89Topps

2018 Hall of Fame voting thread

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, motown magic said:

I agree with you 100 % . Thats why I say STOP THE BLEEDING NOW !

Jack Morris and Trammel getting in open up a lot of guys who were better than those two that are currently not in...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, AnonymousRob said:

Chipper, Vladimir, Clemens, and Bonds should all get in this year. All time greats. Andruw better not fall under 5%.

I think next year they get in just because I think 5 others(Larry, Vlad, Hoff, Thome,Edgar) are getting in along with Morris and Trammell. Too many speeches if there are 9.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, duke of queens said:

I think next year they get in just because I think 5 others(Larry, Vlad, Hoff, Thome,Edgar) are getting in along with Morris and Trammell. Too many speeches if there are 9.

Bonds is far and away the best player on that list. He is one of the greatest to ever play the sport. He's a jerk and used steroids during the steroid era. Still was a god among men. Somebody else should wait if that's the case. Outright insult to baseball that he's not in. Any voter not picking him should have their credentials revoked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, AnonymousRob said:

Bonds is far and away the best player on that list. He is one of the greatest to ever play the sport. He's a jerk and used steroids during the steroid era. Still was a god among men. Somebody else should wait if that's the case. Outright insult to baseball that he's not in. Any voter not picking him should have their credentials revoked.

He was a god because of steroids. He was not a god on the Pirates. Its not an insult to baseball that he is not in, it's actually an insult to the clean players in the HOF that they are now letting in steroid users. I really don't want to argue about if they should be allowed in, but I definitely see both arguments. I always thought the HOF was for the best of the best, but now its becoming watered down like the other HOFs and it really doesn't matter all that much to me anymore.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, parrothead said:

Most players are on and off the ballot in one year because they dont get any votes...the big issue is I think the accumulators who were never GREAT but stayed around a long time AND the guys who had GREAT windows but were not around long enough.  

 

I propose three HOF wings:

 

1. The "compiler" wing;

2. The "great peak" wing; and

3. The all-time great wing

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, duke of queens said:

He was a god because of steroids. He was not a god on the Pirates. Its not an insult to baseball that he is not in, it's actually an insult to the clean players in the HOF that they are now letting in steroid users. I really don't want to argue about if they should be allowed in, but I definitely see both arguments. I always thought the HOF was for the best of the best, but now its becoming watered down like the other HOFs and it really doesn't matter all that much to me anymore.

He was not the only player taking steroids. It was called the steroid era for a reason. He was the only player curbstomping competition every single year. 

He was HoF caliber before he started taking steroids.

Baseball knew about steroids and took zero steps to prohibit their use until years after the fact. 

We don't know who was clean. And using drugs to improve performance is hardly a new thing. Players have done that since before we were even born. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, AnonymousRob said:

He was not the only player taking steroids. It was called the steroid era for a reason. He was the only player curbstomping competition every single year. 

He was HoF caliber before he started taking steroids.

Baseball knew about steroids and took zero steps to prohibit their use until years after the fact. 

We don't know who was clean. And using drugs to improve performance is hardly a new thing. Players have done that since before we were even born. 

 

Oh come that is hardly a logically argument.  That is like saying murdering people is hardly a new thing either.  But hey we still have laws against it.  Some may never get caught but those that do pay the price. 

 

And we do know some guys were clean so to assume everyone was doing them is an insult to the guys who did play clean.  Bonds may well have been a good or even great player so why on earth did he play dirty?  He doesn't deserve to be in because of his stupidity for taking drugs when he never needed them if he indeed was that great without them.

 

Yes there probably are players who have used drugs that are now currently in the Hall and there will be in the future but Bonds pretty much lied about it under oath didn't he?  Wasn't he before the congressional committee in other words?  If you go that far you have crossed many a line too far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baseball knew damn well this was happening and not only did they ignore any steps to curb it, they promoted and profited by it. 

Bonds is a legendary hitter. Other players who took steroids didn't get intentionally walked like Bonds did. I think people are forgetting how dominant a player Bonds truly was. McCovey is right - people who didn't like Bonds are using the steroids issue as an excuse. He really was a world class jerkoff. Heck, that probably played a big role in why he was clearly blackballed (his last year he hit 276 with a 480 obp and 288 ISO).

 

Career all time numbers?

5th in obp.

3rd in ISO

1st in homeruns. And yes, it was clearly an era of too much power being artificially fueled (ARod, Griffey, Thome, Sosa, McGwire, Palmiero, Manny are all top 15). But Bonds still runs circles around all of them. 

Guys like Palmiero may be examples of good players getting an artificial bump. You want to keep them out? I won't object. I'll probably agree. But Bonds? Dude is one of the greatest hitters the game has ever known. Go feed Machado handfuls of roids. He isn't going to turn in a 362/609/812 season like Bonds did. 

He's such a monstrous dbag. But he really was a legendary beast with a bat. We can't always judge players from different eras against one another fairly. The best way to see how worthy they are is to judge them against their contemporaries. Can you name a single batter as dominant as Bonds? Even the ones who definitely took steroids? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, AnonymousRob said:

Baseball knew damn well this was happening and not only did they ignore any steps to curb it, they promoted and profited by it. 

Bonds is a legendary hitter. Other players who took steroids didn't get intentionally walked like Bonds did. I think people are forgetting how dominant a player Bonds truly was. McCovey is right - people who didn't like Bonds are using the steroids issue as an excuse. He really was a world class jerkoff. Heck, that probably played a big role in why he was clearly blackballed (his last year he hit 276 with a 480 obp and 288 ISO).

 

Career all time numbers?

5th in obp.

3rd in ISO

1st in homeruns. And yes, it was clearly an era of too much power being artificially fueled (ARod, Griffey, Thome, Sosa, McGwire, Palmiero, Manny are all top 15). But Bonds still runs circles around all of them. 

Guys like Palmiero may be examples of good players getting an artificial bump. You want to keep them out? I won't object. I'll probably agree. But Bonds? Dude is one of the greatest hitters the game has ever known. Go feed Machado handfuls of roids. He isn't going to turn in a 362/609/812 season like Bonds did. 

He's such a monstrous dbag. But he really was a legendary beast with a bat. We can't always judge players from different eras against one another fairly. The best way to see how worthy they are is to judge them against their contemporaries. Can you name a single batter as dominant as Bonds? Even the ones who definitely took steroids? 

He was that dominant because of steroids. You do realize this? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, duke of queens said:

He was that dominant because of steroids. You do realize this? 

It was the steroid era. Meaning a ton of players in that era took steroids. If steroids are the reason he was that dominant, please give me a list of other steroid users who were equally dominant. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, AnonymousRob said:

It was the steroid era. Meaning a ton of players in that era took steroids. If steroids are the reason he was that dominant, please give me a list of other steroid users who were equally dominant. 

We are talking about Bonds, not other people. By letting the roiders in you are basically telling all up and coming stars that there are no repercussions for cheating. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, My Dinner With Andre said:

 

I propose three HOF wings:

 

1. The "compiler" wing;

2. The "great peak" wing; and

3. The all-time great wing

 

 

you forgot 1

 

4.  The "steriod" wing

 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I got a ballot, my votes would be:

 

Chipper Jones

Vladimir Guerrero

Jim Thome

Barry Bonds 

Roger Clemens

Trevor Hoffman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, motown magic said:

This is where it gets watered down. Just take a good look at the names. Should they be among the likes of Ruth , Mays and Aaron?  Good players but elite? I don't think so . Please lets stop the bleeding .

 

That's the "Small Hall" argument.  And I get it.  But, if Mays, Ruth, Aaron are your barrier for entry, then they'd induct a guy like every 5 years.  Seriously, no one on the ballot, save for probably Bonds & Clemens are "Ruth or Mays" and they're not getting in for other reasons.  It's arguing what you think the Hall should be, and not what it actually is.

 

Take Rolen for example.  Does he need to be Mike Schmidt or Eddie Matthews to get in?  If so, then you've only got maybe 3 third basemen in the Hall.  Or, does he need to be Paul Molitor or Ron Santo to get in?  That's a little more fair of a comparison.

 

So, I don't know.  I get the "small hall" line of thinking, but I don't know that I think they should just arbitrarily change the way they vote out of nowhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, duke of queens said:

He was a god because of steroids. He was not a god on the Pirates. Its not an insult to baseball that he is not in, it's actually an insult to the clean players in the HOF that they are now letting in steroid users. I really don't want to argue about if they should be allowed in, but I definitely see both arguments. I always thought the HOF was for the best of the best, but now its becoming watered down like the other HOFs and it really doesn't matter all that much to me anymore.

 

What's funny, is they really don't induct anymore players now than they ever have.  And if you look at the WAR rankings for players in the Hall, there's some pretty "meh" players from back in the 20s & 30s.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, duke of queens said:

We are talking about Bonds, not other people. By letting the roiders in you are basically telling all up and coming stars that there are no repercussions for cheating. 

We've always done that. Baseball and life in general. Yes, if you can cheat and get away with it you'll often be rewarded. This is not unique to baseball. 

Baseball now tests for steroid usage - something they didn't bother to do before 2001 despite knowing about its widespread use. If someone uses and gets caught they face increasingly severe penalties, ultimately leading to a lifetime ban.

First punishment is 80 game suspension. 

Second punishment is 162 game suspension. 

Third punishment is lifetime ban.

 

I'm still waiting on your list of other players who were good as Bonds. Unless you care to change your argument to Bonds being the only player who took steroids. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, AnonymousRob said:

We've always done that. Baseball and life in general. Yes, if you can cheat and get away with it you'll often be rewarded. This is not unique to baseball. 

 

 

So cheating as long as you can  get away with it is okay?  What moral and ethical system is this from?  The cheatology system?  C'mon on.  The more you post about how it is fine and dandy to cheat and how great it is to cheat and lie about it afterwards especially, the less seriously you are going to be taken.

 

Also you said " McCovey is right - people who didn't like Bonds are using the steroids issue as an excuse."  Huh?????  I don't like cheating and the lying afterwards. If he didn't use steroids I would have no reason to dislike him.  But he did and so I do.  Same with fellow nominee this year, Roger Clemons.  Especially since both of these guys kept lying about it.  But yeah go ahead and excuse everyone on planet earth who doesn't like cheats as having some personal prejudice against Barry Bonds because ... why?   None of these pro-steroid, pro-cheating arguments seem to be made in the rational realm.  Logic has fallen sloppy dead at this point.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AnonymousRob said:

We've always done that. Baseball and life in general. Yes, if you can cheat and get away with it you'll often be rewarded. This is not unique to baseball. 

Baseball now tests for steroid usage - something they didn't bother to do before 2001 despite knowing about its widespread use. If someone uses and gets caught they face increasingly severe penalties, ultimately leading to a lifetime ban.

First punishment is 80 game suspension. 

Second punishment is 162 game suspension. 

Third punishment is lifetime ban.

 

I'm still waiting on your list of other players who were good as Bonds. Unless you care to change your argument to Bonds being the only player who took steroids. 

Keep waiting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, The Big Bat Theory said:

 

So cheating as long as you can  get away with it is okay?  What moral and ethical system is this from?  The cheatology system?  C'mon on.  The more you post about how it is fine and dandy to cheat and how great it is to cheat and lie about it afterwards especially, the less seriously you are going to be taken.

 

Also you said " McCovey is right - people who didn't like Bonds are using the steroids issue as an excuse."  Huh?????  I don't like cheating and the lying afterwards. If he didn't use steroids I would have no reason to dislike him.  But he did and so I do.  Same with fellow nominee this year, Roger Clemons.  Especially since both of these guys kept lying about it.  But yeah go ahead and excuse everyone on planet earth who doesn't like cheats as having some personal prejudice against Barry Bonds because ... why?   None of these pro-steroid, pro-cheating arguments seem to be made in the rational realm.  Logic has fallen sloppy dead at this point.

 

 

Baseball HoF is not celebrating morality. To imply otherwise is being disingenuous. It's to celebrate their skills at baseball. No more. No less. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, duke of queens said:

Keep waiting

I'd probably do the same thing if I realized I made a poor argument, was backed into a corner, and didn't want to admit I was mistaken.

 

You argued Bonds was so great because he took steroids. If steroids are that amazing, why is it no other player was able to match his production? Was he the only person in the steroid era who took steroids?

 

Would his numbers have been as good if he hadn't taken steroids? Probably not, but that's besides the point. The point is he was one of many players during his era who took steroids (again, that's why it's called the steroid era), yet he STILL played significantly better than all of them. If dominating your peers during your era for a long period of time isn't the criteria for the Hall of Fame, I'm curious to hear what you believe it should change to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, AnonymousRob said:

I'd probably do the same thing if I realized I made a poor argument, was backed into a corner, and didn't want to admit I was mistaken.

 

You argued Bonds was so great because he took steroids. If steroids are that amazing, why is it no other player was able to match his production? Was he the only person in the steroid era who took steroids?

 

Would his numbers have been as good if he hadn't taken steroids? Probably not, but that's besides the point. The point is he was one of many players during his era who took steroids (again, that's why it's called the steroid era), yet he STILL played significantly better than all of them. If dominating your peers during your era for a long period of time isn't the criteria for the Hall of Fame, I'm curious to hear what you believe it should change to.

Think again. I dont want cheaters in the Hall, you do. End of argument. You have a huge man crush on a loser that needs steroids to break records, I don't. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, AnonymousRob said:

Baseball HoF is not celebrating morality. To imply otherwise is being disingenuous. It's to celebrate their skills at baseball. No more. No less. 

One rule the steroid users are lacking —- Character, Integrity and Sportsmanship . 

 

That is why they NEVER  should be allow into the Hall. They lack character and integrity. 

 

I agree the Hall is water-down ....

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, AnonymousRob said:

Baseball knew damn well this was happening and not only did they ignore any steps to curb it, they promoted and profited by it. 

Bonds is a legendary hitter. Other players who took steroids didn't get intentionally walked like Bonds did. I think people are forgetting how dominant a player Bonds truly was. McCovey is right - people who didn't like Bonds are using the steroids issue as an excuse. He really was a world class jerkoff. Heck, that probably played a big role in why he was clearly blackballed (his last year he hit 276 with a 480 obp and 288 ISO).

 

Career all time numbers?

5th in obp.

3rd in ISO

1st in homeruns. And yes, it was clearly an era of too much power being artificially fueled (ARod, Griffey, Thome, Sosa, McGwire, Palmiero, Manny are all top 15). But Bonds still runs circles around all of them. 

Guys like Palmiero may be examples of good players getting an artificial bump. You want to keep them out? I won't object. I'll probably agree. But Bonds? Dude is one of the greatest hitters the game has ever known. Go feed Machado handfuls of roids. He isn't going to turn in a 362/609/812 season like Bonds did. 

He's such a monstrous dbag. But he really was a legendary beast with a bat. We can't always judge players from different eras against one another fairly. The best way to see how worthy they are is to judge them against their contemporaries. Can you name a single batter as dominant as Bonds? Even the ones who definitely took steroids? 

 

To play devil's advocate here; if I answer 99 questions on a test all on my own, but get caught copying my neighbor on question 100, I still get an F.

 

Saying he was a HOFer before juicing is like saying cheaters should get an A-.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now