OT: Who's your vote

[HOF Auto Rookies]

As has been discussed in a few threads, some great points of arguments on who and who shouldn't be let into the Hall, and the reasoning behind it.

I'm just curious, who would you guys/gals vote to get it.

Edited: I know there are a few not on here, but just post which guys you would vote for, i.e. Dale Murphy, Mattingly, etc.

Also, you may vote up to 10 players just like the standard today

Forgot Jack Morris, crap lol

[deebro041]

Craig Biggio, Mike Piazza, Don Mattingly, Fred Mcgriff and Jack Morris!

[HOF Auto Rookies]

So far no one right now! Biggie had nice votes early on, now Bonds came out of nowhere and Piazza surprised. This is getting to be interesting

[yanksfan09]

I haven't voted here. However, I don't get why Biggio is assumed to be a choir boy, when everyone else from the era is thrown under the bus so far? It seems as though if you had any power, natural or not, you are highly suspect even without any real evidence of wrong doing now.

I'll start by saying I don't believe Biggio juiced. However, just because you aren't a big time power guy does not mean you're clean at all. Tons of small skinny speedy type players in majors and minors have been caught since MLB implemented drug testing. Remember Alex Sanchez? As well as a bunch of pitchers. It seems like besides Clemens, most pitchers aren't really suspect from the era, nor are guys who didn't hit 40+ hr every year. However the failed drug test results in last 5 or so years doesn't justify that idea. As looking at Biggio, he was a small middle infielder who had a power spike from 6 to 21 in 92-93. Again, I'm not at all saying I think he was guilty but I don't get why no one seems to remotely think he could be when any larger player with any power isn't treated the same, even if no evidence against them.

Everyone can agree that Bonds and Clemes, McGwire and Sosa, Palmeiro etc... are guilty. However, the whole situation is a huge mess and we will never know all the clean and dirty players. People talk about hearing the other 103 names on the sealed list like it is the answer to the whole era. Well I'll tell ya, even if they released that, which I don't think the ever will, that is not nearly a complete story of who done it either! That was just one random test from one year. The ones that failed were obviously guilty but the ones that didn't fail certainly were NOT necessarily clean ie....Lance Armstrong...

I'm rambling a bit, but I just don't see the logic with Biggio receiving such high voting when others with no evidence against them are seemingly being demonized and being punished as guilty until proven innocent. Biggio also never led the league in hits or average and was only a .280 hitter with minimal power. He had a long healthy career where he was able to compile some nice lifetime stats but there are ton of players I'd vote in before Biggio!

[bosoxfan]

Fred Mcgriff

[bbcard1]

All depends on what you want, and I have mellowed a bit as I got older, but in an odd, passionate way. I see no way you can have a legitimate hall of fame without the players who were clearly among the best of all time. They used illegal drugs, but it was common in the national game at the time...and it is a reasonable bet that the top performers would have been there without it...it's just what you did at the time. So we are steadfastly against regular use of illegal substances? We're going to have to show Babe Ruth the door...he is known to have used and quite probably abused alcohol, which was an illegal substance at the time. Only want nice people? Sorry Mr. Cobb, you have to go. There is some irony is singling out the absolute sins of a few players we are ignoring the greater sins of the game, which are probably less morally repugnant that the segregation of an earlier time. It is probably worth mentioning that, while I am not sure either of them are hall of fame worthy, the Sosa/McGwire home run battle did a great deal to bring baseball back from the bring after the strike and cancelled world series.

[Davalillo]

First, I would not let in any of the players that are guilty or strongly suspected of steroid use. That includes Bagwell, Piazza and probably Biggio. Perhaps players should be forced tp take a lie detector test. I believe that a significant percentage of players were taking steroids back then and that "The Bagwell Conspiracy" is largely true.

Second I am a "small Hall" guy and believe only the best of the best should be in. That too would exclude Biggio.

I would likely vote for Maddux, Thomas and Glavine next year though.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I still think 3000 hits gets you there, although I admit I would have had a tough time supporting Harold Baines. I would have voted for Biggio.

[EvilKing00]

I loved Craig Biggio but was a 281 lifetime hitter, 414 SB (ranks him 64 in SB ever), he did compile over 3000 hits, but was he one of the best players of his time? of all time?

Maybe if he hit 300 or 320 for his life time stat, but I just dont see it.

[EvilKing00]

Originally Posted by Davalillo

First, I would not let in any of the players that are guilty or strongly suspected of steroid use. That includes Bagwell, Piazza and probably Biggio. Perhaps players should be forced tp take a lie detector test. I believe that a significant percentage of players were taking steroids back then and that "The Bagwell Conspiracy" is largely true.

Second I am a "small Hall" guy and believe only the best of the best should be in. That too would exclude Biggio.

I would likely vote for Maddux, Thomas and Glavine next year though.

How do you know who did it or not? Palmero didnt look like a roid guy but was cought, Bonds DOES look like a roid guy and NEVER tested posative. What about Arod? he dosnt look like one but was cought too. Piazza DOES look like one but wasnt cought....What about Randy Johnson, never cought, BUT 40 years old throwing 100mph, and looked like roid rage every pitch, lol.

I dont think we can guess who did and who didnt, Just not fair. What if they put in Madux and glavin, But some players know and seen them doing it. We will never know everyone who did it.

Those with the numbers should get in, just like its always been. We are Judging the players based on those they played against, We Are NOT saying they are better then Babe Ruth or anyone from the years before.

[Touch'EmAll]

Most of the players mentioned couldn't even hold Bo's jockstrap. They are just not the same caliber of player as Bo.

[peterb69]

I would not vote for anybody on this list. Of the 1st timers, only Bonds & Clemens are worthy of that extra distinction of being voted in on the 1st time.
But as a punishment for the fact they did use something, they do not get my vote until year 2.

As for the non 1st timers, I do not think they are worthy to be Hall of Famers. For that matter, many people already inducted in are not worthy in my opinion.

As for next year, I would vote Bonds, Clemens, & Maddux. I don't think Glavine and Thomas are hall of famers.

I would make 1 write in canditate vote however for this year....Pete Rose

[Touch'EmAll]

Greg Maddux was a monster pitcher. Great in any era, and especially great in his era considering the PHD users he made look silly. Down the road, historians will look at Maddux and start ranking him up there with the very best of all time. Not flashy, not big, not strong, just lethally effective.

[ctownboy]

I get SOOOO tired of hearing and reading about the comparisons of Barry Bonds using steroids and Babe Ruth drinking. It doesn't matter, the two are apples and oranges.

Did Babe Ruth drink during Prohibition? Most likely? Was that illegal? Yes. Did his drinking help him on the baseball field? Not likely. Honestly, how hard do you think to was for Ruth to get drunk one night and then show up and play a baseball game the next day? How hard do you think it was for him to wear a wool uniform and stand in 90 degree heat while hung over? How hard do you think it was for him to try and hit a fast ball while staring with bleary eyes at the pitcher who is standing in bright sunlight? I believe if Ruth drank as much as what has been said about him and he played baseball in a hung over state, his stats probably were HURT because of it.

Years after Mickey Mantle retired, I think he was remorseful for drinking and partying so much during his career. I think he said something to the effect of that he wished he had taken better care of his body and NOT partied so much because he would have liked to see what type of numbers he could have put up if he had.

Nope, steroids were illegal when Bonds took them, Commissioner Fay Vincent had sent out a letter in 1991 stating they were against the rules in baseball and that he would punish those who were found to have taken them. On top of this, steroids are a KNOWN performance enhancer.

So comparing what Babe Ruth did to what Barry Bonds did is just plain stupid.

Ruth did something that was illegal but that was most likely detrimental to his stats and career while Bonds did something that was illegal but was VERY helpful to his career.

Oh yea, one last thing. People say that Bonds was already on his way to the HOF when he started using steroids (if he started using in 1999). This, to me, is even more of a reason to keep him OUT of the HOF. If he was already putting up great stats then WHY did he need to use steroids to begin with? Answer - EGO!!!!

Bonds couldn't keep his EGO out of the equation. He couldn't let "lesser" players like McGwire and Sosa soak up the limelight and publicity. So, he took the steroids to "show" the lesser players who was king. In doing so, he put up numbers he otherwise wouldn't have, broke records he otherwise wouldn't have, was paid more than he otherwise wouldn't have been paid and garnered more attention than he otherwise would have gotten.

Bonds didn't NEED to take steroids but he most likely did. Bonds COULD have stayed clean, put up big numbers and THEN talked about OTHER people putting up big numbers and how those numbers were likely tainted. Bonds COULD have been a Hall Of Famer AND a stand up guy who helped clean the sport up. As it is, he is neither.

David

[Jlighter]

Originally Posted by peterb69

I don't think Glavine and Thomas are hall of famers.

Funny Joke.

[iwantitiwinit]

Two words. Albert Belle.

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by iwantitiwinit

Two words. Albert Belle.

Belle would get my vote..

[t206blogcom]

I'm still ticked about Will Clark, but I supose it's about time I get over that.

I'm pulling for Jack Morris, who wasn't listed. On this list, perhaps Biggio, Bagwell, Piazza, and maybe Schilling. I had hoped Murphy would get in since he was a good player who conducted himself well (this seems to be one of the reasons Larkin got in other than his fielding).

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by t206blogcom

I'm still ticked about Will Clark, but I supose it's about time I get over that.

The Thrill!! My first baseball hero

[packs]

It blows my mind that Bagwell continues to get a lot of votes and McGriff doesn't finish ahead of him. Bagwell would only get in as a home run guy, right? Well, he never once led the league in home runs, or any other offensive category except runs.

McGriff led the league in home runs twice and hit more of them. Why would he finish so far behind Bagwell when he was the superior player?

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by packs

It blows my mind that Bagwell continues to get a lot of votes and McGriff doesn't finish ahead of him. Bagwell would only get in as a home run guy, right? Well, he never once led the league in home runs, or any other offensive category except runs.

McGriff led the league in home runs twice and hit more of them. Why would he finish so far behind Bagwell when he was the superior player?

McGriff hugely underrated.. for several years toward the end of the 80's and into the 90's (pre-1993 offensive explosion) he was the only guy that put up 30 plus every year. I think he suffered because he was so soft spoken and because by the time he finished 30 didn't seem like a big number anymore.. both of which are BS reasons not to be considered.

[buymycards]

Maybe it should be called "The Hall of Pretty Good". There are a lot of good players on this list but true HOFers? Not so many.

[packs]

It's really upsetting to see McGriff finish so poorly. Just looking at recent inductees, he was a far superior player to both Jim Rice and Andre Dawson, yet he will likely toil at 20 percent for the forseable future.

[dgo71]

Originally Posted by peterb69

I don't think Glavine and Thomas are hall of famers.

Seriously???? Yet you support known cheaters. Mind-boggling.

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by packs

It blows my mind that Bagwell continues to get a lot of votes and McGriff doesn't finish ahead of him. Bagwell would only get in as a home run guy, right? Well, he never once led the league in home runs, or any other offensive category except runs.

McGriff led the league in home runs twice and hit more of them. Why would he finish so far behind Bagwell when he was the superior player?

I don't put much stock in being a league leader. It's just an arbitrary accomplishment that's as much determined by what others didn't produce, as much as it does on the individual's production.

Anyways. To me, these two are extremely similar players. McGriff lasted 3 more seasons, resulting in higher totals. While Baggs rates were a bit higher by .013 AVG and .031 in both OBP and SLG. Baggs also had 202 SB's to McGriff's 72.

And not that it means much(for the same reasons that I don't care much for leading the league), but Baggs also had 1 GG, 1 MVP and the ROY. McGriff did have 1 more AS game(5-4)

My personal feeling is that they both belong, but Baggs was the superior player.

Originally Posted by packs

It's really upsetting to see McGriff finish so poorly. Just looking at recent inductees, he was a far superior player to both Jim Rice and Andre Dawson, yet he will likely toil at 20 percent for the forseable future.

I can 100% agree with this. I think the difference is in perspective though. The fact that Rice and Dawson's careers started 10 years earlier helped them greatly. Because it created some separation between them and guys who's career pretty much spanned the entire steroid era.

[packs]

League leader means that you produced more than anyone else in the league. It seems like it SHOULD hold stock. Not sure what you're really saying. They're both home run guys and would only get in for their production. McGriff was better for longer. Doesn't that make him the better player? And as I said McGriff was the best homerun hitter for two seasons compared to Bagwell's zero.

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by buymycards

Maybe it should be called "The Hall of Pretty Good". There are a lot of good players on this list but true HOFers? Not so many.

Exluding steroids, I think many/most of the guys listed are slam dunk HOFers.. and purely/objectively based on numbers would be locks

Locks-
Bonds- top 5 offensive numbers, plus 8 GG, and 7 MVP
Clemens- top 10 pitching numbers, 7 Cys and an MVP
Piazza- by far greatest offensive catcher ever
Biggio- 3000 hits for a 2nd baseman is a lock
Sosa- 600+ would be a lock (even though he'll never make it)
Palmeiro- 500+ 3000+ would be a lock (he'll never make it either)
McGwire- 500+ would be a lock.. doubt he makes it ever

Near locks-
Bagwell- certainly hangs offensively with Perez and Rice
McGriff- same number of HR's as Gehrig.. would've hit 500 had they let him hang on long enough to do so.. also definitely as if not more productive than Perez and Rice.
Schilling- who I even think is borderline, but compare him with some of the other HOF pitchers from the beloved vintage card era... Marquard, Faber, Pennock, Haines, etc

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by packs

League leader means that you produced more than anyone else in the league. It seems like it SHOULD hold stock.

ABSOLUTELY- a player's performance as compared with their peers of the same era means as much if not more than just their yearly or career totals... clearly there was an era prior to 1893 when the mound was closer, there was a dead ball era, there was seemingly a very live ball era in the 20'-30's.. didn't the league bat nearly .300 in 1930?? (is Lefty Grove any less dominant because his ERA ended up over 3.00 or over a run higher than Ed Walsh? No), the mound was lowered after the year of the pitcher in 1968, offense died and they created the DH, and on and on. Every one of these periods affected the statistics of the players in that era, and how a player performs relative to those of his era should be taken into account when judging greatness.

[bbcard1]

Like the internet, if we could put the genie back in the bottle we could reinvent the hall of fame, but we can't.

[packs]

I still think its ridiculous that people even consider Biggio. He was not a HOFer. Look at things this way. If Vizquel hung around and got 3,000 hits, would that make him a HOFer? Or is he already a HOfer? If we're talking about Biggio, no one would think he's a HOFer without his milestone, and even with it people don't think he is. So why would he even be considered at all? Seems like people throwing their votes away.

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by packs

I still think its ridiculous that people even consider Biggio. He was not a HOFer. Look at things this way. If Vizquel hung around and got 3,000 hits, would that make him a HOFer?

I think regardless of era, or dominance in an era, the Hall has always had milestone that more or less locked a player in.. this is how I'd always interpreted..

300 wins/500 HR- were the top two
then
3000 hits

others like 3000 Ks, 1500 RBI, etc were nice numbers but did not equate to locks by themselves.

It's all screwed up now, since 500, 600, 700!! 3000 hits no longer appear to be locks..

I'm now starting to think this will hurt the vintage card market. I think so much of what drives interest and value for players 50, 100, 125 years ago is a reverance for the Hall and for these numbers and what they mean as compared with today. This makes more people love the history of this game and want to collect its artifacts. If that is completely lost and these milestones will no longer mean anything, why would anyone care anymore about a guy from the 20's/30's that hit 500 HRs?

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by packs

League leader means that you produced more than anyone else in the league. It seems like it SHOULD hold stock. Not sure what you're really saying. They're both home run guys and would only get in for their production. McGriff was better for longer. Doesn't that make him the better player? And as I said McGriff was the best homerun hitter for two seasons compared to Bagwell's zero.

But by putting stock in that you're are putting the other players in those years on an even playing field. I'm not saying that it's not a great accomplishment. BUT I don't think it's a valid point when comparing players.

Also, I don't think that "better for longer" is necessarily valid either. McGriff had 3 more seasons(2 healthy) than Bagwell did, and only managed 176 more hits, 44 more HR's, and 21 more RBI's, while Bagwell still managed to lead him in ALL rate categories(.297/.408/.540-.284/.377/.509), 2Bs(488-441), 3Bs(32-24). SBs(202-72), BBs(1401-1305) and HBP(128-39). McGriff also struck out 324 more times.. Bagwell did average 2 more GiDP per season though..

McGriff's postseason performances far outshine Bagwell's though.. I believe McGriff and Gehrig are the only players to reach the 500 club, if you were to count their postseason performances. As they'd both wind up with 503. Sam Rice would reach the 3000 hit club in this scenario(3006).

We can also look at the 11 year span from 1991-2002 when both of their career overlap and both were healthy in the same year..

McGriff 31 35 37 34 27 28 22 19 32 27 31 30
Bagwell 15 18 20 39 21 31 43 34 42 47 39 31

Bagwell lead in 7 of those 11 years.

We can also look at it while mirroring their ages..age 23-36(that's 14 years, and the entirety of Bagg's healthy career)
Mcgriff 20 34 36 35 31 35 37 34 27 28 22 19 32 27
Bagwell 15 18 20 39 21 31 43 34 42 47 39 31 39 27

Bagwell lead at 7 of those ages. McGriff at 5, and they were even twice..

McGriff did have 31 and 30 in his two uncontested ages(again not counting his 2 short years at the end), So even if we assume give those to McGriff, they're tied up at 7-7-2.

[packs]

I see what you're saying. But with two players who played the same position and finished with similar numbers it seems odd that one would receive nearly 60 percent of the votes while the other finished with 20 percent. Writers voting for Bagwell should ask themselves why they aren't voting for McGriff.

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by packs

... with two players who played the same position and finished with similar numbers it seems odd that one would receive nearly 60 percent of the votes while the other finished with 20 percent. Writers voting for Bagwell should ask themselves why they aren't voting for McGriff.

I'm sure those voters wouldn't be able to offer a reasonable explanation

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by packs

I see what you're saying. But with two players who played the same position and finished with similar numbers it seems odd that one would receive nearly 60 percent of the votes while the other finished with 20 percent. Writers voting for Bagwell should ask themselves why they aren't voting for McGriff.

I completely agree. I could see McGriff getting a few less votes, but definitely not 211 less.. And again as I've said all along. BOTH belong in..

I could add Walker to this as well. But he was an OF and the Coors factor plays too big into the discussion. But for Christ's sake, the guy batter over .350 4 times.. with 7 Gold Gloves..

I also wish people would've taken a little more time to look at Albert Belle though. Sure he only had 10 full seasons. But damn, he put up some big numbers during that stretch.. Sure he was a d1ck, and pulled the cork stunt, but I don't ever recall anyone linking him to steroids.. I'm fine with him not getting in, but he barely got a second though..

[packs]

I'm with you on Walker. What a hitter. Can people really say with a straight face that he wasn't better than Rice and Dawson? Baseball Reference ranks him as the 9th best right fielder of all time. How does a top ten player at his position not get into the HOF?

[dgo71]

Originally Posted by itjclarke

ABSOLUTELY- a player's performance as compared with their peers of the same era means as much if not more than just their yearly or career totals... clearly there was an era prior to 1893 when the mound was closer, there was a dead ball era, there was seemingly a very live ball era in the 20'-30's.. didn't the league bat nearly .300 in 1930?? (is Lefty Grove any less dominant because his ERA ended up over 3.00 or over a run higher than Ed Walsh? No), the mound was lowered after the year of the pitcher in 1968, offense died and they created the DH, and on and on. Every one of these periods affected the statistics of the players in that era, and how a player performs relative to those of his era should be taken into account when judging greatness.

What you fail to realize is that not one of the factors you mentioned constituted cheating. Every player in those era was on a level playing field, which makes comparing them to those in their era valid. Steroids put players on a different field, and now it is unfair to say Player X was the best of his era when you don't know how much of this "greatness" was artificially induced.

Overall, I think "era" and "position" are taken into account a great deal. But people (voters) don't know how to treat the steroid era because you cannot apply the same rules across the board. That's why it was CHEATING.

Originally Posted by packs

I still think its ridiculous that people even consider Biggio. He was not a HOFer. Look at things this way. If Vizquel hung around and got 3,000 hits, would that make him a HOFer? Or is he already a HOfer? If we're talking about Biggio, no one would think he's a HOFer without his milestone, and even with it people don't think he is. So why would he even be considered at all? Seems like people throwing their votes away.

Again, taking "position" into account, Biggio played catcher and second base the majority of his career and was hands down one of the best in the game in his time, at his position. He is a sure-fire HOFer who would have been elected in his first year easily had his election come twenty years ago. He was unfairly punished by the era he played in by voters who aren't sure how to handle any player from that era.

And as far as "hanging around" goes, I will never understand how longevity became such a knock on a player. If someone is good enough to play at a high level, in the very best level of competition, how is that not a positive? Are you going to say Hank Aaron was a compiler? After all, he played 23 seasons.

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by dgo71

What you fail to realize is that not one of the factors you mentioned constituted cheating. Every player in those era was on a level playing field, which makes comparing them to those in their era valid. Steroids put players on a different field, and now it is unfair to say Player X was the best of his era when you don't know how much of this "greatness" was artificially induced.

Overall, I think "era" and "position" are taken into account a great deal. But people (voters) don't know how to treat the steroid era because you cannot apply the same rules across the board. That's why it was CHEATING.:

NOT my point at all.. I was only pointing out why I agreed that McGriff's 30+ HR and league leading years were more impressive in an era when fewer guys were doing it... It had little or nothing to do with the steroid issue.

[Big Ben]

I treated this poll as for whom I would vote to out into the Hall of Fame today. Limiting this to the options mentioned, my vote was for Biggio, and Lee Smith. I think that in time, more will come out as to who used and did not use PED's. I have read that according to some Hall of Fame players, the rumor is out there that a PED user is already in the Hall of Fame. Interesting.

[kmac32]

Big Lee is one of the all time great relievers and just an all around good guy. Know him well from my years at Cubs camp. Biggio should be in also. Hopefully next year.

[Jlighter]

Originally Posted by Big Ben

I have read that according to some Hall of Fame players, the rumor is out there that a PED user is already in the Hall of Fame. Interesting.

I have heard that as well. Heres a little article about it

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/20...-hall-of-fame/

I did a little statistical research and came up with 4 potential users.

Ryne Sandberg- http://www.baseball-reference.com/pl...andbry01.shtml

Wade Boggs- http://www.baseball-reference.com/pl...oggswa01.shtml

Carlton Fisk- http://www.baseball-reference.com/pl...fiskca01.shtml

Andre Dawson- http://www.baseball-reference.com/pl...awsoan01.shtml

This is only based on a players statistical output, not any character research.

[HRBAKER]

Biggio is probably the lone listee I would vote for.

[dgo71]

Originally Posted by itjclarke

NOT my point at all.. I was only pointing out why I agreed that McGriff's 30+ HR and league leading years were more impressive in an era when fewer guys were doing it... It had little or nothing to do with the steroid issue.

Sorry! Misunderstood your point, I agree McGriff doesn't get nearly the love he should.

[Runscott]

McGriff managed to last longer by saving his legs, as opposed to using steroids. I saw him on several occasions stand and watch to see if a ball he hit would go over the fence, then only make it to first when it bounced off the wall. McGriff - a big 'NO'.

It's interesting to see Biggio beating out Bonds - I thought Net54 was basically in favor of rationalizing steroid use?

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by Jlighter

I have heard that as well. Heres a little article about it

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/20...-hall-of-fame/

I did a little statistical research and came up with 4 potential users.

Ryne Sandberg- http://www.baseball-reference.com/pl...andbry01.shtml

Wade Boggs- http://www.baseball-reference.com/pl...oggswa01.shtml

Carlton Fisk- http://www.baseball-reference.com/pl...fiskca01.shtml

Andre Dawson- http://www.baseball-reference.com/pl...awsoan01.shtml

This is only based on a players statistical output, not any character research.

I think the guy was hinting that both the conversation and HR spike happened in the same year. So depending on what time during '88, he could've been referring to either the '87(if the conversation happened after), '88, or '89 season. Fisk's spike was in '85 and probably too early to coincide with the term "Canseco milkshake". Dawson's '87 is WAY suspicious.. And I agree so was Boggs' '87(his was way out of the ordinary, but I'm willing to concede that sometimes you just have one of those stretches. Sandbergs '90 looks off, but not nearly as suspicious as some others. And as much as it pains me to say this one(with him being my favorite player), Ripken's '91 looks quite a bit out of place.

[Jlighter]

Originally Posted by novakjr

I think the guy was hinting that both the conversation and HR spike happened in the same year. So depending on what time during '88, he could've been referring to either the '87(if the conversation happened after), '88, or '89 season. Fisk's spike was in '85 and probably too early to coincide with the term "Canseco milkshake". Dawson's '87 is WAY suspicious.. And I agree so was Boggs' '87(his was way out of the ordinary, but I'm willing to concede that sometimes you just have one of those stretches. Sandbergs '90 looks off, but not nearly as suspicious as some others. And as much as it pains me to say this one(with him being my favorite player), Ripken's '91 looks quite a bit out of place.

Dawson's was the one that stood most out to me. I didn't even want to look at Cal's, it would hurt me that another record would be tainted, so I honestly hope that he's clean. The only reason I put Fisk is because he never broke 30 HRs in a season then hits 37 at the age of 37. It can happen as we have seen with Raul Ibanez.

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by Jlighter

Dawson's was the one that stood most out to me. I didn't even want to look at Cal's, it would hurt me that another record would be tainted, so I honestly hope that he's clean. The only reason I put Fisk is because he never broke 30 HRs in a season then hits 37 at the age of 37. It can happen as we have seen with Raul Ibanez.

Yeah, I'd never noticed it with Cal before, but I looked for the hell of it. His HR's jumped to 34. His previous high was 28 in his rookie season. However, my concerns come from the years that surrounded it. SLG went from .415 in '90 to .566 and then back down to .366 in '92(although this low could have something to do with adjusting to the new ballpark) before he leveled back off to his career average of the low-mid .400s

[itjclarke]

Wasn't '87 also the year of "juiced ball" rumors? I haven't checked overall stats, but just remember there were a lot of ridiculous numbers put up that year. You had McGwire's 49 as a rookie.. Kevin Seitzer hit .327 with about 30 bombs, Matt Nolkes hit over 30, Boggs' 24, Dawson's 47... I think 1986 and 1988 were very tame by comparison. Offense had sagged for most of the 70's and 80's so I halfway believed those rumors... I was also a little kid and very impressionable.

[dgo71]

Yes, 1987 was the juiced ball year. Everyone hit crazy power numbers in '87, but most settled back to normalcy the very next year. I truly believe that year was a case of the ball being altered (wound tighter or made lighter or whatever they did) than anything the players were taking, because the power numbers increased across the board.

If there are PED users in the HOF currently, my money is on Rickey Henderson or Dennis Eckersley, with their time in Oakland around Canseco. That is just a hunch though, I've never seen or read anything to substantiate that theory.

[Jlighter]

Originally Posted by dgo71

my money is on Rickey Henderson

If that's true, my entire view of modern baseball would change. I think Rickey is one of the top 20 players to ever live.