89Topps

2018 Hall of Fame voting thread

Recommended Posts

1 hour 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. 

 

If it isn't then it should.  Without morality and ethics nothing works.  Without basic rules everyone can agree on all structure is lost and your are playing a game called anarchy, not baseball. 

 

But even if not then Bonds should still be banned because he used the "skills" produced by steroids and cheating instead.  Same with Clemons.  Let us not forget Roger in all of this.

 

31 minutes ago, shakestreet said:

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 ....

 

Ditto a thousand times.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, shakestreet said:

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 ....

You are clueless to those in the hall if you believe they all have character and integrity. 

If you want it to become this, that's fine, but an entirely different argument. That's not what it currently is. Nor is it what it's currently supposed to be. 

Edited by AnonymousRob
  • Like 2

Share this post


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

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. 

I despise Bonds. Really and truly can't stand the guy. My feelings on him as a person are utterly irrelevant. I'm commenting on how incredibly dominant he was compared to his peers, which is what that HoF is all about. You seem to be grossly unfamiliar with those in the hall already and instead of attacking my argument are attacking me. Please let's both do a better job of discussing Bonds the player. Tell me why you don't believe he was a dominant player in his era.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baseball knew about widespread use of amphetamines and steroids in baseball as early as 1973, when a Congressional subcommittee released a report discussing the alarming use of anabolic steroids in baseball. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I despise Bonds. Really and truly can't stand the guy. My feelings on him as a person are utterly irrelevant. I'm commenting on how incredibly dominant he was compared to his peers, which is what that HoF is all about. You seem to be grossly unfamiliar with those in the hall already and instead of attacking my argument are attacking me. Please let's both do a better job of discussing Bonds the player. Tell me why you don't believe he was a dominant player in his era.

Sorry I forgot how sensitive people are these days. My apologies.I am familiar with the hall and Bonds was on his way to a HOF career before he started juicing in '98, but he wasnt a lock. Your argument of everyone was doin it holds no wait in my book.The fact he did it, lied about it and grossly inflated his numbers should play a role in him being elected. If you think Bonds is in than so is Sosa, Mac, Juan Gon, Sheff, Raffy etc. They all have HOF numbers. Not as good as Bonds but good enough for HOF. Just because Bonds looked like a HOFer before he juiced he should get in?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Sorry I forgot how sensitive people are these days. My apologies.I am familiar with the hall and Bonds was on his way to a HOF career before he started juicing in '98, but he wasnt a lock. Your argument of everyone was doin it holds no wait in my book.The fact he did it, lied about it and grossly inflated his numbers should play a role in him being elected. If you think Bonds is in than so is Sosa, Mac, Juan Gon, Sheff, Raffy etc. They all have HOF numbers. Not as good as Bonds but good enough for HOF. Just because Bonds looked like a HOFer before he juiced he should get in?

It has nothing to do with sensitivity. My skin is about as thick as you're going to find. It's the baseball offseason - any of us here are pretty big baseball fanatics and there's really no point for us to be childish and short tempered with one another. We can save that for once the idiots swarm the board in April.

 

It's mostly about how a player played compared to their peers. It's fun to compare players from different eras, but if we're looking at someone going into the HoF I think a greater emphasis should be given to those who played in the same times. Bonds looked heads and shoulders better than all the players you listed. He looked better than every single player in baseball. 

 

Of the players you listed, I believe only Sosa and Sheffield are eligible this year. I'm certainly open to hearing the argument they should get in, but their career WAR is about 60 each. That's a very good career, but I'm not certain it's necessarily a HoF one. But like I said, if someone wants to make the argument they should be I'm definitely open to being convinced. That career WAR puts them in the same level as Edmonds, Helton, Olereud, and Bobby Abreu. I would be thrilled to have any of those players in their prime, but I'm not quite seeing the argument for HoF.

 

Barry Bonds has a career WAR of about 160. That's Willie Mays, Walter Johnson levels (but still 20 behind Babe). You could double the career WAR for Sosa and he would still be about 40 wins behind Bonds. That 100 win difference between Bonds and Sosa is equal to going from Stan Musial to Yunel Escobar, or Ted Williams to Nick Markakis. 

 

Barry Bonds ranks #4 in all time career WAR. Sheffield and Sosa rank 178 and 201, respectively. So no, I do not see how the other two eligible players from your list compare to Bonds, nor do I really see an argument for them to get into anything but the Hall of very good.

Edited by AnonymousRob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we want to look at awards, Bonds won MVP 7 times, had 8 gold gloves, made 14 ASG, and has 12 silver sluggers.

 

Sosa has 1 MVP, 7 ASG, 6 silver sluggers.

 

Sheffield has 0 MVP's, but he made 9 ASG, 5 silver sluggers, and won a batting title.

Share this post


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

It has nothing to do with sensitivity. My skin is about as thick as you're going to find. It's the baseball offseason - any of us here are pretty big baseball fanatics and there's really no point for us to be childish and short tempered with one another. We can save that for once the idiots swarm the board in April.

 

It's mostly about how a player played compared to their peers. It's fun to compare players from different eras, but if we're looking at someone going into the HoF I think a greater emphasis should be given to those who played in the same times. Bonds looked heads and shoulders better than all the players you listed. He looked better than every single player in baseball. 

 

Of the players you listed, I believe only Sosa and Sheffield are eligible this year. I'm certainly open to hearing the argument they should get in, but their career WAR is about 60 each. That's a very good career, but I'm not certain it's necessarily a HoF one. But like I said, if someone wants to make the argument they should be I'm definitely open to being convinced. That career WAR puts them in the same level as Edmonds, Helton, Olereud, and Bobby Abreu. I would be thrilled to have any of those players in their prime, but I'm not quite seeing the argument for HoF.

 

Barry Bonds has a career WAR of about 160. That's Willie Mays, Walter Johnson levels (but still 20 behind Babe). You could double the career WAR for Sosa and he would still be about 40 wins behind Bonds. That 100 win difference between Bonds and Sosa is equal to going from Stan Musial to Yunel Escobar, or Ted Williams to Nick Markakis. 

 

Barry Bonds ranks #4 in all time career WAR. Sheffield and Sosa rank 178 and 201, respectively. So no, I do not see how the other two eligible players from your list compare to Bonds, nor do I really see an argument for them to get into anything but the Hall of very good.

Not comparing those players to Bonds. I'm comparing them to players in the HOF. Why should they not be in if their numbers match up? Palmeiro is 1of 5 with 500 and 3000 and never getting in. You keep using WAR as your only indicator of Hall worthy. Do you use any other stats?

Share this post


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

Not comparing those players to Bonds. I'm comparing them to players in the HOF. Why should they not be in if their numbers match up? Palmeiro is 1of 5 with 500 and 3000 and never getting in. You keep using WAR as your only indicator of Hall worthy. Do you use any other stats?

Not understanding why you give a $H*T what stat Rob is using

 It’s a given every stat you look at for Barry Bonds the dude would have been a first ballot inductee. That is a fact jack. 

 

But since he was a horse manure steroid freak his legacy is tarnished and wil never be allowed in the Hall . The End 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, shakestreet said:

Not understanding why you give a $H*T what stat Rob is using

 It’s a given every stat you look at for Barry Bonds the dude would have been a first ballot inductee. That is a fact jack. 

 

But since he was a horse manure steroid freak his legacy is tarnished and wil never be allowed in the Hall . The End 

Before 98 he was not a lock. And he was using WAR for other players, Sheff and Sosa. And I cant believe Im spending so much time on Bonds. Its either you want cheats in or you dont. Its not a matter if they would have gotten in anyway. Rob wants them in, I dont. His argument is everyone was doing it and baseball knew so its ok to put them in. I think thats a crock. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

It has nothing to do with sensitivity. My skin is about as thick as you're going to find. It's the baseball offseason - any of us here are pretty big baseball fanatics and there's really no point for us to be childish and short tempered with one another. We can save that for once the idiots swarm the board in April.

 

It's mostly about how a player played compared to their peers. It's fun to compare players from different eras, but if we're looking at someone going into the HoF I think a greater emphasis should be given to those who played in the same times. Bonds looked heads and shoulders better than all the players you listed. He looked better than every single player in baseball. 

 

Of the players you listed, I believe only Sosa and Sheffield are eligible this year. I'm certainly open to hearing the argument they should get in, but their career WAR is about 60 each. That's a very good career, but I'm not certain it's necessarily a HoF one. But like I said, if someone wants to make the argument they should be I'm definitely open to being convinced. That career WAR puts them in the same level as Edmonds, Helton, Olereud, and Bobby Abreu. I would be thrilled to have any of those players in their prime, but I'm not quite seeing the argument for HoF.

 

Barry Bonds has a career WAR of about 160. That's Willie Mays, Walter Johnson levels (but still 20 behind Babe). You could double the career WAR for Sosa and he would still be about 40 wins behind Bonds. That 100 win difference between Bonds and Sosa is equal to going from Stan Musial to Yunel Escobar, or Ted Williams to Nick Markakis. 

 

Barry Bonds ranks #4 in all time career WAR. Sheffield and Sosa rank 178 and 201, respectively. So no, I do not see how the other two eligible players from your list compare to Bonds, nor do I really see an argument for them to get into anything but the Hall of very good.

 

I really like WAR as a stat.  Use it all the time.  But I'm willing to look beyond WAR in Sosa & McGwire's case.  Had they done what they did cleanly, then they should be HOFers.  

 

I still like the milestones for Cooperstown.  Sosa hit 600 HRs & McGwire was close.  And what they did for baseball's popularity can't be overlooked.

 

I get why they're not in, but if Bonds & Clemens get in, I'd have no issue with the veterans committee inducting both and Palmeiro down the line.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 89Topps said:

 

I really like WAR as a stat.  Use it all the time.  But I'm willing to look beyond WAR in Sosa & McGwire's case.  Had they done what they did cleanly, then they should be HOFers.  

 

I still like the milestones for Cooperstown.  Sosa hit 600 HRs & McGwire was close.  And what they did for baseball's popularity can't be overlooked.

 

I get why they're not in, but if Bonds & Clemens get in, I'd have no issue with the veterans committee inducting both and Palmeiro down the line.

I'm not a believer in having automatic lines that get a player in, but if the veterans committee puts them in at some point I have no objections. 

 

For those who are unaware of cheaters in the Hall, this is not a new phenomenon. Here's a list of a few HoF cheaters. The HOF is not some moral sanctuary. 

Share this post


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

Not comparing those players to Bonds. I'm comparing them to players in the HOF. Why should they not be in if their numbers match up? Palmeiro is 1of 5 with 500 and 3000 and never getting in. You keep using WAR as your only indicator of Hall worthy. Do you use any other stats?

They played in the same era. Why should I not compare players from the same time-frame against one another? And if you want to compare them to those already in the Hall, Bonds is up there with the greatest of the greats. Sosa and Sheffield are nowhere close.

Share this post


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

They played in the same era. Why should I not compare players from the same time-frame against one another? And if you want to compare them to those already in the Hall, Bonds is up there with the greatest of the greats. Sosa and Sheffield are nowhere close.

On the juice he us up there with the all time greats. Why is it so hard to understand?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

On the juice he us up there with the all time greats. Why is it so hard to understand?

Not everyone who juiced up is among the all time greats.  Why is that? 

I believe it's because Bonds was a significantly dominant player compared to his peers. Why do you believe he's up there with the greats but others who took steroids aren't? 

Share this post


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

Not everyone who juiced up is among the all time greats.  Why is that? 

I believe it's because Bonds was a significantly dominant player compared to his peers. Why do you believe he's up there with the greats but others who took steroids aren't? 

Why does that even matter? Im not a steroid expert. He cheated to be that good. Plain and simple.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Baseball knew about widespread use of amphetamines and steroids in baseball as early as 1973, when a Congressional subcommittee released a report discussing the alarming use of anabolic steroids in baseball. 

This is an interesting point and something I can't help but think about when the discussion of steroids comes up. Ultimately it was really unfortunate both to the fans and the game itself that the baseball owners and higher ups including the commissioner chose to ignore the issue when it became rampant during the 80s up until the early 2000s. This is the reason why I think the biggest fraud in the Hall of Fame has to be Bud Selig. I know he wasn't a player and all but I do believe that his choice to ignore the PED issue was paramount in allowing the game's integrity to continue to tarnish in the late 90s onward. Conveniently he chose to pursue A-Rod during his final year as commissioner in order to make it seem like he actually cared. He could have and should have done something years earlier- but saw the public upheaval about it had finally reached a boiling point and that forced his hand into doing something that he believed would seal his legacy. That aside its really difficult I think to evaluate the PED players and that generation as a whole because we will just never know how many players did it/ for how long etc. I can't help but think heck what about all the minor leaguers that did PEDs or the fringe major leaguers that did it and never really amounted to anything? We'll just never be able to quantify how much of an edge over the field that PEDs gave certain players. Ultimately the game has changed so much from era to era both contextually and how it was played that I think really the only recourse we're left to as fans is to just acknowledge the dominant players from each generation. Regarding Bonds to me he was such a dominant force during his day and really stood head and shoulders above everybody else - the numbers he put up were absolutely silly. But there is no denying what he did was absolutely wrong in addition to being an unlikable pr*ck of the highest magnitude. Its a tough spot for baseball deciding whether or not he should be allowed in and I think you can make compelling arguments for both sides. Either way though I think its an unfortunate lose/lose spot for baseball. Apologies for getting on a tangent about PEDs but to me its a really compelling thing to discuss. 

More on topic here with regards to the voting for the hall. I always thought the whole process kind of goofy - that we have some group of writers/veterans committee  discuss who was good enough to have a plaque in some dusty building in upstate NY. With so many fringe players getting in like Mazeroski, Biggio, ozzie Smith just to name a few coupled with the fact that some of the greatest ever like Ted Williams didn't get 100% of the vote kind of makes the whole process seem somewhat arbitrary to me to the point where I'm not really certain what it means. Anyways Bonds, Edgar, Manny, Thome, Clemens, Chipper, Vlad were all great of course (extra curriculars aside). Out of those it looks like Thome and Chipper should get in. Maybe Edgar gets in too- being just a DH hurts though he was def one of the best hitters in his era. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When it comes to guys like Clemens and Bonds, I think its almost like talking religion or politics at the holiday family dinners, you likely are not gonna convince anyone to change their opinion, if its a relatively strong one.  Ive been around the game known guys pretty much my entire adult life and my thoughts on HOF, steroids, etc are this...

 

* I think there is a "culture" within a lot of generations, none of which were really something to be proud of, whether it was those who participated in and were advocates of the segregated era, it was part of the culture and guys benefited from putting up statistics against competition that was void of some of the very best.  In the 60's and 70's and 80's "uppers" were a major part of the culture, from cocaine to greenies, how many players put up good numbers through the usage of uppers on a given day/season?  I think that era those guys played in, steroids were part of the culture and we have let a lot of the other flawed players who gained a competitive advantage because of the culture they played in and we put many of them in the Hall of Fame. 

 

* The one thing that always bothered me about the steroid era, was that it always seemed like guys went from A to Z.  Do we have an example of a player who was a workout animal, who used every LEGAL suppliment known to man, who then crossed over that line to Steroids and saw a major boost?   I dont know of one, what we always seemed to have was guys with new workout trainers and regimens that included steroids.  So a lot of times I always questioned was it the new workout OR was it the steroids?  Because you didnt work much before, you not only cheated the game, but you cheated yourself to know whether or not you even needed to use it to attain those numbers.  I heard an interview once with Steve Finley, a guy who was never accused of steroids, but he talked about a major workout change had had made with light weights focused on flexibility and core training and the next spring showed up hitting balls way deeper than ever before.  He wasnt "bulked" up, it was just a new workout and he was a guy who went from a 9-10HR guy to a 30+ HR guy.  

 

Where am I going with this?  If Bonds or Clemens get in, fine, if they dont fine, but I think its always difficult to legislate history through the lens of today without looking at the culture of the times.  

 

 

  • 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