or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The 19th Hole › Sports › Baseball HOF
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Baseball HOF - Page 5

post #73 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by meenman View Post


we are not really that far apart.

my point is, if glavine is a hall if famer, mussina is a lock. Wins were used against mussina , yet they will not be against martinez.

You're right, we aren't that far apart. I definitely agree with you, here :beer:

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by meenman View Post


Cy Young voters are also a bit inconsistent. Some years they vote wins, others ERAs.

I believe the BBWAA votes on the Cy Young, also, so yes, inconsistency is to be expected.

post #74 of 93

The baseball writers need to stop acting as judge and jury and put their personal biases aside.  If players are up for induction it's their job to review the players statistics and contributions to the game on the facts and not what they believe or rumors.  The HOF is to celebrate the greatest players of the game, Bonds and the others belong in there unless MLB plans to take away his HR record and wipe out all their stats from the game as if they never played.

 

Ruth was an alcoholic, others inducted were greenie addicts, Bonds was a great player before he was ever suspected of taking PEDS and there's no proof Piazza ever did yet they continue to be excluded because the baseball writers are a bunch of hypocrites.

post #75 of 93

For those of you who think steroids should not bar admission to the HOF -- what do you think about: (1) the Arod suspension; and (2) Arod getting into the HOF?

 

Re (1) - Do you think that he shouldn't be banned because others did it and got away with it?  Or does the existence of testing make a difference (even though federal law apparently doesn't).  

 

Re (2) -  He committed the same offense as Bonds and Clemens, right?    I suppose those who think Bonds and Clemens should be in because they were HOFers before they juiced can argue against Arod because he apparently cheated for most (all?) of his career.  

post #76 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsc123 View Post

For those of you who think steroids should not bar admission to the HOF -- what do you think about: (1) the Arod suspension; and (2) Arod getting into the HOF?

Re (1) - Do you think that he shouldn't be banned because others did it and got away with it?  Or does the existence of testing make a difference (even though federal law apparently doesn't).  

Re (2) -  He committed the same offense as Bonds and Clemens, right?    I suppose those who think Bonds and Clemens should be in because they were HOFers before they juiced can argue against Arod because he apparently cheated for most (all?) of his career.  

I'll make an exception on clemens because he did what any innocent person should.

He went kicking and screaming and fought it all the way to the top.

I am in no way saying that I think he was clean (his head size grew as much as bonds), but no one has proven him guilty.
post #77 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by meenman View Post


I'll make an exception on clemens because he did what any innocent person should.

He went kicking and screaming and fought it all the way to the top.

I am in no way saying that I think he was clean (his head size grew as much as bonds), but no one has proven him guilty.

 

Grimsley named Clemens and Pettitte in an affidavit as having used PEDs.  Pettitte testified under oath that Clemens told him he used HGH, and that he took them on Clemens' recommendation.  Clemens claims he told Andy that his wife used it, and that Andy must have "misremembered."  Andy said at the trial that its possible he misremembered.  They were good friends and I don't think Pettitte liked having to rat him out, but also didn't want to lie.   And I think McNamee testified that he saw it or provided it, or injected it, or whatever.  So there's actually quite a bit of evidence.  

post #78 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsc123 View Post

For those of you who think steroids should not bar admission to the HOF -- what do you think about: (1) the Arod suspension; and (2) Arod getting into the HOF?

I support the suspension, but (as much as it pains me), I would vote for him for the Hall of Fame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsc123 View Post

Re (2) -  He committed the same offense as Bonds and Clemens, right?    I suppose those who think Bonds and Clemens should be in because they were HOFers before they juiced can argue against Arod because he apparently cheated for most (all?) of his career.  

Not that I buy into it, but I think the bigger argument for not inducting ARod while inducting Clemens and Bonds is that ARod was 10 years later, when there was stringent testing, when the Joint Drug Agreement was much harsher, when he had to mask the drugs he was taking, and when we know more about the effects of PEDs. At least Clemens and Bonds have the "everyone was doing it" argument.

Again though, they're all in my HOF, along with more recent PED users like (off the top of my head) Manny Ramirez.
post #79 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsc123 View Post

Grimsley named Clemens and Pettitte in an affidavit as having used PEDs.  Pettitte testified under oath that Clemens told him he used HGH, and that he took them on Clemens' recommendation.  Clemens claims he told Andy that his wife used it, and that Andy must have "misremembered."  Andy said at the trial that its possible he misremembered.  They were good friends and I don't think Pettitte liked having to rat him out, but also didn't want to lie.   And I think McNamee testified that he saw it or provided it, or injected it, or whatever.  So there's actually quite a bit of evidence.  

evidence or not, he was never found guilty of anything (including perjury)

This is america, in theory, we are innocent until proven guilty.
post #80 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamo View Post


I support the suspension, but (as much as it pains me), I would vote for him for the Hall of Fame.
Not that I buy into it, but I think the bigger argument for not inducting ARod while inducting Clemens and Bonds is that ARod was 10 years later, when there was stringent testing, when the Joint Drug Agreement was much harsher, when he had to mask the drugs he was taking, and when we know more about the effects of PEDs. At least Clemens and Bonds have the "everyone was doing it" argument.

Again though, they're all in my HOF, along with more recent PED users like (off the top of my head) Manny Ramirez.

 

Thanks, interesting thoughts.  

 

Sadly, after watching 60 minutes, I'm not convinced that everybody isn't still doing it.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by meenman View Post


evidence or not, he was never found guilty of anything (including perjury)

This is america, in theory, we are innocent until proven guilty.

 

That's true of all of them.  I think Bonds only got an obstruction charge.  I don't think public opinion is subject to the same standards of a criminal prosecution.  

post #81 of 93

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/nationals/greg-maddux-a-hall-of-fame-approach-that-carried-an-average-arm-to-cooperstown/2014/01/07/fdd7ae82-77d3-11e3-af7f-13bf0e9965f6_story.html

 

Quote:

First, Maddux was convinced no hitter could tell the speed of a pitch with any meaningful accuracy. To demonstrate, he pointed at a road a quarter-mile away and said it was impossible to tell if a car was going 55, 65 or 75 mph unless there was another car nearby to offer a point of reference.

“You just can’t do it,” he said. Sometimes hitters can pick up differences in spin. They can identify pitches if there are different releases points or if a curveball starts with an upward hump as it leaves the pitcher’s hand. But if a pitcher can change speeds, every hitter is helpless, limited by human vision.

“Except,” Maddux said, “for that [expletive] Tony Gwynn.”

post #82 of 93

 

That's a cool story.  And I LOVE hearing about one great player talk about what it was like competing against another.

 

There are some really cool Greg Maddux stories out there.  Really a fascinating guy.  When Eddie Perez first started catching him, Maddux called the entire game by signaling with the way he caught the ball.  Also, this:

 

 

Quote:
 

Early in their partnership, Maddux informed Perez that they would never pitch Jeff Bagwell inside. But with the Braves holding a four-run lead against the Astros on Aug. 11, 1999, Maddux opted to come in on Bagwell, who sent the offering what Perez estimated to be "500 feet foul." Later in the same at-bat, the former Astros slugger drilled another inside delivery deep over the outfield fence.

"I was mad," Perez said. "After the game, I was like, 'Why? We could have struck him out like we always do.' But he was like, 'They have a good team and they might be in the playoffs a few months from now.' But I was like, 'Whatever, dude, I want the complete game and I'm not worried about three months from now.' "

Two months later, the Braves met the Astros in the National League Division Series. Maddux completed a perfect first inning in Game 1 by striking out Bagwell with an array of pitches away.

"When we were walking back to the dugout, he said, 'Do you remember two months ago?' I had already forgot about it. But he said [Bagwell] was looking for the [inside] pitch the whole time. Then he turned around and laughed. That's something I'm never going to forget."

 

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article/atl/former-braves-catcher-eddie-perez-reflects-on-greg-madduxs-greatness?ymd=20140106&content_id=66355592&vkey=news_atl

 

 

I also read that he did this during spring training, too....someone on the mets, I think.  I don't remember.  But he grooved him a hanging slider or something and let him hit a home run just to get the guy looking for a hanging slider when they faced during the regular season.  

 

 

 

Interestingly, and not to take way from the WP article, but a few days after I saw it, Fangraphs posted an article about Frank Thomas that included this:

 

Quote:
 “We had this competition, even when he was a freshman, in which we’d wager a Coke on whether he could guess—within one mile an hour—how fast a pitcher was throwing. We had a radar gun. He’d call out the velocity. He was always on. Almost never fooled.”
 
post #83 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamo View Post


I support the suspension, but (as much as it pains me), I would vote for him for the Hall of Fame.
Not that I buy into it, but I think the bigger argument for not inducting ARod while inducting Clemens and Bonds is that ARod was 10 years later, when there was stringent testing, when the Joint Drug Agreement was much harsher, when he had to mask the drugs he was taking, and when we know more about the effects of PEDs. At least Clemens and Bonds have the "everyone was doing it" argument.

Again though, they're all in my HOF, along with more recent PED users like (off the top of my head) Manny Ramirez.


If I were in charge: :roll:

 

I would establish another admission category, in a separate vote, for those suspected of using PEDs or betting on baseball. Only after exhausting eligible years on the regular ballot would people be eligible to be admitted under that category and would not participate in HOF induction speeches and ceremonies under the special admission. They, and their accomplishments, would be in the museum and they would carry the title of Hall of Famers but would not be rewarded with formal induction. They would be placed in a separate section of the HOF.

 

The thought of taking a kid to see a HOF without some of the game's best players and all time hits leader seems silly.

 

My lenient attitude about getting in the HOF doesn't carry over into coaching or playing. Anybody found guilty of using PEDs or betting on baseball would be banned for life from the field or front offices. Period. No suspensions and no second chances.

post #84 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by MS256 View Post
 

My lenient attitude about getting in the HOF doesn't carry over into coaching or playing. Anybody found guilty of using PEDs or betting on baseball would be banned for life from the field or front offices. Period. No suspensions and no second chances.

 

So I take it you're not a proponent of reinstating Pete Rose and inducting him into the HOF.

post #85 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by geauxforbroke View Post
 

 

So I take it you're not a proponent of reinstating Pete Rose and inducting him into the HOF.

 

Huh? My entire comment was about allowing them a way to eventually get in the HOF without formal induction, but not back on the field or front offices.

post #86 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by MS256 View Post
 

 

 

My lenient attitude about getting in the HOF doesn't carry over into coaching or playing. Anybody found guilty of using PEDs or betting on baseball would be banned for life from the field or front offices. Period. No suspensions and no second chances.

 

 

I don't mind betting on baseball, just don't bet on or against your own team to create a conflict of interest.

 

Nah, I like the 3 strikes and your out rule. 60 games, 1 season, Life. 

 

 

On the topic of Pete Rose, 1000000% percent he should be in the HOF. 

post #87 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by saevel25 View Post
 

 

 

I don't mind betting on baseball, just don't bet on or against your own team to create a conflict of interest.

 

Nah, I like the 3 strikes and your out rule. 60 games, 1 season, Life. 

 

 

On the topic of Pete Rose, 1000000% percent he should be in the HOF. 


The problem I have with 3 strikes is that we all take more chances before we've already got 2 on us. It's like the sprinters in the Olympics. They know what the test limits are and the game within the game is to try to stay just short of the limits.

post #88 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by MS256 View Post
 

Huh? My entire comment was about allowing them a way to eventually get in the HOF without formal induction, but not back on the field or front offices.

 

Wow, I totally misread your post. :doh:

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by saevel25 View Post
 

I don't mind betting on baseball, just don't bet on or against your own team to create a conflict of interest.

 

Nah, I like the 3 strikes and your out rule. 60 games, 1 season, Life. 

 

 

On the topic of Pete Rose, 1000000% percent he should be in the HOF. 

 

I feel the same way. I don't know the full history of the Pete Rose scandal, and I doubt anyone does other than Pete. But I think he was such a great player, he absolutely deserve to be in, regardless of what happened while he was a manager. We're talking about one of the best hitters of all time. I think it's a total pride issue for baseball not to let him back in. 

post #89 of 93
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by meenman View Post


evidence or not, he was never found guilty of anything (including perjury)

This is america, in theory, we are innocent until proven guilty.

 

Right. And OJ didn't kill his ex-wife.

 

Public opinion can hold sway outside of a courtroom more often than not.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MS256 View Post

 

Huh? My entire comment was about allowing them a way to eventually get in the HOF without formal induction, but not back on the field or front offices.

 

MLB and the National Baseball HOF are separate entities. The HOF can do whatever they want in that regard, but I doubt they would without considering the input of MLB.

post #90 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by geauxforbroke View Post
 

 

Wow, I totally misread your post. :doh: 

No problem. People misunderstand my hillbilly version of the English language all the time. :beer:

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sports
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The 19th Hole › Sports › Baseball HOF