Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

[Chip Douglass]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

Vis-a-vis Bonds and Clemens, is there any other museum in the world that ignores important people in its history because they were lousy people who used drugs?

[ImTellinTim]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

Vis-a-vis Bonds and Clemens, is there any other museum in the world that ignores important people in its history because they were lousy people who used drugs?

As DrJones has pointed out numerous times. They do not ignore them. They just aren't in the wing with the busts...

[Chip Douglass]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

Yeah, I saw the photos DrJones posted too, but he's officially "ignored" in terms of membership (which people care more about than seeing some guy's batting gloves in a box) because he abused his body with PEDs.

There's a better way of going about this than pretending ~15 years of baseball history didn't happen.

[Chip Douglass]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

So Barry Bonds' "works of art" are displayed in the museum (bat, gloves, etc.), but he's not an official member of their little club because he was a douche who used illegal substances.

That's a cognitive dissonance I was trying to get at, but I explained it inaccurately.

[DrJones]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

Yeah, I saw the photos DrJones posted too, but he's officially "ignored" in terms of membership (which people care more about than seeing some guy's batting gloves in a box) because he abused his body with PEDs.

Personally, I thought it was cooler to see the glove Willie Mays used to catch the 450' fly ball in Game 1 of the 1954 World Series than his plaque, but I guess that's just me.

There's a better way of going about this than pretending ~15 years of baseball history didn't happen.

Why would the Hall be littered with paraphernalia from Bonds, Rose, and Shoeless Joe if MLB is pretending history doesn't exist? It's a 16 inch-by-10 inch ugly-looking plaque on the wall of the most boring wing of the museum. Should Bonds have one of those ugly plaques? Yes. Should anyone really care either way? No.

[DrJones]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

So Barry Bonds' "works of art" are displayed in the museum (bat, gloves, etc.), but he's not an official member of their little club because he was a douche who used illegal substances.

That's a cognitive dissonance I was trying to get at, but I explained it inaccurately.

There are lots of "works of art" from non-HOF players scattered throughout the museum. There are lots of guys with plaques who have zero presence in the museum.

[Chip Douglass]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

1. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-h...ggest-problem/

That's what I have in mind when I say 15 years of baseball history are getting ignored. A whole generation of guys aren't going to get inducted because a certain portion of baseball history got labelled as the "Steroid Era." I imagine Jeff Bagwell doesn't have an exhibit showcasing him, so in his case, the plaque would be his only mark on the HOF. And no, I'm not super-outraged either since the whole process is meant for sportswriters to fill their January columns.

2. When people talk about whether a guy is in the HOF, they usually mean, "is he an actual member of the club?", not, "are his batting gloves in a box somewhere in the museum?" Most baseball fans will never go to the actual museum; they care more about the prestige of being an inducted member. So, in that sense, I said Bonds was "ignored" by the HOF. But it's a semantical point not worth debating any further.

3. The Bonds cognitive dissonance point has to do with the pointlessness of "keeping him out" when he already has a prominent place in the museum/the game's history.

[ubernoob]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

The baseball hall of fame is as legitimate as the WWE hall of fame. Basically just good for discussions.

[Chip Douglass]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

Most importantly, I'm pretty sure the players care a lot about having an "ugly plaque" in the HOF. It's probably something they've dreamed about their whole lives and I'm sensitive to their feelings.

I definitely think we should try as hard as possible to avoid Ron Santo-type situations where a clearly deserving HOFer without off-the-field question marks gets inducted AFTER he dies. He was pretty open about the fact that he wanted to get into Cooperstown and he never had the chance to give his induction speech. Instead, his widow gave it.

[Speedy]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

Sure, closing can be stressful. It's not easy, but they're not every day players, throw one inning at a time, and get to throw as hard as they can. Catching is the most physically punishing aspect of the sport.

I don't have a problem applying a lower standard for catchers since it's a tough position to accumulate a lot of value at (and tough to quantify, too), but even the borderline catchers are putting up 40+ career WAR. The best non-Rivera closers ever hover in the 20-30 WAR range. I don't feel comfortable putting players like that in the HOF.

Sorry, but guys like Hoffman, as awesome as they were in their niche roles, just didn't have enough of an impact on the game for me to put them in. The lack of quantity outweighs the great quality.

Yeah, you're completely right.

I mean...it is difficult to spot a pitch within a certain perimeter but catchers have much more of a responsibility than just throwing a baseball in a zone (such as the running game, calling a good game, blocking baseballs, hitting, etc.).

[TheMatrix31]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

If baseball ceased to exist tomorrow, which current players would have enough to get into the HOF?

Trout, Kershaw, Pujols, Cabrera, Posey, A-Rod, Felix, Ortiz....? Holliday?

I say this knowing full well the "arguments" against both A-Rod and Ortiz.

[Chip Douglass]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

Pujols, Ichiro, and Miguel Cabrera are the only guys I can think of who, if they didn't play another game, would be no-doubt HOFers. Ortiz will have to fight off some sticklers, but I think he gets in too (bleh).

And I think you need at least 10 seasons under your belt to make the ballot, so Trout, Kershaw, Posey, etc. technically wouldn't be eligible if MLB disbanded tomorrow, although they're obviously well on their way. In Kershaw's case, he could hang around as a role player for the next few years, retire, and still get in based on the Koufax precedent.

[TheMatrix31]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

Oh gosh how could I forget Ichiro? Yes, slam dunk.

I didn't know about the 10 year rule actually. Just a combo of stature and accomplishment and trajectory for some of the younger guys I mentioned.

[ubernoob]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

Trout absolutely should, but who knows if he's "done it long enough."

Pujols, Miggy, Felix, Kershaw are all locks for me.

"Bubble" players would be like... Verlander, Greinke, Braun (though with the PEDs is pretty much a no.)

Same for ARod and Ortiz. I think they should be in though, regardless of arguments against.

Other ones I'd mention and probably put in... Beltre, Cano...

Players I could be convinced about either way: Beltran, Utley. Never "the guy" but put up a nice career.

[55]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

ARod is a slam dunk. Beltre should absolutely get in as well.