2025 Hall of Fame Ballot

[Amazin69]

Hell, you could say that about "Needles" Weinberg's patron, Tony LaRussa. (Tony dragged Barry Weinberg and his useful syringes from Chicago to Oakland to St. Lou.). I think it's goddamn gross that the O.G. steroid-pusher is in the Hall.

But that's still no reason to let all of his clientele in. There's no good reason to double-down on previous mistakes, I wouldn't think. Otherwise, you'd be letting in every pitcher better than Jesse Haines (Vic Willis, come on down! Hooks Dauss, where are you? Wilbur Cooper, it's your time!) and there simply isn't room for that.

And that's just the statistical cases. I see even less reason to impose a Least Common Denominator practice in the "Ethics and Morality" ones.

JMO, as Olways.

[Cobra Mgr]

I love the "we made a mistake before, therefore we should continue to repeat those same mistakes later" argument.

[Syd Thrift]

Veeeery surprised but also happy to see King Felix appearing on so many public ballots. My guess is that most of the non public ballots will be oldheads who will likely leave him off because he doesn’t have the classic counting stats but by the Bill James metric he was the best SP in the AL or close to it for like 7 years and that to me is who the Hall is for.

I’m hopeful he’ll get more and more support as it becomes more and more clear that 300 game winners are a relic of a bygone era and we should instead compare him to his own contemporaries.

[pilight]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

I love the "we made a mistake before, therefore we should continue to repeat those same mistakes later" argument.

It makes at least as much sense as "player X should be disqualified for something that's not disqualifying" argument.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by pilight

It makes at least as much sense as "player X should be disqualified for something that's not disqualifying" argument.

Voting shall be based upon the player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

[dsvitak]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

Voting shall be based upon the player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

Thanks for this. Integrity and character are ABSOLUTELY criteria for entrance into the HoF.

[dawg1isclear]

Ich and ARod...

[monkeyman576]

In my opinion "integrity and character" just turns it into a popularity contest.

[BaseballMan]

Originally Posted by dsvitak

Thanks for this. Integrity and character are ABSOLUTELY criteria for entrance into the HoF.

Going by that there's probably a few hall of famers that should be kicked out of the hall.
Plus is a player lying when he says something at a press conference that
the team or his agent told him to say but he knows isn't true or doesn't believe?
What if a player is a great player and teammate but a lousy father?

I really wished they would take that out and judge players for what they did on the field.
Sure you can add that a player was a kind human being but don't hold it against him if he isn't the nicest person in the world.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by BaseballMan

Going by that there's probably a few hall of famers that should be kicked out of the hall.

Agreed. Again, do past mistakes obligate me to repeat them?

Plus is a player lying when he says something at a press conference that
the team or his agent told him to say but he knows isn't true or doesn't believe?
What if a player is a great player and teammate but a lousy father?

I'm not going to deny there are idiot voters who put non baseball criteria into their vetting process. I can't speak for those people. Again, I'm not letting the mistakes of others force me to make the same mistake. Steroids & gambling affect the game. I'm not denying fact just because I have sentimental feelings towards a player.

I really wished they would take that out and judge players for what they did on the field.

They could do that & make it easier on everybody. But you will also send the message being a superstar on the field means the rules don't apply to you. And I, for one, have had enough of people getting away with things because of $, race, power, or popularity. If all men are created equal, then let's let the consequences be level as well.

Sure you can add that a player was a kind human being but don't hold it against him if he isn't the nicest person in the world.

All for this. I'm not for disqualification because of personality. I'm for honoring the best who played within the rules. Rule breakers lack integrity & character and don't deserved to be honored as the best the game produced.

[Bluenoser]

When I think of integrity and character and how it applies to HOF election, I see it as this.

How did the individual represent themself as a professional, how did they represent the team(s) they played for, the game, the league? Did they do it as professionals? Or did they embarrass themself or the game, or team, or league, or sport?

If you're a bad dad at home, I don't consider that, but I do consider how you carry yourself as a professional and how you represent your profession.

[pilight]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

All for this. I'm not for disqualification because of personality. I'm for honoring the best who played within the rules. Rule breakers lack integrity & character and don't deserved to be honored as the best the game produced.

Or at least ones that you think broke the rules. And only certain rules.

Babe Ruth broke the rules. He was suspended by baseball for 30 games in 1922. Nobody says that should keep him out of the HOF.

Rogers Hornsby openly admitted cheating. He said “You’ve got to cheat. I know if I had played strictly by the rules, I’d have been home feeding my bird dogs a long time ago instead of earning a good living in baseball.” Nobody says that should keep him out of the HOF.

[monkeyman576]

Point being, Schilling deserves to be in the hall despite being a jerk.

[BaseballMan]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

I'm not going to deny there are idiot voters who put non baseball criteria into their vetting process. I can't speak for those people. Again, I'm not letting the mistakes of others force me to make the same mistake. Steroids & gambling affect the game. I'm not denying fact just because I have sentimental feelings towards a player.

They could do that & make it easier on everybody. But you will also send the message being a superstar on the field means the rules don't apply to you. And I, for one, have had enough of people getting away with things because of $, race, power, or popularity. If all men are created equal, then let's let the consequences be level as well.

How can you be assured who is taking and who isn't taking something.
What if a new sports drug is invented and a player takes it, gets inducted but its not revealed he took the drug till five years later?

I think i lean more to once a game is done its done.
I just don't think you will ever be able to limit the hall to the good guys.

Wouldn't it be better to send the message while the player is playing?
You take away games from a player and it can end up costing him both money and stats.

I just hope writers vote or don't vote for players because they believe he should be in the hall and not because he is liked or not liked.
I understand not voting for Bonds because of the steroids allegations but when they bring up he wasn't a nice guy i think that is a little irrelevant.

I also think the voters should either be rotated or be tested on their basic knowledge of the nominees.
The fact that the one guy didn't know Jeter was eligible and is a shame.
How writers can turn in empty ballots and then put a players on the next year that retired 7 years ago i dont know.

Why not just limit the ballot to 5 or 7 names but say the ballot has to be filled out?
That doesn't guarantee a player will get in but it does help players that deserve to be in get there before they die.
Well maybe.
Because i believe there are still players that are gone that still deserve to be in the hall.
I don't know what is a good pctg for hall of famers vs all the players that have played but i hope Don Mattingly and Dale Murphy can get in.
I know there were players with better stats but also without better stats in the hall.
I just know that in the 80s it seemed they were the story of the game almost every day.
I guess im more for players getting in than eliminating players.
Heck i'd even let Curt Schilling in.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by pilight

Or at least ones that you think broke the rules. And only certain rules.

Babe Ruth broke the rules. He was suspended by baseball for 30 games in 1922. Nobody says that should keep him out of the HOF.

Rogers Hornsby openly admitted cheating. He said “You’ve got to cheat. I know if I had played strictly by the rules, I’d have been home feeding my bird dogs a long time ago instead of earning a good living in baseball.” Nobody says that should keep him out of the HOF.

Ruth was suspended for barnstorming. That did not give him an advantage on the field. In fact the rule, as far as I can tell, was illegal as far as the Constitution is concerned.

For Hornsby, as far as I can tell, no one knew he cheated until he admitted so in the 60's. Thirty years after his last game, 25 after his induction & 15 after he left baseball. No one can fault putting him in decades before they had evidence his play was suspect.

There is a difference between your examples and players like Bonds, Clemens, ARod, Rose & McGwire. People we knew who broke the rules to gain an advantage while playing and tarnished the league's image while in its employ.

So until the Hall of Fame makes a means of "de-inducting" members, the point you bring up is meaningless. It is still the same poor, crazy argument that mistakes were made in the past so we are somehow obligated to repeat them.

[monkeyman576]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

Ruth was suspended for barnstorming. That did not give him an advantage on the field. In fact the rule, as far as I can tell, was illegal as far as the Constitution is concerned.

For Hornsby, as far as I can tell, no one knew he cheated until he admitted so in the 60's. Thirty years after his last game, 25 after his induction & 15 after he left baseball. No one can fault putting him in decades before they had evidence his play was suspect.

There is a difference between your examples and players like Bonds, Clemens, ARod, Rose & McGwire. People we knew who broke the rules to gain an advantage while playing and tarnished the league's image while in its employ.

So until the Hall of Fame makes a means of "de-inducting" members, the point you bring up is meaningless. It is still the same poor, crazy argument that mistakes were made in the past so we are somehow obligated to repeat them.

The MLB can't pick and choose when it wants to enforce rules. They were very inconsistent in how and when they enforce steroids and gambling rules. Steroids testing did not begin until 2003, even though MLB knew there was a drug epidemic. MLB has entered into a marketing agreement with draft kings and allowed Oakland to move to Las Vegas, in the name of making money, not in the name of upholding the integrity of baseball. MLB has dirty hands and the writers should know this and not keep players out for doing what they can to win and do the best for their careers.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by monkeyman576

The MLB can't pick and choose when it wants to enforce rules. They were very inconsistent in how and when they enforce steroids and gambling rules. Steroids testing did not begin until 2003, even though MLB knew there was a drug epidemic. MLB has entered into a marketing agreement with draft kings and allowed Oakland to move to Las Vegas, in the name of making money, not in the name of upholding the integrity of baseball. MLB has dirty hands and the writers should know this and not keep players out for doing what they can to win and do the best for their careers.

You make the same faulty argument every time this issue comes up. Somehow thinking the flaws just disappeared from your take.

Just because they weren't checking doesn't mean they can't feel the consequences if it becomes known. Hwy Patrol may not be able to stop me for not having my seat belt on, but if they stop me for speeding & see I don't have it on, they can still cite me for it. Doesn't matter if the MLB didn't check McGwire. The HOF voters can still keep him out w/the knowledge post his career.

And baseball was never inconsistent w/their stance on gambling when Rose was exiled. WHEN ROSE NEGOTIATED HIS EXILE. He bargained for his banishment cause his ego couldn't stand being exposed any further than he was.

[Cobra Mgr]

I've said it before & I'll say it again: If fans want cheaters in the Hall, just say it. That isn't an invalid opinion & preference. Coming up with illogical talking points in order to cloak that opinion & preference as somehow superior & more fair is ludicrous.

I object to the criticism of voters & fans who choose to hold inductees to a tougher standard. That preference & opinion is as equally valid as the other.

[BaseballMan]

Problem is that the game has never been pure.
There has always been cheating in baseball and probably always will be.
How do you decide which cheating counts against players and which are just a part of the game.

[pilight]

Like I said, you are arbitrarily picking which rules are acceptable to break and which ones are not. It's not that "rule breakers lack integrity & character and don't deserved to be honored as the best the game produced." It's that players who you believe did something you disapprove of should be barred. It's an entirely subjective criteria and not a good one.