|
Post by Peter - Boston Red Sox on Jan 19, 2017 9:39:11 GMT -5
I am interested in reading everyone's thoughts on yesterday's announcements of the HOF voting results. Jeff Bagwell, Rock Raines, and Pudge Rodriguez all get in. Does this signal a change or shift in the voter's opinions towards those players from 1980s and 90s who are suspected of using PEDs? Could we see Bonds and Clemens getting in next season? Both of those guys saw an increase in the number of votes received this year from last.
Honestly, I am not sure where I stand on voting in suspected PED users like Bonds and Clemens and others from that era. I mean, how do you know who was for sure juicing and who wasn't? One of my favorite guys from that era was Sammy Sosa and I don't think I have seen or heard anything that proves beyond all doubt that he was on the roids. I, along with many others, suspect that he was but how can it be proven? And doesn't it still take some degree of talent to hit well or pitch well? Maybe we vote them all in and just say "it is what it is." It was the steroid area and unless it can be proven beyond all doubt who was using and who wasn't, I think you have to vote them in (Sammy, Mac, Bonds, Clemens, etc.).
Thoughts from the PBL?
|
|
|
Post by Sean_RedsGM on Jan 19, 2017 12:13:23 GMT -5
I am interested in reading everyone's thoughts on yesterday's announcements of the HOF voting results. Jeff Bagwell, Rock Raines, and Pudge Rodriguez all get in. Does this signal a change or shift in the voter's opinions towards those players from 1980s and 90s who are suspected of using PEDs? Could we see Bonds and Clemens getting in next season? Both of those guys saw an increase in the number of votes received this year from last.
Honestly, I am not sure where I stand on voting in suspected PED users like Bonds and Clemens and others from that era. I mean, how do you know who was for sure juicing and who wasn't? One of my favorite guys from that era was Sammy Sosa and I don't think I have seen or heard anything that proves beyond all doubt that he was on the roids. I, along with many others, suspect that he was but how can it be proven? And doesn't it still take some degree of talent to hit well or pitch well? Maybe we vote them all in and just say "it is what it is." It was the steroid area and unless it can be proven beyond all doubt who was using and who wasn't, I think you have to vote them in (Sammy, Mac, Bonds, Clemens, etc.).
Thoughts from the PBL? I'm glad that those 3 got in. I was disappointed to see that Hoffman barely missed out. I really don't understand the apprehension of putting dominant relievers in the hall of fame. The reliever is a position in baseball. To not include the most dominant ones in the hall of fame just doesn't make sense to me. The same can be said with a DH IMO. As for Bonds and Clemens, I think if you're going to keep them out and others then you should remove guys that are in who cheated by doctoring baseball's or by taking other drugs like amphetamines. Of course they won't go back and do that, so I don't really understand why you keep them out. Borderline guys I can understand the argument but Bonds and Clemens should be in. Manny Ramirez IMO should not be in.
|
|
|
Post by Luc_AZdbacks on Jan 19, 2017 12:19:07 GMT -5
Bonds and Clemens should definitely be in in my opinion.
I view Bonds as the best hitter of all time, and the fact that he did steroids doesn't really change my opinion of him that much, considering how many players would have been juicing at the time.
|
|
|
Post by Sean..Mariners GM on Jan 19, 2017 12:22:15 GMT -5
I said this last year....If you have an award named after you....you should be in the hall. Edgar did get a big jump in votes so that's a good sign.
I'm overall cool with the results.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using proboards
|
|
|
Post by sansterre - Milwaukee Brewers on Jan 19, 2017 15:04:57 GMT -5
Personally, I go with the Bill Simmons approach for Bonds and Clemens. The goal of the Hall is to educate about the game; there's no reason not to let them in and acknowledge that they were some of the best of all time and that they also cheated. Bonds and Clemens should definitely be in in my opinion. I view Bonds as the best hitter of all time, and the fact that he did steroids doesn't really change my opinion of him that much, considering how many players would have been juicing at the time. No way Bonds is better than Ruth. Bonds was a monster but Ruth was a freak. Ruth's career wOBA was .509; Bonds beat that only three times. Bonds best seasons were 544, 537 and 537. Ruth had a 598 and a 575, with six seasons better than 544. It's just hard to appreciate how freakishly, brutally good Ruth was. Just think how good he would have been if he'd ever hit a damned gym.
|
|
|
Post by Derek _ Red Sox on Jan 19, 2017 15:21:13 GMT -5
I heard the argument that the Hall of Fame let Bud Selig in and he was an enabler of this ERA so if he is in then the players should be in. It seems kind of a weird premise but I totally don't disagree with it.
The problem I have with the Hall of Fame is its righteousness. Yes! I get it's the HOF and it's the highest of honors but lets be realistic players in every era cheated in one way or another. There is simply NO way everyone in the HOF pre-2000 was clean. Also, the HOF let some very questionably skilled players in who are in for name recognition more than performance.
Finally, this is from all walks of life but I would give anything to go back in the day and take the technology we live with today with me and see how fucked up the celebrities and athletes were back then. To see everything they actually got away with. Today it's just a different ballgame (no pun intended) and everything is under 1000 different microscopes. Even in the restaurant business, back in the 80s and before, restaurants could get away with so much more than we ever could now.
|
|
|
Post by Sean_RedsGM on Jan 19, 2017 16:04:42 GMT -5
Personally, I go with the Bill Simmons approach for Bonds and Clemens. The goal of the Hall is to educate about the game; there's no reason not to let them in and acknowledge that they were some of the best of all time and that they also cheated. Bonds and Clemens should definitely be in in my opinion. I view Bonds as the best hitter of all time, and the fact that he did steroids doesn't really change my opinion of him that much, considering how many players would have been juicing at the time. No way Bonds is better than Ruth. Bonds was a monster but Ruth was a freak. Ruth's career wOBA was .509; Bonds beat that only three times. Bonds best seasons were 544, 537 and 537. Ruth had a 598 and a 575, with six seasons better than 544. It's just hard to appreciate how freakishly, brutally good Ruth was. Just think how good he would have been if he'd ever hit a damned gym. The game has changed so much just on the pitching side and how managers manage. For example, in Ruth's career Pitchers pretty much pitched the entire game and there wasn't really a bullpen. During Bonds career, a starter would go hard for 2 or 3 times through an order and then is taken out for a fresh arm. It would presumably be easier to hit off a pitcher who is trying to save his stuff for later rather than the guy throwing as hard as they can for an inning or two.
|
|
|
Post by earlweaver on Jan 19, 2017 16:41:21 GMT -5
It is very difficult to compare eras against eras.
I tend to look at a player and his contemporaries. Babe Ruth changed baseball, and dominated in a way noone else did.
Barry Bonds or anyone else needs to hit 200 hrs in a season before i give any credence to the notion that the Babe isnt the greatest of all-time.
I know how crazy that sounds, but i imagine it sounds just as dumb as someone seeing Babe Ruth's stats before he played a MLB game...
|
|
|
Post by sansterre - Milwaukee Brewers on Jan 19, 2017 18:38:43 GMT -5
Personally, I go with the Bill Simmons approach for Bonds and Clemens. The goal of the Hall is to educate about the game; there's no reason not to let them in and acknowledge that they were some of the best of all time and that they also cheated. No way Bonds is better than Ruth. Bonds was a monster but Ruth was a freak. Ruth's career wOBA was .509; Bonds beat that only three times. Bonds best seasons were 544, 537 and 537. Ruth had a 598 and a 575, with six seasons better than 544. It's just hard to appreciate how freakishly, brutally good Ruth was. Just think how good he would have been if he'd ever hit a damned gym. The game has changed so much just on the pitching side and how managers manage. For example, in Ruth's career Pitchers pretty much pitched the entire game and there wasn't really a bullpen. During Bonds career, a starter would go hard for 2 or 3 times through an order and then is taken out for a fresh arm. It would presumably be easier to hit off a pitcher who is trying to save his stuff for later rather than the guy throwing as hard as they can for an inning or two. Of course you're right. Just as I'm right that Ruth suffered from playing in an era where they discouraged players from working out; Ty Cobb and Honus Wagner worked out in spite of the common wisdom of the day. As stated above, comparing eras is nearly impossible. All we can say is that it does seem like Ruth dominated his era more than Bonds dominated his. And that's about as good as we're going to get.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2017 20:19:37 GMT -5
If Bud Selig, who oversaw the game during the steroid years is in the HoF, why aren't the players who thrived during that era?The 80s and 90s are the least represented decades in the hall - because crotchety old writers hold their moral compass up and they alone can pass judgement and not vote for them (honestly, my Indians beat writer submitted yet another BLANK ballot*). Unless they institute another 'Pete Rose can't be inducted because he's banned' rule, then voters shouldn't hold these players out. The truth is we'll never really know who juiced and who didn't. Players that tested positive paid for their crimes via suspensions. I say judge them versus their contemporaries and vote accordingly. Roids can get you back on the field quicker. They can help your deadlift and bench press. I just don't see them helping you hit a curveball. If McGwire, Sosa, Canseco, Bonds, Clemens, Ramirez and Palmero aren't inducted or are removed from consideration you might as well erase a decade of MLB history and just pretend it never happened. But without them, after the 94 strike, where would the league be? Also, why does the BBWAA ballot look like a middle school note to a girl "do you like me, circle yes or no"**. * www.cleveland.com/livingston/index.ssf/2017/01/why_i_abstained_on_my_baseball.html#incart_river_index** www.cleveland.com/tribe/index.ssf/2017/01/hall_of_fame_baseball.html#incart_river_index
|
|
|
Post by Peter - Boston Red Sox on Jan 19, 2017 20:39:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Peter - Boston Red Sox on Jan 19, 2017 20:40:52 GMT -5
That stance though!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2017 20:51:38 GMT -5
Such a quick swing, that guy raked!!!
|
|
|
Post by Peter - Boston Red Sox on Jan 19, 2017 20:52:50 GMT -5
Such a quick swing, that guy raked!!! I liked Biggio better but those two together was really good. Hated when they played the Cubs.
|
|
|
Post by Texas Rangers on Jan 19, 2017 20:53:48 GMT -5
Babe Ruth didn't compete against the best baseball players, because Black and Hispanic players were not allowed. I am always shocked that this doesn't get brought up more. That's a big deal. That's without getting into teams not having farm systems, scouting was the equivalent of a monkey with a dartboard, and people thought it uncouth to do things like throw breaking pitches or try to prevent people from stealing bases or take the starting pitcher out because he's doing poorly.
Babe Ruth put up the best stats ever, no doubt. He also played entirely pre-1947, and thus wasn't competing against the best players, as every other great hitter that gets thrown into the discussion had.
|
|