Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

[ubernoob]

Quote: Originally Posted by Amoo316

We should just assume that a guy 13 years into his career (35 years old) was still "naturally" hitting 39 dingers a year? You can't tell me we had all those guys juicing and he didn't get in on it. As much as I liked the guy, I would throw him right in with the rest of them unfortunately, and that sucks since I enjoyed the Killer-Bs when they weren't playing my Bravos.

That's such a poor argument to use. Not singling you out, but I see it everywhere.

"We had no proof he wasn't on them."

We have no proof NOBODY wasn't on them in that timeframe. Strength builds naturally as we age. Stamina decreases. We had all these fitness tests, and the older you got (I'm talking categories were like 18-27, 28-35, 36-45 (not necessarily those numbers, but some age like that.)

Should we just disqualify everyone who has played post-1990 from the hall of fame? There's no proof that everyone playing during that timeframe didn't use PEDs.

[WaitTilNextYear]

Quote: Originally Posted by Amoo316

We should just assume that a guy 13 years into his career (35 years old) was still "naturally" hitting 39 dingers a year? You can't tell me we had all those guys juicing and he didn't get in on it. As much as I liked the guy, I would throw him right in with the rest of them unfortunately, and that sucks since I enjoyed the Killer-Bs when they weren't playing my Bravos.

What an absurd, arbitrary and slanderous argument. It almost makes me embarrassed to be an OS Member when I see this junk.

Hank Aaron hit 44 HRs at 35, must've been juicing. The Babe hit 49 (but his only PED was hot dogs, right?). Mike Schmidt hit 33 @ age 35 and then went up to 37 the next year (OMG!!). The list of sluggers that hit 30-40+ HRs at age 35 is literally too long to list here. Any 5 minute jam session on Baseball Reference will prove that.

For a guy who peaked a few years earlier in the low-mid 40s in homers, I see absolutely NOTHING wrong with Bagwell hitting 39 taters at 35 years old. And then he went on to hit 27 and 3 HRs in his final 2 years, which you declined to mention, as his back finally gave out.

There are plenty of guys in baseball who we have a reasonable suspicion to doubt. Guys like Bret Boone and Barry Bonds. Brady Anderson and Luis Gonzalez. Guys whose power literally came from nowhere.

Let's not drag guys with zero linkage at all into the mess. If it comes out that Bagwell's guilty, well then I was wrong. Until that day though, he's innocent.

You liked him except for the fact he's a cheat and liar and steroid-pumping scoundrel? Yeah, ok, sure.....cool story, bro

[DamnYanks2]

Quote: Originally Posted by Amoo316

We should just assume that a guy 13 years into his career (35 years old) was still "naturally" hitting 39 dingers a year? You can't tell me we had all those guys juicing and he didn't get in on it. As much as I liked the guy, I would throw him right in with the rest of them unfortunately, and that sucks since I enjoyed the Killer-Bs when they weren't playing my Bravos.

That's not a reasonable argument. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? But really that doesn't even apply in this circumstance, because Bagwell has never been suspected of anything. No evidence, nothing, just wild shots in the dark.

So we are gonna keep him out of the hall, because he was guilty of playing in the steroid era? That's completely unfair, and illogical. Bagwell hit 39 in 94' too. There's no basis for your argument, Bagwell's numbers never jumped in a absurd way. He was steady, consistent, offensive monster from the word go.

We can't just pretend The Steroid Era never happened, we can't just sweep it under the rug, and pretend Palmeiro, Bonds, Sosa, McGwire etc.. never existed.

By your line of thinking, Ken Griffey Jr, Greg Maddux, Randy Johnson and Frank Thomas don't belong in the hall either. Correct? If so that's just ridiculous.

[ubernoob]

Cheating has been a part of baseball since the day the game was invented. There isn't one person I can think of that I wouldn't vote into the hall of game based on anything they have done off the field, save for a crime like murder.

[l3ulvl]

So we're saying Brian Mohler shouldn't get in because he once got caught with sandpaper taped to his thumb?

[WaitTilNextYear]

Quote: Originally Posted by l3ulvl

So we're saying Brian Mohler shouldn't get in because he once got caught with sandpaper taped to his thumb?

I think Brian Moehler basically sucking for his whole career is a better argument.

[WaitTilNextYear]

Quote: Originally Posted by ubernoob

Cheating has been a part of baseball since the day the game was invented. There isn't one person I can think of that I wouldn't vote into the hall of game based on anything they have done off the field, save for a crime like murder.

That's fine for you, if it's that clear cut, but it's more of a gray area for most people. A lot of folks don't understand that the HOF states that character, integrity, and sportsmanship are essential qualities for induction. Most people use statistical criteria only, but take a look a the official HOF criteria--it explicitly mentions qualities that a major roid-head would obviously lack.

I know that I struggle with guys like Clemens and Bonds particularly because they were such supreme talents anyway. The problem is how we distinguish their stats w/o PEDs to their stats with PEDs. And, if the stats make a compelling case for induction, is the statistical argument stronger (pro) than the character issues are (con). Everyone answers that in a personal way imo.

The fact that "cheating has been a part of baseball since the day the game was invented" doesn't make it right. And we shouldn't have to accept that as baseball fans. I think a lot of fans are pleased with MLB taking action against Braun and A-Rod, though in A-Rod's case it might be a decade too late. It's a struggle that has no end, but it doesn't mean MLB should just say **** it and quit trying to clean up the sport because "there's always been cheating." If we can't get rid of it, maybe we can minimize it.

No one likes a cheater. Not a single person. And in instances where the cheaters have been caught in baseball (Black Sox, Pete Rose, recent PED violations, HOF voting backlash), punishment has been levied. Most people agree with that--though many want Pete Rose in anyway because he was such a friggin grinder.

[Sportsforever]

Quote: Originally Posted by WaitTilNextYear

That's fine for you, if it's that clear cut, but it's more of a gray area for most people. A lot of folks don't understand that the HOF states that character, integrity, and sportsmanship are essential qualities for induction. Most people use statistical criteria only, but take a look a the official HOF criteria--it explicitly mentions qualities that a major roid-head would obviously lack. I know that I struggle with guys like Clemens and Bonds particularly because they were such supreme talents anyway. The problem is how we distinguish their stats w/o PEDs to their stats with PEDs. And, if the stats make a compelling case for induction, is the statistical argument stronger (pro) than the character issues are (con). Everyone answers that in a personal way imo. The fact that "cheating has been a part of baseball since the day the game was invented" doesn't make it right. And we shouldn't have to accept that as baseball fans. I think a lot of fans are pleased with MLB taking action against Braun and A-Rod, though in A-Rod's case it might be a decade too late. It's a struggle that has no end, but it doesn't mean MLB should just say **** it and quit trying to clean up the sport because "there's always been cheating." If we can't get rid of it, maybe we can minimize it. No one likes a cheater. Not a single person. And in instances where the cheaters have been caught in baseball (Black Sox, Pete Rose, recent PED violations, HOF voting backlash), punishment has been levied. Most people agree with that--though many want Pete Rose in anyway because he was such a friggin grinder.

I'm afraid you need to take off the idealistic glasses and lets look at these revered heroes who are already in the HOF through the prism of your "character, integrity, and sportsmanship" clause:

The majority of major league baseball players have NOT been good citizens and this goes back to the beginning of time (heck, today's players are saints in comparison). In the beginning they were drunks, gamblers, adulterers, murderers, cheaters, liars, and worse. Baseball players were the fringe of society who couldn't get a job, so they played baseball. Christy Mathewson was an exception, Ty Cobb was more of a norm.

You can scream about character, integrity, and sportsmanship all you want, but then let's be fair and just empty the HOF of all but a few. BTW - I truly don't believe that clause is there to keep players out, but it was more so intended to let lesser players in who were 'good guys' and people wanted to see them there despite lackluster numbers.

Do I like PED's in baseball? Not really...I enjoy the game more without them. That said, Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds belong in the HOF and their exclusion to me would diminish it more than their inclusion ever could.