Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

[TheMatrix31]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

At least I don't have to worry about needing to visit Cooperstown anymore.

[Madden08PCgmr]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

Similarly with ARod. What if he goes in with a Mariners cap, since his Rangers and Yankees career is tainted.

Unless the rumors are true that he is trying to bring basketball back, Seattle won't take him.

He is universally despised out here.

[Madden08PCgmr]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

At least I don't have to worry about needing to visit Cooperstown anymore.

I've been thinking about that more and more. I'll never go to Cooperstown. Why do I care what chunks of metal sit there?

.. I cared a helluva lot though before Edgar got in.

[Cod]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

I've been thinking about that more and more. I'll never go to Cooperstown. Why do I care what chunks of metal sit there?

.. I cared a helluva lot though before Edgar got in.

As a baseball fan, I would recommend going for the museum and town itself. I've been a handful of times and don't think I've spent more than 20 mins total in the actual "hall" of plaques. My wife and I love going to the corner bakery and watching the games on Doubleday Field (sometimes kids, sometimes senior citizens, etc.). The museum is absolutely phenomenal with the artifacts, displays, etc. And it's filled with things from HoF members and non-members alike.

[DrJones]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

As a baseball fan, I would recommend going for the museum and town itself. I've been a handful of times and don't think I've spent more than 20 mins total in the actual "hall" of plaques. My wife and I love going to the corner bakery and watching the games on Doubleday Field (sometimes kids, sometimes senior citizens, etc.). The museum is absolutely phenomenal with the artifacts, displays, etc. And it's filled with things from HoF members and non-members alike.

Co-sign. The "Hall" itself is fine, but it's a small part of the Museum, which is much more interesting - to me, anyway. When I was there, Bonds, McGwire, Pete Rose, Roger Maris, Shoeless Joe, etc. all had displays. Hate the 10% of writers who prevented Bonds or whoever from getting inducted if you want, but don't let that stop anyone from visiting Cooperstown - it's well worth it. (Although a pain in the *** to get there, LOL.) Baseball history isn't being ignored or erased.

[TheMatrix31]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

Yeah it's probably cool, but if they don't take it seriously then I shouldn't either.

[DrJones]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

Yeah it's probably cool, but if they don't take it seriously then I shouldn't either.

Who are "they"? The people who operate the BBHOF (it's not run by MLB, and certainly not by the BBWAA) take baseball history very seriously, from what I'm able to gather - the idiocy of people like Rob Manfred and Dan Shaughnessy isn't on them.

[lowpaiddonkey10]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

Wonderful but being represented in the HOF isn't the same as having a plaque.

[zello144]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

A lot of people seem to think that PEDs automatically will make you a better hitter but that’s not true. Look at all the guys in the minors who get popped for PEDs their stats were horrible. PEDs don’t give you better plate discipline. Look at Jose Canseco and his brother Ozzie both have the same genetics both took roids but only Jose put up those big numbers.

At most I think PEDs helped them recover faster and stay on the field longer.

[TheMatrix31]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

Who are "they"? The people who operate the BBHOF (it's not run by MLB, and certainly not by the BBWAA) take baseball history very seriously, from what I'm able to gather - the idiocy of people like Rob Manfred and Dan Shaughnessy isn't on them.

That's a good point. Surely those who work hard at the Hall of Fame aren't the same as the cowards and losers comprising voters and the game's executives.

[DrJones]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

That's a good point. Surely those who work hard at the Hall of Fame aren't the same as the cowards and losers comprising voters and the game's executives.

Absolutely. There's fault on all sides, and there are doubtless many people in Cooperstown, the BBWAA, and MLB itself who are frustrated by the minority dragging everybody's reputation in the mud. To me, the biggest problems are:

1. The BBWAA is too loose when it comes to eligible voters. 2/3 voted for Bonds and Clemens - a large majority of full-time baseball writers (including almost all - Tom Verducci excepted - of the national writers, ESPN/Athletic types, that baseball fans will have heard of) have made their peace with the steroid users (or never cared in the first place). In my observation, the "general sports columnists" at local newspapers who are in their 60s/70s, specialize in lazy takes, and haven't covered MLB full-time since the 80s/90s (if ever) comprise the majority of non-voters and "look at me" contrarians. Why the eff does a gasbag like the Toronto Sun's Steve Simmons have a BBHOF vote? Get rid of the dead wood.

2. It shouldn't be up to the writers (or the players in the Veterans Committee) to determine whether PED use is disqualifying, especially since most usage was so widespread and few players were "officially" caught. That's just MLB passing the buck. Say what you want about the rightness/wrongness of Pete Rose's and Joe Jackson's lifetime bans, but at the very least MLB is setting the rules there - they took it out of the writers' hands. MLB should come out and say, "Judge these players by on-field performance (relative to their peers) only" or disqualify them from Hall consideration. MLB should be the ones taking responsibility and making these calls.

3. Where I will blame the Hall of Fame itself is a.) arbitrarily reducing eligibility from 15 to 10 years, and b.) limiting the writers to voting for 10 players. People's perspectives change over time, and a large chunk of writers have reconsidered over the years. Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, Sosa, et al. deserve the same consideration as past players received. If there are 11 or 15 players you believe are Hall-worthy, you should be able to vote for them. Plus both policies punish borderline "clean" candidates who have the chance to be re-evaluated over the years.

I also believe voters shouldn't be allowed to be anonymous, and should be required to justify in writing who they did or didn't vote for - though they should have the option of releasing their ballot before or after the votes are tallied (and nobody should be harassed online, either).

It's a fixable situation, if all sides really want to take responsibility and fix it.

[Majingir]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

A lot of people seem to think that PEDs automatically will make you a better hitter but that’s not true. Look at all the guys in the minors who get popped for PEDs their stats were horrible. PEDs don’t give you better plate discipline. Look at Jose Canseco and his brother Ozzie both have the same genetics both took roids but only Jose put up those big numbers.

At most I think PEDs helped them recover faster and stay on the field longer.

It does help you on your way to becoming better, but it doesn't mean you'll be good.

It's not like taking them will turn you from some no name into an MVP, but it could be the difference between good and great.

And for other guys, it could be the difference between not even making the minors and being a bench guy, which for some is still worth it.

[Cod]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

Even if PEDs were out of the equation, wasn't Bonds going to have a hard time getting votes anyways because of how he treated the media throughout his career? I'm not saying that's a valid reason for keeping someone out of the hall either, but pissing off the voters will do you no favors.

[jb12780]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

Absolutely. There's fault on all sides, and there are doubtless many people in Cooperstown, the BBWAA, and MLB itself who are frustrated by the minority dragging everybody's reputation in the mud. To me, the biggest problems are:

1. The BBWAA is too loose when it comes to eligible voters. 2/3 voted for Bonds and Clemens - a large majority of full-time baseball writers (including almost all - Tom Verducci excepted - of the national writers, ESPN/Athletic types, that baseball fans will have heard of) have made their peace with the steroid users (or never cared in the first place). In my observation, the "general sports columnists" at local newspapers who are in their 60s/70s, specialize in lazy takes, and haven't covered MLB full-time since the 80s/90s (if ever) comprise the majority of non-voters and "look at me" contrarians. Why the eff does a gasbag like the Toronto Sun's Steve Simmons have a BBHOF vote? Get rid of the dead wood.

2. It shouldn't be up to the writers (or the players in the Veterans Committee) to determine whether PED use is disqualifying, especially since most usage was so widespread and few players were "officially" caught. That's just MLB passing the buck. Say what you want about the rightness/wrongness of Pete Rose's and Joe Jackson's lifetime bans, but at the very least MLB is setting the rules there - they took it out of the writers' hands. MLB should come out and say, "Judge these players by on-field performance (relative to their peers) only" or disqualify them from Hall consideration. MLB should be the ones taking responsibility and making these calls.

3. Where I will blame the Hall of Fame itself is a.) arbitrarily reducing eligibility from 15 to 10 years, and b.) limiting the writers to voting for 10 players. People's perspectives change over time, and a large chunk of writers have reconsidered over the years. Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, Sosa, et al. deserve the same consideration as past players received. If there are 11 or 15 players you believe are Hall-worthy, you should be able to vote for them. Plus both policies punish borderline "clean" candidates who have the chance to be re-evaluated over the years.

I also believe voters shouldn't be allowed to be anonymous, and should be required to justify in writing who they did or didn't vote for - though they should have the option of releasing their ballot before or after the votes are tallied (and nobody should be harassed online, either).

It's a fixable situation, if all sides really want to take responsibility and fix it.

Good point about the breakdown of the writers association. Time for some young blood. Looks like a GOP convention at times.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Speedy]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

DrJones laying down the truth, once again.