FOFC Baseball Hall of Fame 2016

[stevew]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I have no problem with that at all. Was a beast for quite a number of years.

I guess I'd just put him a lot closer to Alan Trammell and Jack Morris (and Ted Simmons!) than to any of the real small hall type players.

11% for Wagner and 75%+ for Hoffman doesn't quite sit right with me if we're comparing closers even

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by tarcone

He was a great baseball player. One of the best ever. Its a sham he isnt in the HoF. Regardless of the PED thing. Which wasnt against the rules. And helped baseball recover after their Lock out/strike years.

I agree, taking PED's never improved anybody's coordination. You still have to hit the ball.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Its a sham he isnt in the HoF.

What was a sham was that sorry sonofabitch being in the league.

[molson]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

I agree, taking PED's never improved anybody's coordination. You still have to hit the ball.

Maybe, but why use PEDs if your game isn't significantly improved?

[CrimsonFox]

Did Clemens do something?

[MrBug708]

He misremembered

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by molson

Maybe, but why use PEDs if your game isn't significantly improved?

The assumption is he hit the ball harder while on the PED's. I think molson's point is that while the PED's helped (almost certainly with his power, and to a lesser extent his BA since harder-hit balls are more likely to go for a hit), it was still his raw hand/eye coordination that was a big part of his success.

[molson]

Ya, I'm just always skeptical when these arguments are made about PEDs not actually helping athletes that much. In MMA this comes up all the time. I think the act of taking PEDs is pretty good evidence that there's at least a belief that they will make the athlete perform much, much better, enough to warrant the risks.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by molson

Ya, I'm just always skeptical when these arguments are made about PEDs not actually helping athletes that much. In MMA this comes up all the time. I think the act of taking PEDs is pretty good evidence that there's at least a belief that they will make the athlete perform much, much better, enough to warrant the risks.

I'm sure they helped. But you have to wonder how much pitchers using PED's counter-acted hitters using PED's.

[stevew]

What's up with Sammy Sosa?

She got a light skinned friend look like Sammy Sosa, Got a Dark skinned friend look like Sammy Sosa pic.twitter.com/FQwGPPc68q

— Acknickulous White (@SirSeriousBlack) November 11, 2017

[JPhillips]

PEDs also help keep an athlete at peak or near peak performance more often, both in terms of injury recovery and lessened fatigue.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by molson

Maybe, but why use PEDs if your game isn't significantly improved?

Originally Posted by molson

Ya, I'm just always skeptical when these arguments are made about PEDs not actually helping athletes that much. In MMA this comes up all the time. I think the act of taking PEDs is pretty good evidence that there's at least a belief that they will make the athlete perform much, much better, enough to warrant the risks.

My assumption is he used it for recovery and obviously strength gains, which would have some impact on power, but not as much as I think most people assume. Drugs to help fatigue and recovery (amphetamines) have long been a part of Baseball and this was the next level. Core strength and bat speed/torque still contribute to power more than brute strength and nothing you put into you body is going to improve your hand/eye coordination.

Athletes in sports like MMA and Football definitely benefit much more from PEDs than Baseball, since strength and recovery are so much more crucial in those sports.

[molson]

I guess I just have a moral issue with an athlete both cheating, and then claiming (and others claiming) that they didn't really need to cheat and/or that cheating didn't really benefit them. They shouldn't get the advantage of cheating and also the benefit of a presumption that the cheating didn't signficantly help them.

"Everyone else was doing it and I needed it to keep up" is at least sincere, but you don't hear athletes say that as often.

Bonds and Clemens and others threw away their legacies, and modern athletes still sometimes fail these drug/IQ tests. They must have thought, and continue to think, that they really needed the PEDs to compete at that level, or to compete at their peak level more consistently.

[tarcone]

It wasn’t against the rules. So how is it cheating?

And baseball, the fans, the media, the world celebrated and loved the soda/McGwire race. And now people scorn. Sounds hypocritical.

do We disavow the stats from the past season because the baseball was juiced? Those batting stats were inflated. Does that make Stanton’s home run total a farce?
Do the players during the dead all era get penalized?

These guys dominated an era where a lot players were using. Why do they get penalized?

[larrymcg421]

It was against the rules because illegal substances were banned by MLB even if not named specifically.

And as I've argued over and over again, I don't care if they helped a ton, a little bit, not at all, or even if they hurt. Cheating is cheating and the success of that cheating should have zero impact on the moral implications involved.

[tarcone]

Babe Ruth was hungover during games during the 30s. He was using an illegal substance. So he doesn’t belong then.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

It was against the rules because illegal substances were banned by MLB even if not named specifically.

And as I've argued over and over again, I don't care if they helped a ton, a little bit, not at all, or even if they hurt. Cheating is cheating and the success of that cheating should have zero impact on the moral implications involved.

Why do you only blame the user? Why shouldn’t the owners, managers and the coaches be punished? Furthermore, why shouldn’t the pennants be taken away?

Fact is, owners especially benefited in that their product massively increased in value- in what was a declining sport after the strike. The increase in popularity allowed them to ALL rebuild/ redo their stadiums, thus even more profit.

Finally, everyone of these players were given huge contracts by the owners after player usage was known. The increase in pay and new contracts were absolutely validation for their actions AND and an expectation they will continue doing what they have been doing.

[molson]

Players effectively fought drug testing for years. So it was entirely their choice to leave it to the HOF voters how to analyze the drug issue, and how to decide which players were cheaters and which weren't. Likewise, the players willingly left how their legacies would be defined to the media, and to the fans. So I'm not inclined to give them the doubt on any of this stuff. There's room for reasonable disagreement on where to draw those lines, but, I personally err against the players because this was all their choice to begin with.

Sure, the owners could have taken a harder line, locking out the players on this issue, etc, but, HOF and legacy stuff was not their concern. And it's not like the players were pushing for drug testing and the owners fought it. The owner's choice to prioritize different things in the CBA negotiations involved different risks - congressional intervention, negative media once the media decided this was an issue around 2002, etc.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by molson

Players effectively fought drug testing for years. So it was entirely their choice to leave it to the HOF voters how to analyze the drug issue, and how to decide which players were cheaters and which weren't. Likewise, the players willingly left how their legacies would be defined to the media, and to the fans. So I'm not inclined to give them the doubt on any of this stuff. There's room for reasonable disagreement on where to draw those lines, but, I personally err against the players because this was all their choice to begin with.

Sure, the owners could have taken a harder line, locking out the players on this issue, etc, but, HOF and legacy stuff was not their concern. And it's not like the players were pushing for drug testing and the owners fought it. The owner's choice to prioritize different things in the CBA negotiations involved different risks - congressional intervention, negative media once the media decided this was an issue around 2002, etc.

I understand, the players are guilty. However, I don’t see why only them. There was an economic incentive for them to cheat, from exclusively from the owners. On top of that the ownership was saying to all in the club house: if you cheat and do well, we will reward you.

[tarcone]

Every era has had players using whatever means they could to win.
Where do you draw the line?
These players dominated an era that was flush with players using PEDs. Why do their accomplishments come up for the scrutiny?
Gaylord Perry is in the HoF. He was a known spitball pitcher. When are you guys going to call for him to be kicked out?

These players were the dominate players in their era. And are a very important part of baseball. There is no reason, except you are morally against. And that should be a logical reason. Otherwise, you need to start kicking out people like Perry and Ruth.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by molson

Players effectively fought drug testing for years. So it was entirely their choice to leave it to the HOF voters how to analyze the drug issue, and how to decide which players were cheaters and which weren't. Likewise, the players willingly left how their legacies would be defined to the media, and to the fans. So I'm not inclined to give them the doubt on any of this stuff. There's room for reasonable disagreement on where to draw those lines, but, I personally err against the players because this was all their choice to begin with.

The problem is that the media is the one who decides what is okay and what isn't. The same guys who thought greenies were no big deal and voted in the guys who abused them are some of the same guys not voting for others of this era for whatever reason.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Logan

The problem is that the media is the one who decides what is okay and what isn't. The same guys who thought greenies were no big deal and voted in the guys who abused them are some of the same guys not voting for others of this era for whatever reason.

It was the players' choice to leave it the media. You can't fight for years to hide information and then complain that the media is making determinations without full information.

[molson]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Where do you draw the line?

The players could have chosen where to draw the line themselves. They chose to leave the mess for the media and HOF voters to sort out instead. We won't have as much Bonds/Clemens-esque voter speculation going forward, because, as limited as it is, the players have finally, begrudgingly, agreed to half-ass drug testing. A drug test failure or two may keep a guy out now, but I doubt we'll see anybody who never fails a drug test denied from the HOF like Bonds and Clemens.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by molson

It was the players' choice to leave it the media. You can't fight for years to hide information and then complain that the media is making determinations without full information.

But the media has a clear double standard where some performance enhancing things were okay in the past, but now they're drawing a line because of public outcry? And you also have people I clearly think were steroid users voted in, so not sure why some get the benefit of the doubt but others don't.

Originally Posted by CrimsonFox

Why are Clemens and Schilling not in? That's crazy

Uh, yes, if we're using "more probable he took steroids than not" Clemens clearly falls into the user categories. Unless you buy that the drugs sent to his wife were really for his wife. (Though that defense has worked for Peyton Manning, so who knows.)

Schilling is a very interesting case strictly on merits. I think his postseason stats and peak ability are enough, but Mike Mussina was a better pitcher. I also think he's being punished for being a crazy asshole post-career, but I don't think that should matter at all.

Originally Posted by BYU 14

My assumption is he used it for recovery and obviously strength gains, which would have some impact on power, but not as much as I think most people assume. Drugs to help fatigue and recovery (amphetamines) have long been a part of Baseball and this was the next level. Core strength and bat speed/torque still contribute to power more than brute strength and nothing you put into you body is going to improve your hand/eye coordination.

Athletes in sports like MMA and Football definitely benefit much more from PEDs than Baseball, since strength and recovery are so much more crucial in those sports.

Yep, or else Gabe Kapler would be a Hall of Famer. Fwiw I completely buy the Bonds rumor that he saw McGwire/Sosa getting so much attention and the jealousy/competitive streak drove him to take steroids in like 1998 or whenever, but he was clean during the first 3 MVP's.

[Carman Bulldog]

I think my issue as much as anything is the scapegoating of Clemens and Bonds.

Apparently Mike Piazza, Jeff Bagwell and Ivan Rodriguez are allowed to use PED's and be elected to the Hall of Fame but Clemens and Bonds (among others) have a stricter criteria? Furthermore, there are other players such as Randy Johnson, whose career numbers scream PED use, that also get a free pass because they do not fit the image of what a steroid user looks like.

And while I love Tim Raines, he admitted to cocaine use during games, so how does he end up in the Hall of Fame?

Jose Canseco estimated PED use at 85% of all players while Eric Gagne said that about 80% of his teammates used PED's.

It seems like the baseball writers made an incredibly subjective process even more subjective.

[Carman Bulldog]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Uh, yes, if we're using "more probable he took steroids than not" Clemens clearly falls into the user categories. Unless you buy that the drugs sent to his wife were really for his wife. (Though that defense has worked for Peyton Manning, so who knows.)

QFT.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Carman Bulldog

I think my issue as much as anything is the scapegoating of Clemens and Bonds.

Apparently Mike Piazza, Jeff Bagwell and Ivan Rodriguez are allowed to use PED's and be elected to the Hall of Fame but Clemens and Bonds (among others) have a stricter criteria? Furthermore, there are other players such as Randy Johnson, whose career numbers scream PED use, that also get a free pass because they do not fit the image of what a steroid user looks like.

Agree with the overall point, but what about Johnson's numbers "scream PED use"? Just the fact that he stayed good into his late 30's? Was Nolan Ryan juicing too? Guy actually had a normal bell curve, 6'10 guys being able to retain velocity as they age seems plausible to me, and that seems like exactly the kind of judgment I don't want voters making.

[Carman Bulldog]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Agree with the overall point, but what about Johnson's numbers "scream PED use"? Just the fact that he stayed good into his late 30's? Was Nolan Ryan juicing too? Guy actually had a normal bell curve, 6'10 guys being able to retain velocity as they age seems plausible to me, and that seems like exactly the kind of judgment I don't want voters making.

There are three players who are outliers in the modern age when it comes to WAR after the age of 35.

Roger Clemens - 46.1
Barry Bonds - 59.1
Randy Johnson - 60.8

No one else is above 35. Nolan Ryan is a 34.3 which is right in line with guys like Jamie Moyer, Dennis Martinez, Curt Schilling and Charlie Hough. Keep in mind that Jack Morris had a career WAR of 44.1 while John Smoltz was a 69.5.

Bonds and Johnson are really the only two players in history who continued to improve into their late 30's. Then keep in mind that this anomaly of a pitcher dominated in an era where many of the batters were juicing.

Here is a quote from Johnson regarding his run of 4 Cy Young awards immediately before MLB started testing for steroids...

"I'm not denying that I went to GNC and all that stuff. I took a lot of different things that, you know, maybe at that time, maybe early enough, if I would have been tested, who knows? I could have been taking stuff had they tested me back then. Maybe I would have tested [positive for a banned supplement]. I don't know."

[molson]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

But the media has a clear double standard where some performance enhancing things were okay in the past, but now they're drawing a line because of public outcry? And you also have people I clearly think were steroid users voted in, so not sure why some get the benefit of the doubt but others don't.

The players chose to let the media sort all this out. And it's cool to disagree with the media and HOF choices, and it's cool for members of the media and HOF voter group to disagree with each other. They all come from different perspectives on this.

There's obviously steroid users in the Hall of Fame. But the players chose not to try to identify who those were, so they left that task, for the HOF voters who care about it, to the HOF voters exclusively. The players had the option to sort this out with actual drug testing, they chose not to, so the voters, for whom this matters, are going to choose to sort it out with the limited information they have available, whether it comes from BALCO, the eye test, whatever.

Steroids were specifically banned in 1991. Amphetamines weren't banned until around 2006. But regardless, players chose to leave the task to the HOF voters, and media members otherwise defining their legacy, what mattered more, greenies in the 60s, or steroids in the 90s. Those calls are made based on speculation, and not always science, because that's what the players chose.

And that doesn't make the players wrong or evil. It just means they have to live with their choice and the obvious ramifications of it. If they want to start their own HOF where all performances are seen as equal, they can do that, but the HOF organization also has every right to take those things into account, despite the players' attempts, over decades, to muddy the waters about how legitimate any of these players' accomplishments really were

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by Carman Bulldog

Here is a quote from Johnson regarding his run of 4 Cy Young awards immediately before MLB started testing for steroids...

"I'm not denying that I went to GNC and all that stuff. I took a lot of different things that, you know, maybe at that time, maybe early enough, if I would have been tested, who knows? I could have been taking stuff had they tested me back then. Maybe I would have tested [positive for a banned supplement]. I don't know."

HOly crap! Fascinating! Thanks for that Carmen!

[Young Drachma]

Barry and Roger will eventually get in, but it's going to be the next generation of sportswriters who know what's going on now, think it's idiotic and want to right the wrong to fix it. It's just a comedic exercise for a sport to have three of its best players outside of its Hall of Fame.

Baseball will be horse racing in 50 years.