Who Would You Take Out of the MLB HOF?

[abailey3313]

Originally Posted by MorseMoose

Yes, but...history gets lost. In 100 years, will we remember that Rafael Palmeiro took roids? He'll be in the books, but he's a minor player now...what will he be in 100 years?

I guess I'm not really sure where you think that information would disappear to. Just think of all the minor details we have about players from the late 1800's and early 1900's and then consider how drastically the means for capturing and saving this data has changed. I'd say if all of this data is inaccessible in 100 years, then we probably have bigger problems than what guys in the baseball hall of fame did off the field to help compile their numbers.

EDIT: Also, if the argument is "people of the future might not know that Raffy Palmeiro used steroids, so we shouldn't put him in the Hall of Fame today" is the implication, then... well... I don't really even know what to say to that.

[MorseMoose]

And Bonds, Clemens and McGuire will be remembered as cheaters. But think there is a large population of guys (some that will get in, some that won't) that will be forgotten as cheaters.

I'm almost for a Scarlet Letteresque plaque or something . Attach a scarlet letter to their plaque that signifies a cheater. For guys that don't get into the hall of fame, have a board that chastises them as cheaters. (I'm mostly kidding).

[MorseMoose]

Originally Posted by abailey3313

I guess I'm not really sure where you think that information would disappear to. Just think of all the minor details we have about players from the late 1800's and early 1900's and then consider how drastically the means for capturing and saving this data has changed. I'd say if all of this data is inaccessible in 100 years, then we probably have bigger problems than what guys in the baseball hall of fame did off the field to help compile their numbers.

EDIT: Also, if the argument is "people of the future might not know that Raffy Palmeiro used steroids, so we shouldn't put him in the Hall of Fame today" is the implication, then... well... I don't really even know what to say to that.

We have the hard data, the statistics. But we're missing a lot of the human element. Yes, times have changed and a lot of this human element is stored digitally now. However, when looking at a list of the 100s of guys that have 500 HRs and Palmerio's name appears, I'm not sure that everyone will know him as a cheater. He was never a huge name.

Here's my test, I ask my sister, "Do you know who Rafael Palmerio is?" She will definitely say, "No." I'll say, "He has over 500 HRs in the Major Leagues." She'll say, "Oh."

I ask my sister, "Do you know who Barry Bonds is?" She will definitely say, "Yes." I'll say, "He has over 700 HRs in the Major Leagues." She will definitely say, "Yeah, but he took steroids."

My sister is smart and knows a bit about sports. But she doesn't know about Rafael Palmerio. I feel it will be the same in 100 years. People will see the stats, but forget the stories. Not everyone...but a large number.

[cephasjames]

I see you point, even though I don't agree.

My take is, if a player isn't put on the permanently ineligible list then they shouldn't be kept from the Hall if they have produced Hall-worthy numbers. If MLB wants to put Bonds, et al on that list then I'm all for them not being allowed into the Hall. Otherwise they put up Hall-worthy numbers (though skewed by 'roids/PEDs - by how much nobody knows) and should be in the Hall - even if its with a scarlet asterisk.

[MorseMoose]

Originally Posted by cephasjames

I see you point, even though I don't agree.

My take is, if a player isn't put on the permanently ineligible list then they shouldn't be kept from the Hall if they have produced Hall-worthy numbers. If MLB wants to put Bonds, et al on that list then I'm all for them not being allowed into the Hall. Otherwise they put up Hall-worthy numbers (though skewed by 'roids/PEDs - by how much nobody knows) and should be in the Hall - even if its with a scarlet asterisk.

Even though I feel that way, I tend to agree with the "they should be in" sentiment.

However, I wouldn't be surprised if we wait 15 years for Barry Bonds to get in. Though, I wouldn't be surprised if he is in next year. There is a "punishment" in not putting him in. I think it's a logical way for the voters to express their disappointment/distrust/anger at these guys that have hurt the integrity of the game.

Ty Cobb is known as a prick
Babe Ruth is known as an alcoholic.

Both of these guys are the top of the class from their eras. They both got in eventually, though both of these guys' integrity stems from outside of the game.

I think a minor parallel would be someone like Ferguson Jenkins. He was delayed entry into the HOF possibly because of his drug use.

Not one person has ever been elected with 100% of the vote and I doubt we'll ever see anyone get 100% again. Especially until we've gone years without talk of steroid-use.

[abailey3313]

Originally Posted by MorseMoose

Here's my test, I ask my sister, "Do you know who Rafael Palmerio is?" She will definitely say, "No." I'll say, "He has over 500 HRs in the Major Leagues." She'll say, "Oh."

I ask my sister, "Do you know who Barry Bonds is?" She will definitely say, "Yes." I'll say, "He has over 700 HRs in the Major Leagues." She will definitely say, "Yeah, but he took steroids."

My sister is smart and knows a bit about sports. But she doesn't know about Rafael Palmerio. I feel it will be the same in 100 years. People will see the stats, but forget the stories. Not everyone...but a large number.

Eh, this is kind of a throwing the baby out with the bath water argument. "Because its possible that some segment of the population 100 years into the future will not have memorized 100% of the facts..."

[The Game]

Originally Posted by MorseMoose

Ty Cobb is known as a prick
Babe Ruth is known as an alcoholic.

Both of these guys are the top of the class from their eras. They both got in eventually, though both of these guys' integrity stems from outside of the game.

I think a minor parallel would be someone like Ferguson Jenkins. He was delayed entry into the HOF possibly because of his drug use.

"They both got in eventually"? Huh? They were part of the 1st HOF class in 1939. As far as Fergie, your older then I am so I guess you remember this differently then I do. It had more to do with never playing for a pennant/division winner then possible drug use.

[MorseMoose]

Originally Posted by The Game

"They both got in eventually"? Huh? They were part of the 1st HOF class in 1939. As far as Fergie, your older then I am so I guess you remember this differently then I do. It had more to do with never playing for a pennant/division winner then possible drug use.

Sorry, yeah, I implied they didn't get in right away. I didn't mean to imply that. More speaking that they got in despite their personality faults.

I'd guess that I'm not much older... As for Jenkins, I just remember reading things about him awhile back. Things like:

Originally Posted by SI article

Jenkins had made it on his third try. His credentials were solid, but there had been speculation that he might never get in because of his 1980 trial in Toronto for possession of cocaine. (He was found guilty, but the judge gave him an absolute discharge, clearing his record.) Whenever anyone had asked him what he thought of his chances, he had always given the same reply: If it was going to happen, he hoped his father would still be alive to see it.

[ihatenames]

Originally Posted by MorseMoose

I'd guess that I'm not much older... As for Jenkins, I just remember reading things about him awhile back. Things like:

If I remember correctly they tried to ban him for a significant part of that 1980 season as well but did not succeed.

[The Game]

I was 4 in 1980 so yeah I dont remember that. Getting in on the 3d try is still nice. He doesn't have 1st ballot #'s.

[mpejkrm]

For those of you saying Bonds doesn't deserve a spot in the hall.

For his career he walked 20% of the time and struck out only 12%. Those #'s make me weak to my knees. Steroids don't change plate discipline (these #'s exclude int. walks). I abhor the idea of a HOF without Barry Bonds.

[Kobie]

Originally Posted by jazzrack

I read inn usa today the other day that only 2500 people showed up for the ceremony.


ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha

if bonds was being inducted the normal 20k+ would have shown up.

the fans have spoken

It's not just that Bonds didn't get in that kept people away, it's that nobody got in. Even guys who were never even suspected of steroid use.

Regarding the OP, I wouldn't take anyone out. I'm for a more inclusive Hall, not less.

[MorseMoose]

Originally Posted by The Game

I was 4 in 1980 so yeah I dont remember that. Getting in on the 3d try is still nice. He doesn't have 1st ballot #'s.

I was -5.

I'm of the opinion that there should be no such thing as 1st ballot #'s or 2nd ballot #'s or 3rd...whatever. Either you're good enough to be in or not.

[jazzrack]

Originally Posted by Kobie

It's not just that Bonds didn't get in that kept people away, it's that nobody got in. Even guys who were never even suspected of steroid use.

Regarding the OP, I wouldn't take anyone out. I'm for a more inclusive Hall, not less.

nobody that the fans care about were in so no fans showed up. If you have a business and nobody shows up you are a failure. without fans there is no MLB, there is no HOF. Baseball can live without sports reporters & statheadz, but it can't live without the casual fan. if it is boring they won't show up.

and btw, I don't see baseball returning any of the money they made off of barry bonds and crew to the fans now do I? so they will cash the checks then they pretend they are some innocent victim.

reminds me of Elliot spritzer, use a hooker to get your rocks off at noon, then arrest her at midnight claiming superior morality

[BaseballMan]

I say just conduct the nominations as they always did. Steroids by itself didnt make them better. Expansion, changes in rules and ballparks, better conditioning etc did.

[The Game]

Originally Posted by BaseballMan

I say just conduct the nominations as they always did. Steroids by itself didnt make them better. Expansion, changes in rules and ballparks, better conditioning etc did.

Then why did no one from 1962 thru the late 70's hit 62 HR? Far more expansion in that time then this time. More rules to favor hitters. Steroids did make them better far better then they would have been without them.

[John Madden]

Originally Posted by The Game

Then why did no one from 1962 thru the late 70's hit 62 HR? Far more expansion in that time then this time. More rules to favor hitters. Steroids did make them better far better then they would have been without them.

For many reasons. Go take steroids and earn yourself a MLB contract, if that's all it takes.

[The Game]

Originally Posted by John Madden

For many reasons. Go take steroids and earn yourself a MLB contract, if that's all it takes.

It takes natural ability also I dont deny that. But take steroids and go play softball and watch your HR total jump by 10-20. Go lift weights and watch your bench possibly double.

[Jason Moyer]

Originally Posted by The Game

Then why did no one from 1962 thru the late 70's hit 62 HR?

That's a good question, since players were taking steroids then.

Baseball players have been trying to artificially boost their testosterone levels since the day the first professional contract was signed, if not before that.

[Jabez54]

I did a doubletake regarding to : 1962 thru the late 70's ... I thought none till Sosa and McGwire in the late 90s? ...


Also, one need to exercise when taking steroids to boost your strength, then without exercise ... unless for healing purpose, your performance may increase unless you have God-Given talents to do what Bonds, Clemens - ects - have accomplished ... but with the little guys, I'm not so sure ... it really depends on their recovering abilities and how their bodies are able to respond to 'roids ... I have banished few folks, that were caught with them, from the Fitness facilities in my time ... Can't stand them (roids) ... they do more harm than good