Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
dsc123

Baseball HOF Vote; Nobody Gets In.

59 posts in this topic

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

But Biggio? Come on!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Sign up (or log in) today! It's free (and you won't see this ad anymore)!

Sign up (or log in) today! It's free (and you won't see this ad anymore)!

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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
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!

0

Share this post


Link to post
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?

0

Share this post


Link to post
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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
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?

1

Share this post


Link to post
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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
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.

1

Share this post


Link to post
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".

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
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.

1

Share this post


Link to post
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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

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
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • 2017 TST Partners

    PING Golf
    Leupold Golf
    Snell Golf
    Talamore Golf Resort
    Lowest Score Wins
  • Posts

    • These are myths that I hear a lot. Some are just eye rolling trivia but some can hurt. 1. Tour pros continuously vary their shot shape based on hole demand. Not true. They have one predominant shot shape they play almost all the time. Only when in jail or extreme condition do they actually try anything out of their comfort zone - which is smaller than most folks think. 2. Tour pros are like swing doctors. They know everything there is to know about the golf swing. Nope - they are simply phenomenal listeners and executors. 3. You must understand the swing in it's entirety to learn and become better - Yeah, good luck on that path.   4. To have lag just hold the angle of the shaft to forearm until impact. - Lag is a result of good mechanics and club position and path. Can't force it. 5. You must have a superlight grip pressure (2-3 on a scale of 1 to 10) to hit good shots. - While white knuckling is just bad, you do need more grip pressure than you think.
    •   The problem is the twitter length version, get it as close to the hole as possible, is easy to read as, hit the longest club.  Really the argument in LSW (backed by stats), is around a multi-faceted risk assessment.  Simplifying less than the twitter version, hit it as far as possible without bringing "too much" risk into play.  The long version is basically a law of total probability argument, where you assess the probability of various outcomes with each current shot choice, and weight them by the average shots to hole out given each outcome, and choose the lowest. For example, you're sitting at 250 on a par 5.  You go through the potential outcomes of an 8i and 3i and estimate average shots to hole out from each: on target, slightly off target, chunk, blade, in jail, in hazard, open look but super penal rough, OB, whatever.  Then you think about the chances of these outcomes, and calculate the total expected score from each choice. The point in LSW is that you can't go through a bunch of equations for every shot, but if you're accurate about your average shot dispersions across clubs, then the typical bogey or better golfer is often overestimating the increase in risk from going for the longer shot, and underestimating the decrease in expected number of shots to hole out from getting it closer. The rule of thumb is that if there's not something in the layout that is a big risk at the longer distance but not at the short one – so in your case lateral hazard or big fairway thinning or big fairway bunker or much or penal rough or the like that starts at 75 yards out – then generally your lower expected total score is from hitting the longer club.  The strokes you lose when you do hit an errant long iron but wouldn't have hit an errant short iron are more than made up for by the strokes you gain from having an approach half as long when you don't hit an errant shot. Of course, it's always case by case and player by player.
    • I've been working on changing that for two years!
    • If this is true, then club fitting would be purely entertainment also and make no difference.  We could all use different clubs every time we played with no measurable effect on our score.  I'm not so sure all the time, money and effort that has gone towards studying the benefits of club fitting and developing custom club programs and fitting carts and training techs how to conduct a club fitting session would have been spent if it's all just "entertainment". Now, will there be a huge difference between the e6 and e7 for the average player?  No.  They are both 3 piece distance balls with the same type of cover, so the differences are not huge.  Noticeable, but not huge.  The difference between an e6 and a Pro V1 though will be dramatic.  And the number of players that played the Pro V that have been recommended the e6 are in the tens of thousands.  Not only is there a difference in the performance of those balls, but when you factor in the tendencies of the player the results can be substantial.  If a 10-15 yard gain won't have any affect on the average player's score, then you wouldn't mind if you had to give up 10-15 yards of distance off your drives and 5-7 off your irons, correct?  How would it affect your score if you had to tee off 25 yds  further back on every hole?  I'm guessing it would cost at least a couple of shots. Can @iacas shoot 75 with his wife's clubs?  Probably.  That doesn't mean that the equipment doesn't matter.  He would certainly need to make adjustments in his swing to hit them, which is hard to repeat precisely, so it would limit him from playing his best.  
  • TST Blog Entries

  • Blog Entries

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. Dragondrake
      Dragondrake
      (57 years old)
    2. Mistabigevil
      Mistabigevil
      (36 years old)
    3. Taylor56
      Taylor56
      (61 years old)
  • Get Great Gear with Amazon