[2013] MLB Hall of Fame. Who Would you vote for?

[FirstTimer]

But now we're on a sliding scale of evolving drugs. At the time, greenies were the drug of choice and the best thing available. If guys get on some stupid awesome stem cell whatever in the next 10 years, do steroids suddenly become okay?

I don't think anyone is arguing greenies are "ok". I think we are just saying roids>greenies as far as impact on the game...and I'd have to think that steroids would stay banned, so would greenies, and so would the new stem cell thing...so I guess I'm not seeing the point. None of them would be "ok" at that point in time.

 

[Senser81]

But now we're on a sliding scale of evolving drugs. At the time, greenies were the drug of choice and the best thing available. If guys get on some stupid awesome stem cell whatever in the next 10 years, do steroids suddenly become okay?

Were we ever off a sliding scale of evolving drugs?

Not too hard to figure...we can use the same example. People used/use HGH to get around steroid tests...did that make steroids ok? Of course not.


Dizzy Dean drank a lot of coffee before he pitched in the 1930's...does that make greenies ok?

 

[FedEx227]

To me? Yeah it's fine, I really don't care. Nothing is going to make you a great baseball player except being a great baseball player.

 

[FirstTimer]

We've kind of gotten way off course here but looking back on this conversation in relation to Mac I just can't see him having a case for the HOF.

Steroids were illegal/banned in baseball. Albeit the policy had no teeth.
Mac admitted to using them...he cheated/broke the rules.
Taking Mac's own argument at face value he admits himself w/o them he wouldn't have been able to stay on the field...(this is apparently a reasonable argument)
Without him on the field he doesn't put up HOF numbers.(again a reasonable argument).

I just don't see how people can put him in

 

[FedEx227]

He gets in to me because he has numbers that deserve merit among other great players in the Hall of Fame.

Now we're subtracting and assuming what he would have done or wouldn't have done had he taken, had he made it on the field, had he not got hurt, if he got hurt, etc., etc. It's all silly to me, so at the end of the day if you put up numbers that put you at the level of the game's greats, you deserve to get in.

 

[NAHSTE]

Dizzy Dean drank a lot of coffee before he pitched in the 1930's...does that make greenies ok?

And Johnny Podres was nicotine'd out of his mind during the '55 World Series.

 

[FirstTimer]

He gets in to me because he has numbers that deserve merit among other great players in the Hall of Fame.

Now we're subtracting and assuming what he would have done or wouldn't have done had he taken, had he made it on the field, had he not got hurt, if he got hurt, etc., etc. It's all silly to me, so at the end of the day if you put up numbers that put you at the level of the game's greats, you deserve to get in.

But you're talking about over 50% of those numbers(based on Mac's 93/94 timeline) being at the best highly dubious/accomplished with illegal/banned means. At least in Clemens or Bonds' case you could make the argument they were HOF'ers before they started juicing. Almost Mac's entire career is possibly in question. Just doesn't hold up for me.

 

[Senser81]

Nothing is going to make you a great baseball player except being a great baseball player.

Channeling your inner-Tom Emanski?

 

[Senser81]

He gets in to me because he has numbers that deserve merit among other great players in the Hall of Fame.

Now we're subtracting and assuming what he would have done or wouldn't have done had he taken, had he made it on the field, had he not got hurt, if he got hurt, etc., etc. It's all silly to me, so at the end of the day if you put up numbers that put you at the level of the game's greats, you deserve to get in.

Does that hold true for Ralphie Palermo?

 

[FedEx227]

My argument regarding Palmero is pretty stupid lol. I'm trying to give some amount of credit to the MLB's testing system. There's a clear difference in why I'd let McGwire in and not Palmero, albeit kind of stupid I'll admit.

Over the years (aka once Manny is up for vote) I'd probably say fuck it and let him in.

 

[FirstTimer]

My argument regarding Palmero is pretty stupid lol. I'm trying to give some amount of credit to the MLB's testing system. Over the years (aka once Manny is up for vote) I'd probably say fuck it and let him in.

Isn't Manny kind of in the Bonds category though to a certain extent? By the time Manny was popped for PED's he was already a lock HOF'er and some said he was the greatest RH hitter of all time.

 

[Senser81]

My argument regarding Palmero is pretty stupid lol.

This made my day. Thanks.

I do get what you are saying, but I think baseball is so weird when it comes to the steroid stuff it has to be looked at on a case-by-case basis.

 

[FedEx227]

He's in the same category as, he was an elite level baseball player that deserves merit in the Hall of Fame.

Again, why are we so dead set on putting dates/years to when guys started using? Manny was a really, really awesome player. That's all you really have to say.

 

[Senser81]

Again, why are we so dead set on putting dates/years to when guys started using? Manny was a really, really awesome player. That's all you really have to say.

To me, the only time when dates need to be set is when people differentiate a guy like Bonds/Clemens from a Sosa/Palermo, saying "they would have made the HOF without steroids". If you don't have that differentiation, the dates become irrelevent. Just look at the bottom line, and be done with it.

 

[ralaw]

My argument for the steroid guys is either all or none. I don't like the idea of trying to figure out when they did or didn't start using, because no one really knows. I've heard the argument that Bonds was a HOFer before he started, which could be true, but how do we know when he started? Either you have to ban steroid users from the HOF all together or you have to simply look at their stats and impact like you would any other candidate. I lean towards banning them all.

 

[FedEx227]

This made my day. Thanks.

I do get what you are saying, but I think baseball is so weird when it comes to the steroid stuff it has to be looked at on a case-by-case basis.

 

[Goober]

This made me LOL. I think Yount is one of the weaker HOF members, and I don't know if he would have gotten in had he not reached 3000 hits....but this comparison to Trammell is somewhat ridiculous.

One, its not like Yount has 3001 hits and Trammell has 2990. Since you couldn't even bring yourself to give Yount's actual total, its 3142 hits to 2365 hits. Thats a difference of nearly 800, which is significant. Same holds true for the other 'counting statistics'.

Two, you not only brush off this 'mere difference' and quickly move on to judging each player at their peak by using the unreliable dWAR (what happened to Yount's two MVPs?), you make it sound as if its the baseball writers' fault that Trammell has nearly 800 less hits than Yount, instead of treating it as an assertion of fact.

I don't blame the writer's for Trammell's hit total, I blame them for placing too much importance on a player's hit total when considering their hall of fame candidacy. As I stated before these counting statistics shouldn't be used a prerequisite for entry into the Hall; there is no X number of hits that separate a Hall of Fame player from just a good player. I'd rather judge a player by their peak and not how injury free they remained late in their career. I think when looking back on Trammell and Yount's careers, Trammell's better defensive play makes up for the difference in counting statistics.

 

[Villain]

Voted for all the roid guys because the HOF voters are pious assholes.

 

[Senser81]

I don't blame the writer's for Trammell's hit total, I blame them for placing too much importance on a player's hit total when considering their hall of fame candidacy. As I stated before these counting statistics shouldn't be used a prerequisite for entry into the Hall; there is no X number of hits that separate a Hall of Fame player from just a good player. I'd rather judge a player by their peak and not how injury free they remained late in their career. I think when looking back on Trammell and Yount's careers, Trammell's better defensive play makes up for the difference in counting statistics.

Counting statistics aren't really a "prerequisite" for entry into the Hall...there are many HOFers who did not get 3000 hits. I can name several players who didn't get 3000 hits that I would say were better than Yount. I guess my problem is two-fold: one, Trammell is nowhere near 3000 hits, and two Trammell isn't one of the guys with fewer than 3000 hits that I would say was better than Yount. I also don't think that Trammell's defense was THAT much better than Yount to make up for such a large disparity in 'counting statistics'. And I really don't see how Trammell's peak is all that better than Yount's.

 

[FedEx227]

Here's a guy with a similar stance that I have. NYT columnist Bill Rhoden:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_...-dismisses-baseball-hall-of-fame-controversy/