Jump to content
IGNORED

Baseball HOF Vote; Nobody Gets In.


dsc123
Note: This thread is 4086 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts

I get the steroid stuff.  Not so much the bacne.

But Biggio? Come on!

Dan

:tmade: R11s 10.5*, Adila RIP Phenom 60g Stiff
:ping: G20 3W
:callaway: Diablo 3H
:ping:
i20 4-U, KBS Tour Stiff
:vokey: Vokey SM4 54.14 
:vokey: Vokey :) 58.11

:scotty_cameron: Newport 2
:sunmountain: Four 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Biggio was a compiler, he was 3-4 good seasons and a number of marginal seasons.  .281 career batting average.363 career on base Percentage is not HOF material imo.  Only guy that should have got in imo was Piazza, but even his stats are on the edge.

Clemons, Bonds, Bagwell aren't going to make it because of Steroids.

Joe Paradiso

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Biggio was a compiler, he was 3-4 good seasons and a number of marginal seasons.  .281 career batting average.363 career on base Percentage is not HOF material imo.  Only guy that should have got in imo was Piazza, but even his stats are on the edge.

Clemons, Bonds, Bagwell aren't going to make it because of Steroids.

Totally agree regarding Piazza.  But there is that stupid "rule" that a lot of writers follow for some odd reason about not electing guys on their first ballot.

And WTF Jack Morris?  (Yeah, I know, his ERA is high)  So what?  He's awesome!  He should get in based on his WS performances alone!

Was Bagwell ever linked to steroids?  I don't remember.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Biggio was a compiler, he was 3-4 good seasons and a number of marginal seasons.  .281 career batting average.363 career on base Percentage is not HOF material imo.  Only guy that should have got in imo was Piazza, but even his stats are on the edge.

Clemons, Bonds, Bagwell aren't going to make it because of Steroids.

I am probably biased because he went to my high school (which is close to you, so shouldn't you be biased too?).  But a lot of people say he is one of the top 10 all time 2b.

Dan

:tmade: R11s 10.5*, Adila RIP Phenom 60g Stiff
:ping: G20 3W
:callaway: Diablo 3H
:ping:
i20 4-U, KBS Tour Stiff
:vokey: Vokey SM4 54.14 
:vokey: Vokey :) 58.11

:scotty_cameron: Newport 2
:sunmountain: Four 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Totally agree regarding Piazza.  But there is that stupid "rule" that a lot of writers follow for some odd reason about not electing guys on their first ballot.

And WTF Jack Morris?  (Yeah, I know, his ERA is high)  So what?  He's awesome!  He should get in based on his WS performances alone!

Was Bagwell ever linked to steroids?  I don't remember.

I think Piazza might have trouble because he is suspected of juicing based on his bacne.   I think Bagwell is suspected.

Jack Morris is one of the most divisive guys out there, for whatever reason.  Some people say he was never a guy that was feared or that you worried about facing.

Dan

:tmade: R11s 10.5*, Adila RIP Phenom 60g Stiff
:ping: G20 3W
:callaway: Diablo 3H
:ping:
i20 4-U, KBS Tour Stiff
:vokey: Vokey SM4 54.14 
:vokey: Vokey :) 58.11

:scotty_cameron: Newport 2
:sunmountain: Four 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Originally Posted by dsc123

I think Piazza might have trouble because he is suspected of juicing based on his bacne.   I think Bagwell is suspected.

Jack Morris is one of the most divisive guys out there, for whatever reason.  Some people say he was never a guy that was feared or that you worried about facing.

Bagwell probably suspected on his size alone.  lol.

Well, some consolation to Cooperstown, there are a few people getting in this year, just no modern players.  EDIT:  these guys ...

Three people will be inducted into the Hall of Fame on July 28. In December a special panel that looks at people no longer eligible for the regular ballot voted in Jacob Ruppert, the New York Yankees owner who bought Babe Ruth in 1919; former umpire Hank O'Day; and Deacon White, a catcher in the 19th century.

Hey, Aaron Sele got one vote!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Baseball writers and their holier than thou attitude really screwed it up today in my "humble" opinion. Im not a baseball purist or whatever you wanna call it but Bonds and Clemons were both 1st Ballot HOF'ers before the juice. For them to get 30 something % of the vote is just dumb. When Mcgwire and Sosa had that season that basically saved baseball, everyone knew something was up. But Baseball stood by and reaped the benefits of renewed interest in the sport. But now we're gonna take a stand?

Ron :nike: GOLF Embracing my Angry Black Male :mad:

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Is it any surprise the Juicers didn't get in? It shouldn't be if Pete Rose isn't in. His transgressions had nothing to do with his playing performance yet he's not in there, so as long as that blatant omission isn't rectified, the Juicers (or even suspect Juicers) should never be in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


No question there's a ton of hypocrisy in baseball and among the press.  Baseball after the strike couldn't get people into the stands until McGwire, Sosa and Bonds went after the single season HR records.  No one questioned their size, strength or steroid use then.  The newspapers and Selig presented them as MLB's saviors and did so for years.  It was only when Bonds closed in on Babe Ruth's HR record did anyone make a stink about the record setting pace of HR's that were being hit.

If baseball hasn't changed the record books it's not up to the baseball writers to impart their own justice.  Bonds, McGwire, Sosa and Clemons all have HOF worthy numbers so unless Selig removes their stats and accomplishments from MLB history the writers should vote them in imo.

Originally Posted by RonTheSavage

Baseball writers and their holier than thou attitude really screwed it up today in my "humble" opinion. Im not a baseball purist or whatever you wanna call it but Bonds and Clemons were both 1st Ballot HOF'ers before the juice. For them to get 30 something % of the vote is just dumb. When Mcgwire and Sosa had that season that basically saved baseball, everyone knew something was up. But Baseball stood by and reaped the benefits of renewed interest in the sport. But now we're gonna take a stand?

  • Upvote 1

Joe Paradiso

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Yet Bud Selig will keep his job as long as he chooses to.

Sorry I forgot, he is not the commissioner, just the owners mouthpiece.

Follow me on twitter

Chris, although my friends call me Mr.L

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

A couple of points that may or may not shape the discussion.

  • The National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum is a museum operated by private interests, not Major League Baseball.  So MLB does not control eligibility criteria.  MLB banned Pete Rose for life, and the HOF then made a rule that nobody on the MLB Ban list is eligible.

  • None of the juicers have been banned by MLB.

  • Since the HOF controls induction (MLB can only directly influence via the ban list), whether or not MLB changed its official record books is not determinative of whether writers (or players) should vote for a player.  The HOF instructs writers as follows:

Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

So regardless of what MLB does, writers are required to consider the integrity, sportsmanship, and character of the players. Personally, I think its hard to argue that someone who injected themselves with illegal drugs to enhance their performance demonstrated integrity, sportsmanship, or character.

Keeping juicers out is not vigilantism by the voters.  It would be vigilantism to vote them in.  I think if you are for letting the juicers in, your point should be that the HOF needs to change the eligibility criteria, not that MLB or the writers need to act differently.

  • Upvote 1

Dan

:tmade: R11s 10.5*, Adila RIP Phenom 60g Stiff
:ping: G20 3W
:callaway: Diablo 3H
:ping:
i20 4-U, KBS Tour Stiff
:vokey: Vokey SM4 54.14 
:vokey: Vokey :) 58.11

:scotty_cameron: Newport 2
:sunmountain: Four 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Is it any surprise the Juicers didn't get in? It shouldn't be if Pete Rose isn't in. His transgressions had nothing to do with his playing performance yet he's not in there, so as long as that blatant omission isn't rectified, the Juicers (or even suspect Juicers) should never be in.

I would rather see Rose get in before any of the "juicers".

-Matt-

"does it still count as a hit fairway if it is the next one over"

DRIVER-Callaway FTiz__3 WOOD-Nike SQ Dymo 15__HYBRIDS-3,4,5 Adams__IRONS-6-PW Adams__WEDGES-50,55,60 Wilson Harmonized__PUTTER-Odyssey Dual Force Rossie II

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Moderator

Rose should never get in.  He violated the #1 rule, gambling.  It is cheating just as much as steroids.

Guys like Schilling should get in.  He definitely didn't juice with that belly.

Scott

Titleist, Edel, Scotty Cameron Putter, Snell - AimPoint - Evolvr - MirrorVision

My Swing Thread

boogielicious - Adjective describing the perfect surf wave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Originally Posted by boogielicious

Rose should never get in.  He violated the #1 rule, gambling.  It is cheating just as much as steroids.

Guys like Schilling should get in.  He definitely didn't juice with that belly.

Schilling barely won 200 games. His claim to fame is a fake bloody sock. Not even close to a HOFer.

  • Upvote 1

Follow me on twitter

Chris, although my friends call me Mr.L

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Originally Posted by boogielicious

Rose should never get in.  He violated the #1 rule, gambling.  It is cheating just as much as steroids.

He didn't 'cheat' 4,256 hits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Originally Posted by zipazoid

He didn't 'cheat' 4,256 hits.

There is definitely a strong case for Rose to get in as a player, just as Joe Torre belongs in as a manager - both had 2 separate careers and excelled in one of them.

Follow me on twitter

Chris, although my friends call me Mr.L

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

There is definitely a strong case for Rose to get in as a player, just as Joe Torre belongs in as a manager - both had 2 separate careers and excelled in one of them.

didnt torre win an mvp award? and there is no case for rose. he is barred by the rules.

Dan

:tmade: R11s 10.5*, Adila RIP Phenom 60g Stiff
:ping: G20 3W
:callaway: Diablo 3H
:ping:
i20 4-U, KBS Tour Stiff
:vokey: Vokey SM4 54.14 
:vokey: Vokey :) 58.11

:scotty_cameron: Newport 2
:sunmountain: Four 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

To my knowledge neither Bonds or Clemons were found guilty by a court of law to have used steroids nor has either ever failed a drug test.  Do I think they used steroids, yes of course, but the justice system in our country is innocent until PROVEN guilty.

On that basis I believe the juicers that did not fail a drug test or have evidence presented in court that proved they used steroids should be given the benefit of the doubt by those voting and their entry into the HOF should be based on their contributions to the game and their stats.

Joe Paradiso

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Note: This thread is 4086 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

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


  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Partners

    TourStriker PlaneMate
    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FlightScope Mevo
    Direct: Mevo, Mevo+, and Pro Package.

    Coupon Codes (save 10-15%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope.
  • Popular Now

  • Posts

    • Makes sense.  Like I said, I wouldn't have been upset at their original offer either, and based on the fine print it seems like they've held up their end of the deal.  
    • If you've only had to adjust retroactively one time in 8 years and have around 5 people each year without handicaps, that's like 40-50 people total so it sounds like you're doing a pretty good job. I think your questions give enough to go off of. This might be a good way to get new people to actually post a few scores during the 6 weeks leading into the first event. Something like "New members will be eligible for tournament money once they have at least 3 posted rounds in GHIN" or something like that. If they can get 3 rounds in prior to their first event, then they're eligible. If not, they'll soon become eligible after an event or two assuming they play a little bit outside of events.
    • This is a loooooong winded narrative so if you don't like long stories, move on. 😉 Our senior club typically gets about 25 new members each year. We lose about 25 members each year for various reasons (moved to FL/AZ, disabled, dead, too expensive). Of the new members, usually 20 have an active GHIN handicap. About 5 each year do not have a GHIN handicap. When they join our club, we give each member a state association membership that includes GHIN handicapping services. We play a series of handicapped tournaments over the summer. When we sign up a new member who does not have a GHIN handicap, we attempt to give them an estimated index until they have sufficient scores posted to have an actual GHIN index.  Our first event typically is around May 15 so, in theory, a new member has about 6 weeks to post a few scores. Posting season in the Mitten starts April 1. Inevitably, several of the unhandicapped individuals seem  to either not play until the first tournament or can't figure out how to enter scores (hey, they are seniors). That situation then leads to my contacting the new member and asking a series of questions: a. Did you ever have a GHIN handicap? If yes, which State and do you recall what it was? b. Do you have an alternate handicap through a non-GHIN handicap service or a league? c. What do you think your average score was last year (for 9 or 18) d. What was your best score last year? Where did you play and which tee was used? e. What do you consider a very good score for yourself? Based on their responses I attempt to give them an index that makes them competitive in the first couple events BUT does not allow them to win their flight in the first couple events. We don't want the new members to finish last and at the same time, we don't want someone with a "20" playing handicap to win the third flight with a net 57. In the event some new member did shoot a net 57, we also advise everyone that we can and will adjust handicaps retroactively when it is clear to us that a member's handicap does not accurately reflect their potential. We don't like to adjust things retroactively and in the 8 years I have chaired the Handicap Committee, we have only done it once. So here are the questions to the mob: Any ideas how to do this better? Any questions one might ask an unhandicapped individual to better estimate their index/handicap? Would it be reasonable to have a new player play once (or more?) without being eligible to place in the money?
    • Wordle 1,013 4/6 ⬜🟨⬜🟨🟨 ⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜ 🟩🟩🟩🟩⬜ 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
    • Awesome! I got that a while back with my start word! Wordle 1,013 4/6 ⬜⬜🟨⬜🟨 ⬜🟨⬜🟩⬜ ⬜⬜🟩🟩🟨 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...