Your 2014 Hall Of Fame Ballot

[Jason Moyer]

Originally Posted by rudel.dietrich

I don't care how he played in the series. He knew about the fix and did not report it.

I'm pretty sure he did more than just knowing about the fix. Hal Chase led the league in hitting in 1916, and it's likely that he threw almost every single game he was playing in that year.

[rpriske]

All of people (wrongly) consider the 'steroid era' to start in 1993 because in both '93 and '94 a bunch of people had their home run totals suddenly climb and are willing to convict them based on that.

Sound reasonable?

If so, one of the players with the biggest upswing EACH year was Frank Thomas.

[Jason Moyer]

I've always felt that the biggest factor in the HR jump was the new stadiums. Basically every new stadium in the 90's added offense to the league, and it wasn't until PNC Park and Petco that it went the other way. Veteran's Stadium for most of its existence was a slight hitter's park, but after the stadium boom it became an extreme pitcher's park. That means the rest of the league moved.

[The Game]

Originally Posted by Jason Moyer

2 players played the same position during the same era:

2322 G 73.6 WAR
2150 G 79.5 WAR

Neither was ever suspected of taking PEDs. Which one do you put in?

The one with a .301 avg and 521 HR. Bagwell will go in soon enough but should not have gone in before Thomas.

[Jason Moyer]

Bagwell was a better player than Thomas. They're almost identical as hitters, and Bagwell could field.

In 94 when the strike hit, Bagwell was hitting .368/.451/.750...in the ASTRODOME. Think about how ridiculous that is.

[The Game]

Originally Posted by Jason Moyer

Bagwell was a better player than Thomas. They're almost identical as hitters, and Bagwell could field.

In 94 when the strike hit, Bagwell was hitting .368/.451/.750...in the ASTRODOME. Think about how ridiculous that is.

And he was rumored to be on steroids. Also doesn't have a .300 carer avg. His WAR is only better because if his defense.

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by The Game

His WAR is only better because if his defense.

That's the point Jason was making They're essentially the same hitter but Bagwell is better defensively. So that makes Bagwell the better player and better HOF choice. They both deserve to be in the HOF but Bagwell deserves it very slightly more. The .300 average means nothing whatsoever. Batting average is an incredibly meaningless and misleading stat, taken on its own and viewed in a vacuum.

As for the steroids, Thomas was one of the biggest, most muscular players around. If you're going to throw around completely unverifiable rumours with no evidence to support them about Bagwell being on steroids, then why not do the same for Thomas

[The Game]

Originally Posted by lukasberger

That's the point Jason was making They're essentially the same hitter but Bagwell is better defensively. So that makes Bagwell the better player and better HOF choice. They both deserve to be in the HOF but Bagwell deserves it very slightly more. The .300 average means nothing whatsoever. Batting average is an incredibly misleading, even useless, stat taken on its own.

As for the steroids, Thomas was one of the biggest, most muscular players around. If you're going to throw around completely unverifiable rumours with no evidence to support them about Bagwell being on steroids, then why not do the same for Thomas

Thomas has 500 HR and a .300 avg that makes his the clearer choice for the HOF on 1st ballot. This is 1B not SS, defense does not matter as much for the HOF. Bagwell should have gone in last year, or before, with Biggio.
Thomas has no hint of being tied to steroids, Bagwell has.
Google "Frank Thomas Steroids", then Google "Jeff Bagwell Steroids". Thomas none that say he might have been on them on the 1st 2 pages. Bagwell 4 on page 1 alone.

[Orcin]

There have always been external and environmental factors that impacted different eras of baseball. Gambling, segregation, wars, drugs, etc... it is impossible to find a player in the Hall of Fame whose career does not overlap one of these external factors.

Even if the player did not directly participate in steroid use, he may have benefited (perhaps unknowingly) from having a steroid user batting behind him. He may have benefited from competing against lesser competition at his peak due to the war years. He may have benefited from simply being on a good team, or been hurt by being on a bad one.

We have to stop over-analyzing everything and make the Hall of FAME what it was intended to be... a museum to display the heritage of the game. The steroid era is a part of that heritage and should be included. Because it is absolutely impossible to scientifically and correctly exclude the "cheaters", everyone should be let in based on all of the current Hall of Fame standards except Rule 5.

I include Joe Jackson and Pete Rose in this amnesty. Joe Jackson lived in a time where gambling had been allowed to go on with impunity and the owners looked the other way as long as gamblers bought tickets. Sound familiar? Put a statement on Rose's plaque to say that he was banned from baseball for gambling on games as a manager if you will, but you cannot keep the all-time hit leader out of the HOF anymore than you can exclude the horrible human being who is #2 on the list.

[MorseMoose]

Originally Posted by Orcin

There have always been external and environmental factors that impacted different eras of baseball. Gambling, segregation, wars, drugs, etc... it is impossible to find a player in the Hall of Fame whose career does not overlap one of these external factors.

Even if the player did not directly participate in steroid use, he may have benefited (perhaps unknowingly) from having a steroid user batting behind him. He may have benefited from competing against lesser competition at his peak due to the war years. He may have benefited from simply being on a good team, or been hurt by being on a bad one.

We have to stop over-analyzing everything and make the Hall of FAME what it was intended to be... a museum to display the heritage of the game. The steroid era is a part of that heritage and should be included. Because it is absolutely impossible to scientifically and correctly exclude the "cheaters", everyone should be let in based on all of the current Hall of Fame standards except Rule 5.

I include Joe Jackson and Pete Rose in this amnesty. Joe Jackson lived in a time where gambling had been allowed to go on with impunity and the owners looked the other way as long as gamblers bought tickets. Sound familiar? Put a statement on Rose's plaque to say that he was banned from baseball for gambling on games as a manager if you will, but you cannot keep the all-time hit leader out of the HOF anymore than you can exclude the horrible human being who is #2 on the list.

Right, it's the Hall of Fame, not the "Hall of Great Players that Didn't Take Steroids"

[MorseMoose]

http://www.kenstewartphoto.net/dowli...l_blog/?p=4208

:mindboggling:

[NYY #23]

Originally Posted by The Game

Google "Frank Thomas Steroids", then Google "Jeff Bagwell Steroids". Thomas none that say he might have been on them on the 1st 2 pages. Bagwell 4 on page 1 alone.

Who needs facts when we can rely on Google's search algorithms to determine the truth. But if we take off the quotes and search Jeff Bagwell yields 54,000 results, while Frank Thomas is 249,000. Proof Thomas used and Bagwell didn't.

[The Game]

Originally Posted by NYY #23

Who needs facts when we can rely on Google's search algorithms to determine the truth. But if we take off the quotes and search Jeff Bagwell yields 54,000 results, while Frank Thomas is 249,000. Proof Thomas used and Bagwell didn't.

Why don't you read a few of them. 23 in the 1st 2 pages talk about how he is against any PED user. 500 HR for a guy who was never suspected on PEDs is a lock. . 300 with a few exceptions, proven by John Maddon, is also a lock especially with +2500 hits, with only one exception for a non steroid user.

[Jason Moyer]

Unless there are blood and urine tests proving otherwise, I just assume everyone from 1876 onwards was doping and go from there. Makes it a lot easier, tbh. By 1970, at the latest, anabolic steroids were everywhere in baseball and yet only one guy has come out and admitted to having taken them prior to the 90's.

And in all honesty, the people who seem the most adamant against steroid use (Schilling, Thomas, Gossage, Palmeiro...woops) are the first people I suspect of using them. It's easy to be opposed to something when it's impossible to determine your own history of nutritional and medicinal supplements.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by The Game

Why don't you read a few of them. 23 in the 1st 2 pages talk about how he is against any PED user. 500 HR for a guy who was never suspected on PEDs is a lock. . 300 with a few exceptions, proven by John Maddon, is also a lock especially with +2500 hits, with only one exception for a non steroid user.

I think his point was that we cant prove a thing about either of them. I think Mr Palmeiro proved we really cant trust what these players say. Put Bonds/Clemens in so we can stop speculating about the rest of them would be the best solution IMO.

[Jason Moyer]

Or remove everyone who played from ~1960 until whenever MLB adopts blood testing.

[The Game]

Originally Posted by Jason Moyer

And in all honesty, the people who seem the most adamant against steroid use (Schilling, Thomas, Gossage, Palmeiro...woops) are the first people I suspect of using them. It's easy to be opposed to something when it's impossible to determine your own history of nutritional and medicinal supplements.

So you think Schilling used? Financial records in most cases can be obtained that is how many of the Mitchell report guys got busted. Doctor prescriptions etc. Thats fine that you think everyone did PEDs and yes while it was probably a high #, I don't think Thomas did do them. I do think Bagwell did.

[Jason Moyer]

I'm just going to assume you've never purchased any sort of illicit drugs in your life if you think they're difficult to obtain without leaving a paper trail.

And I have no idea if Schilling used, and neither does anyone except for Curt. I don't hold that against him personally or as a ballplayer, it is what it is. Mike Schmidt is my favorite player of all time, and I would be surprised if he *hadn't* been taking anabolic steroids and meth during his career, since everybody else was doing it too. Curt played on the 1993 Phillies, which is one of the most notorious steroid-abusing teams of all-time. Hank Aaron's 715th homerun was caught in the bullpen by a teammate who has openly admitted to taking steroids in the 60's and 70's (and inferred that everyone around him was doing the same thing). It is what it is.

[NYY #23]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

I think his point was that we cant prove a thing about either of them. I think Mr Palmeiro proved we really cant trust what these players say. Put Bonds/Clemens in so we can stop speculating about the rest of them would be the best solution IMO.

That's exactly right. I don't trust Thomas because he speaks out against steroids. Not one bit. We've seen too many hypocrites over the years that his words are meaningless. Arod, Palmeiro, Lance Armstrong, Braun, etc.

But honestly I really don't care if he did or didn't. His numbers are Hall worthy, as are Bagwell's, Bonds, Clemens, etc.

[The Game]

Jason & NYY you 2 dont trust anyone do you? Well I am against known or accused steroid users be the in the HOF knowing what we know now. But I seem to be in the minority on these boards. Glad the voters still think like I do. 5-10 years from now that might change, then I will be the one to complain about who got in.