who used steroids CHEATED, and they should not be in the HALL OF FAME if they had to cheat! Yes, there are some players in the HOF with personal issues....off the field, but they didn't cheat.


Considering you are sticking up for Bonds/Clemens,etc though, you must think noone was on steroids in the past few decades...am I right? Oh they never failed a drug test....that must mean they have been clean their whole career!


>>>FACEPALM<<<


Bondo, my post was not directed at you.

First off, you should settle down
Secondly, steroids have been a problem in baseball since the late 60's. Now all of the sudden we are going to pick or chose who gets into the hall of fame based on suspicions? We have no idea who was on them bc baseball didnt test for them. And even now that they do we still have no idea bc 1.the stuff that these guys use is undetectable and 2 baseballs testing policy is designed not to catch anyone.
There are pople who think Hank Aaron took steroids at the end of his career, so should we take him out of the hall of fame. We know that Aaron and Mays and a majority of players were on greenies, should we kick them out of the hall of fame? Is that not cheating? Gaylord Perry cheated, should we kick him out of the hall of fame? I really dont understand the hang up with steroids. And I dont understand why people cant accept that they have been and will continue to be a part of athletics.

Speed? Really? Why not take Lincy out of the game because he likes his weed? Take away Doc's Lsd no hitter? Mays has a terrible end of his carrer unlike Clemens where his needle helped him immensly. Roids may be a part of some players but not all, and if we are talking about the hall they should not be voted in. I really think some of them went WAY too far with it.

 

[jeff550]

Dont bother arguing with elmalo, he is schmidtfan part 2

Yes, bc God forbid I would actually have the audacity to defend my opinion. I should just say you know what you are right, what was I thinking every time someone disagrees with me.

No, but your refuse to agree to disagree, and the fact that you keep coming back with the same few arguments, time after time. and you biast towards, and agains some players is insane.

 

[Raymond]

So did Arod but they chose their paths. I don't think they will eventually let them in look at how long Shoeless Joe has been kept out, way after he died.

The Shoeless Joe thing cant even be brought up in the discussion since he has been banned from baseball. The steroid guys have not been banned they just carry the stigma. Unless the commish lifts the ban Shoeless Joe cant even be put on the ballot. Also i'd bet if the ban was lifted he would go in the first time he's on the ballot

Sigh...

Shoeless Joe was banned from baseball. But this did not exclude him from the baseball HOF.

He was on the initial HOF ballot in 1936 and got 2 votes out of 226 ballots cast (0.9%) and fell off the ballot because he didn't make the 5% cutoff.

In 1991, the HOF voted to officially exclude members of baseball's ineligible list from BBWAA voting (mostly because Pete Rose was about to go on the ballot). However, theVeterans committee did not follow suit until 2008.

So, shoeless Joe had 72 years where he could have gotten in, but didn't. The BBWAA vote is a precedent...that players need not be voted in if their conduct didn't warrant induction.the HOF includes integrity in the voting criteria for induction. What is considered inappropriate behavior has changed over the last 75 years, and some players that are in now would not make the cut by today's standards, but it would be wrong to go back and second guess those that have already made it in.

The HOF is baseball's highest honor. Someone does not need to be found guilty of drug use or cheating to be denied the greatest honor the sport can give a player. I, for one, am glad to see the voters elevating the standard of player integrity in the voting process. A precedent made with shoeless Joe back in 1936...

 

[elmalo]

Dont bother arguing with elmalo, he is schmidtfan part 2

Yes, bc God forbid I would actually have the audacity to defend my opinion. I should just say you know what you are right, what was I thinking every time someone disagrees with me.

No, but your refuse to agree to disagree, and the fact that you keep coming back with the same few arguments, time after time. and you biast towards, and agains some players is insane.

Who am I bias towards and against?

 

[braden]

"Biased". Everyone, the word is 'biased'.