whats your HOF philosophy???

[z28jd]

I have no problem putting in the best from the era because almost every player from the 60's up did something that is now illegal by MLB standards. If you could somehow take today's list of banned substances and go back to 2000, you might be able to find a handful of players that don't fail a surprise test. No one voting has any idea who was clean so how do you single out certain players? It is 100% impossible for any voter to name one player that KNOW was clean during that era. They didn't follow them everyday, 24 hours a day. You judge them against their peers and if they were the best, you put them in.

The only part where I'd go against that thinking is the players that actually get suspended for use like Manny Ramirez. Once testing was in place, you fail and you lose my vote. That goes for Rafael Palmeiro, who I believe was thrown under the bus by Miguel Tejada. Palmeiro said he thought he was getting a B12 shot from Tejada and I believe him(though I don't believe he was clean during his career). Tejada was later caught with steroids despite denying it, while Palmeiro knew he was being targeted, already announced his retirement, already had his milestones sewn up and was on a last place team, so he was just playing out the string of his HOF career(assumed at the time 3000 hits/500 homers gets you in). There was zero reason for him to risk getting caught or try to enhance his performance with a couple months left on his career, he didn't even need to be out on the field. I do believe he thought it was a legal B12 shot. I do believe Tejada screwed him over and I still wouldn't vote for him.

My biggest knock will be once some owner from that era goes in the Hall of Fame. I wouldn't believe for a second that owners and Selig didn't know what was going on and would have stopped it had they known. The simple reason is because it meant more money for them, a lot more. A better reason is because everybody knew that watched the games, there was no secret about it. It sickens me that Steinbrenner is getting close to being elected and he benefited from turning a blind eye more than anyone. I don't know how he is even considered in the first place with his two lengthy suspensions, but that's a different story. If he gets in(or any steroid era owner, or Selig), then that really makes keeping the players out a total joke. Every owner is just as guilty as the players by letting it go and paying the players more.

[bn2cardz]

I, too, feel the BBWAA needs to stop playing judge and jury on who should get in based off anything other than their on the field play compared to their on the field counterparts.

Bonds may have used PEDs but so did Canseco. I would never consider Canseco a HOFer but Bonds undoubtedly is one of the most dominant players of the game even compared to his contemporaries. Just because someone used PED didn't make them good. It may have helped them drive the ball farther but they still had to make contact. PEDs didn't help Bonds strikeout less. Look at McGwire and Sosa. McGwire's K% (percent of PA that were Strike outs) was at 20.8% and Sosa's 23.3%. Bonds was only 12.2%, that has to do with good contact hitting and plate patience, if this was caused by PED then his number wouldn't be 10% lower. In fact Bonds only had one season with more than 100 strikeouts, and that was his RC season. In 2004 Bonds hit more home runs than he struck out (45 HR, 41 SO).

The problem is people had come up with milestone stats to determine HOF and the PED users skewed this a little bit by hitting more home runs. Yet when you compare them to their contemporaries you get a better picture of who the premier players were/are and Bonds is definitely one of them.

[rainier2004]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

I, too, feel the BBWAA needs to stop playing judge and jury on who should get in based off anything other than their on the field play compared to their on the field counterparts.

Bonds may have used PEDs but so did Canseco. I would never consider Canseco a HOFer but Bonds undoubtedly is one of the most dominant players of the game even compared to his contemporaries. Just because someone used PED didn't make them good. It may have helped them drive the ball farther but they still had to make contact. PEDs didn't help Bonds strikeout less. Look at McGwire and Sosa. McGwire's K% (percent of PA that were Strike outs) was at 20.8% and Sosa's 23.3%. Bonds was only 12.2%, that has to do with good contact hitting and plate patience, if this was caused by PED then his number wouldn't be 10% lower. In fact Bonds only had one season with more than 100 strikeouts, and that was his RC season. In 2004 Bonds hit more home runs than he struck out (45 HR, 41 SO).

The problem is people had come up with milestone stats to determine HOF and the PED users skewed this a little bit by hitting more home runs. Yet when you compare them to their contemporaries you get a better picture of who the premier players were/are and Bonds is definitely one of them.

Andy - Everything you say is completely logical, well thought out, thorough and shows good application of stats for comparison sake. The fact that Bonds has those HR/K numbers is amazing in this day of baseball and resembles the power hitters of the 40s and 50s....but I still despise Bonds, we all know he was on PEDS regardless if he peed dirty and Mr. Aaron is still my HR king. I say keep him out...

[CurtisFlood]

The Hall of Fame is for the Famous.

That being said, if they exclude McGwire and Palmeiro they must also exclude Bonds, Clemens, and any other media darlings or hotpoint guys.

[Centauri]

I say let'em in but tell the story. I don't think we can assume any player from the era is entirely clean.

[z28jd]

Originally Posted by rainier2004

Andy - Everything you say is completely logical, well thought out, thorough and shows good application of stats for comparison sake. The fact that Bonds has those HR/K numbers is amazing in this day of baseball and resembles the power hitters of the 40s and 50s....but I still despise Bonds, we all know he was on PEDS regardless if he peed dirty and Mr. Aaron is still my HR king. I say keep him out...

Just asking you since you brought up Hank Aaron, who admitted to trying amphetamines once in his career. Do you seriously believe his story? He claimed to have no idea what it was and he only did it once because it made his nervous/anxious. We all know now that the players from the 60's took them quite often and while it didn't have the effect of steroids, it helped them compile stats because they were up for every game, so that is an obvious help. I just didn't like the "peer pressure" and only tried it once story that Aaron concocted. I'm not sure how people just let that go without calling bull.

Not trying to single out Aaron, but he was the one that came out with the crazy story. If someone hit 40 homers at age 39 nowadays, that would send up huge red flags. Since amphetamines are illegal now in the game, you could easily make a case for Ruth still being the home run king, but no one does.

[glchen]

I personally think that the PED users and suspected PED users should be left out of the HOF during this Baseball Writers round, and have their fates left to the Veteran's Committee. If existing HOFer's think that these players deserve to be their peers, then so be it.

[MacDice]

My philosophy is that if elected after I pass away, I have instructed my family to reject the nomination.

[z28jd]

Originally Posted by glchen

I personally think that the PED users and suspected PED users should be left out of the HOF during this Baseball Writers round, and have their fates left to the Veteran's Committee. If existing HOFer's think that these players deserve to be their peers, then so be it.

The problem with this is it's all hearsay. If Derek Jeter(fox example) did something, which I'm sure he did considering how much stuff became illegal when the testing did, how would you know? The only person that can say he was clean was him and who is going to believe him when it comes down to what these other players have gone through.

So we will never know if Jeter or any other player from the era is clean. Basically, they should all be suspected PED users because no one can tell you they were clean.

You could use Jeter and say, wait he slugs .552 in 1999 and never breaks .481 after that. Just one random off the charts year on a team filled with steroid guys in the middle of the era? Or look at Barry Larkin and say where did that 33 home run season come from? He wasn't a home run hitter. Or look at John Smoltz, his numbers start going down in 1993 and 94, then he comes back from the strike and starts pitching like an ace again during the higher offense years? No one has ever mentioned them, but you can find a season or time that stands out. How would anyone know what they did those years to get better?

On the flip side, guys like Rondell White and Carlos Baerga came back from the off-season jacked and it hurt because they may have got too big and lost range of motion, so even then you can't just look for seasons that stand out.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by z28jd

Just asking you since you brought up Hank Aaron, who admitted to trying amphetamines once in his career. Do you seriously believe his story? He claimed to have no idea what it was and he only did it once because it made his nervous/anxious. We all know now that the players from the 60's took them quite often and while it didn't have the effect of steroids, it helped them compile stats because they were up for every game, so that is an obvious help. I just didn't like the "peer pressure" and only tried it once story that Aaron concocted. I'm not sure how people just let that go without calling bull.

Not trying to single out Aaron, but he was the one that came out with the crazy story. If someone hit 40 homers at age 39 nowadays, that would send up huge red flags. Since amphetamines are illegal now in the game, you could easily make a case for Ruth still being the home run king, but no one does.

This wasn't a discussion for this thread maybe, but since it came up...

I would say that Ruth is still the Home Run King (if you exclude PED users). Ruth had 11.76 AB/HR. This ranks second behind McGwire, but had McGwire played another 6/7 years that definitely would have dropped, but he couldn't stay around. Aaron's AB/HR is only ranked 37 all time at 16.49. His career home run total is due to having 3319 more PA than Ruth.

If you look at people that had Game longevity (20+ years) and had AB/HR better than Aaron you are still left with 7 players.


Babe Ruth+ (22):11.76
Barry Bonds (22):12.92
Jim Thome (22):13.76
Harmon Killebrew+ (22):14.22
Alex Rodriguez (20, 38):15.01
Jimmie Foxx+ (20):15.23
Ken Griffey (22):15.56
Willie McCovey+ (22):15.73
Hank Aaron+ (23):16.38

Even if you take out the players convicted of PED (and played in the 90s, therefor guilty by association) you are still left with 4. Aaron only lead the league in home runs for 4 seasons. Of the other 4, Ruth led 12 times, Killebrew led 6, Foxx 4 times, and McCovey 3 times. So Killebrew and Ruth still led in HR more seasons and had better HR/AB. So it is hard for me to call Hank Aaron the Home Run King based off one stat, when a deeper look shows that Ruth dominated this stat in his era (as a side note even Bonds only led in home runs twice and McGwire 4 times).


I respect people not wanting to vote for people because of dislike, but if that were the case there are several people that wouldn't be in (Anson, Cobb, Hornsby...).

[rats60]

Originally Posted by z28jd

Not trying to single out Aaron, but he was the one that came out with the crazy story. If someone hit 40 homers at age 39 nowadays, that would send up huge red flags. Since amphetamines are illegal now in the game, you could easily make a case for Ruth still being the home run king, but no one does.

Illegal now is the key phrase. We don't punish spit ball pitchers who did it legally. Cobb and Speaker fixed a game pre Black Sox, but weren't punished. Guys who used greenies when they weren't banned shouldn't be punished after the fact.

In 1991, Fay Vincent sent a letter to all teams reminding them that steroids were banned under MLB drug policy. Those players who ignored the rules and cheated deserve their puishment. I don't have a problem with Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, Sosa, ect. never being in the HOF. It is a fitting punishment. Like Pete Rose, they thought they were bigger than the game, the rules don't apply.

That guy may want to see the best players from his era. I don't want to have to explain how these players knowingly cheated the game, but are now above the rules and given its highest honor.

[Kenny Cole]

I would suggest that almost everyone already in the HOF "knowingly cheated" the game in some form or fashion. Pud Galvin was an acknowledged PED user. Perry threw a spitter. Ford admittedly cut the ball. Mantle used corked bats. When he caught, Mack made a sound to try to make umps think that a ball was actually a foul tip. Impeding base runners was an art form in the 1890s. It has been a federal crime to use amphetamines without a prescription since 1970. Cocaine is obviously illegal to use as a performance enhancer. Human ingenuity being what it is, there are countless ways to cheat the game and that's always sort of been considered OK so long as you were cheating in order to try to win. Therein lies the huge difference that keeps Jackson out.

To those who want to talk about "integrity," I don't understand that argument very well. If player A cheats by using steroids and hits 70 homers, and player B cheats by using greenies and only hits 30 homers, which one has less integrity? In that example, it is my belief that the integrity of those two players is exactly the same. They both cheated, they both tried to get an unfair advantage, and one of the two was simply more successful. In that same vein, why is cheating more effectively now deemed worse than a less effective method of cheating? If two kids cheat on a test and once makes an A and the other a C, which kid has less integrity? The integrity argument has never made any sense to me and still doesn't.

Steroids happened, just as amphetamine usage and cocaine usage happened, just as corked bats, spitters, cutters, sign stealing, etc. still happen. Saying that steroid users shouldn't be elected because they are cheats is really just a way to try and avoid dealing with the issue, particularly when those who are making that claim seem to have absolutely no issue with any of the other methods of cheating employed by those who have already been elected.

I suspect that part of the reason why some people are more incensed at steroid usage is that there is a perception, valid or not, that the steroid usage type of cheating allowed cherished records to be broken. If so, all I can say, like I have already said, is that I cannot see any logical link between integrity and breaking records. If you tried to get an unfair advantage and simply did it more poorly than someone else, that doesn't give you greater integrity.

Because the HOF has a long and vaunted history of inducting players with somewhat less than perfect integrity, I don't have a problem with inducting those who were the best of their time or, in the case of Bonds and Clemens, among the best of all time. If the HOF wants to note that their accomplishments may have been aided by PEDs, so be it. But it simply cannot be denied that, at least between the lines, some of the greatest players ever were active during a time when everyone's performance is suspect.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

I would suggest that almost everyone already in the HOF "knowingly cheated" the game in some form or fashion. Pud Galvin was an acknowledged PED user. Perry threw a spitter. Ford admittedly cut the ball. Mantle used corked bats. When he caught, Mack made a sound to try to make umps think that a ball was actually a foul tip. Impeding base runners was an art form in the 1890s. It has been a federal crime to use amphetamines without a prescription since 1970. Cocaine is obviously illegal to use as a performance enhancer. Human ingenuity being what it is, there are countless ways to cheat the game and that's always sort of been considered OK so long as you were cheating in order to try to win. Therein lies the huge difference that keeps Jackson out.

To those who want to talk about "integrity," I don't understand that argument very well. If player A cheats by using steroids and hits 70 homers, and player B cheats by using greenies and only hits 30 homers, which one has less integrity? In that example, it is my belief that the integrity of those two players is exactly the same. They both cheated, they both tried to get an unfair advantage, and one of the two was simply more successful. In that same vein, why is cheating more effectively now deemed worse than a less effective method of cheating? If two kids cheat on a test and once makes an A and the other a C, which kid has less integrity? The integrity argument has never made any sense to me and still doesn't.

Steroids happened, just as amphetamine usage and cocaine usage happened, just as corked bats, spitters, cutters, sign stealing, etc. still happen. Saying that steroid users shouldn't be elected because they are cheats is really just a way to try and avoid dealing with the issue, particularly when those who are making that claim seem to have absolutely no issue with any of the other methods of cheating employed by those who have already been elected.

I suspect that part of the reason why some people are more incensed at steroid usage is that there is a perception, valid or not, that the steroid usage type of cheating allowed cherished records to be broken. If so, all I can say, like I have already said, is that I cannot see any logical link between integrity and breaking records. If you tried to get an unfair advantage and simply did it more poorly than someone else, that doesn't give you greater integrity.

Because the HOF has a long and vaunted history of inducting players with somewhat less than perfect integrity, I don't have a problem with inducting those who were the best of their time or, in the case of Bonds and Clemens, among the best of all time. If the HOF wants to note that their accomplishments may have been aided by PEDs, so be it. But it simply cannot be denied that, at least between the lines, some of the greatest players ever were active during a time when everyone's performance is suspect.

This post makes no sense. The player hitting 30 hrs taking greenies did so when it wasn't against the rules. McGwire hitting 70 home runs on steriods was. Comparing them is apples to oranges.

The best comparison that I can make is the Tour de France. In the 50s and 60s, doping was allowed. Most if not all riders were doing it. Just because Lance Armstrong doped and was stripped of his titles doesn't mean that a 60s rider who admitted to doping should be stripped of his title.

Let me ask you this. If what Bonds, Sosa, Clemens ect did wasn't wrong, why are they still lying about what they did? The guys that took greenies aren't denying what they did, because it was not against the rules. The PED guys are denying they doped, because they knew the rules and chose to dope. Now they are getting their just due by being kept out of the hof. To allow them in would be telling all future players that it is OK to cheat. Just like letting Rose in would make it ok to bet on games or fix games. I don't want that version of baseball.

[conor912]

Originally Posted by z28jd

Just asking you since you brought up Hank Aaron, who admitted to trying amphetamines once in his career. Do you seriously believe his story? He claimed to have no idea what it was and he only did it once because it made his nervous/anxious. We all know now that the players from the 60's took them quite often and while it didn't have the effect of steroids, it helped them compile stats because they were up for every game, so that is an obvious help. I just didn't like the "peer pressure" and only tried it once story that Aaron concocted. I'm not sure how people just let that go without calling bull.

Not trying to single out Aaron, but he was the one that came out with the crazy story. If someone hit 40 homers at age 39 nowadays, that would send up huge red flags. Since amphetamines are illegal now in the game, you could easily make a case for Ruth still being the home run king, but no one does.

I have long thought there was something fishy about that 1973 Braves team. You have Aaron hitting 40 HR at age 39, Darrell Evans hitting 41 (he also saw a mysterious and significant jump in his power numbers after the age of 37), and Davey Johnson hitting 43, one behind the MLB HR leader for that year, Willie Stargell. Johnson's second highest HR total? 18.

[T2069bk]

My thoughts are this is a hall of fame and museum. The players that should be elected should best represent the best players of the era (you know, when that team came to town you paid to go see a game just because they were coming).

Eras change, otherwise only people pitching 400+ innings a year, starting 50-60 games (and completing most of them), caught bare handed, hit less than 27 Hr, - essentially the 1800's. So to that I say:

Relief pitchers are now a part of the game and they should be in (Smith Rivera Hoffman).
Disclosure: I have only known baseball with relievers

Ped - ok if you did not fail a test. If you failed then you are with Joe Jax Pete Rose etc for breaking the rules and getting caught.
Disclosure: knew both pre and post PED and don't care

DH- occupies a roster spot right? Welcome to the hall (Edgar Baines etc)
Disclosure: HATE the DH but they are players and part of the game.

SABR - Let the SABR guys have their say in the vote etc Welcome in all you WAR leaders.
Disclosure: Apologies in advance - I hate SABRmetrics!!! Is it useful as a tool yes! Is it the ultimate end all be all - not in my opinion.

[ctownboy]

In my opinion, PED users should not only be banned from the HOF but they should also be banned from EVERY part of MLB.

Here is why:

In 1991, Commissioner Fay Vincent was going to implement a drug abuse policy which included steroids and drug testing (Google Fay Vincent steroids and you can read the whole memo). He had already sent out a memo to teams and the MLBPA about illegal drug use and steroids and what he wanted to do. So, as of 1991, teams and players BOTH knew that steroid use was going to be a no-no.

However, because of Bud Selig and Jerry Reinsdorf, a power struggle came about and Vincent was forced to resign as Commissioner. Then, Selig became Commish and the whole steroid thing was swept under the rug.

My point is, in 1991, steroids WERE KNOWN ABOUT and the Commissioner's Office WAS going to do something about them, i.e. steroid testing and punishment for failing tests. So ANYBODY who took steroids AFTER that time is a cheater and shouldn't be allowed into the HOF.

If Selig didn't get hsi way, Vincent would have implemented a steroid policy 10 years before one was put into place and things wouldn't be so cloudy now.

Also, as far as Selig goes, if I were an owner, I would NOT allow him to be a Commissioner Emeritus, allow him to get paid $6 million a year OR allow him to be eligible for the HOF. His meddling caused the steroid mess (along with a messed up All Star game and other problems) so HE shouldn't be allowed to be inducted either.

David

[glynparson]

It is a museum there to tell the story of the history of the game. Therefore I am for inclusion over exclusion and would induct a fairly decent number of players. The best of the best should be recognized with some sort of room within the room status. Maybe a top 100 or 250 or something all-time and when someone is added to that group one is removed to the regular hall of fame. The types I would include in the general population would be the remaining best of the best, as well as compilers those very good/good for a rather long time, those with great stories, as well as those with a shorter but rather brilliant career, as well as those who helped change the game. I would also include Managers, Executives and in a very rare instance Umpires.

[Touch'EmAll]

Evilking00 makes some good, and logical, points. The HOF is in part a history and museum of the game, and games best players.

Let the PED guys in, but tell the story or put an asterisk, or something. Same for Pete Rose. Ban him from baseball, yes, but put him in HOF - there is a difference.

And same for Bo Jackson, perhaps also Roger Maris. Some of the "on the fence players" couldn't hold Bo's jockstrap for crying out loud. Would you rather watch highlight clips of Craig Biggio, or watch highlight clips of Bo?

I liked the couple quotes, "you know, when that team came to town you paid to go see a game because they were coming." And "...not only show him Ty Cobb and Mickey Mantle, but also the amazing players that played when I was a kid."

Not so sure I would go to a game just because a borderline HOFer was playing. But I would give you my right arm to go see Bo in person!

Come on Baseball Hall and Football Hall. Heck, he was actually an even greater football player! You are playing the he didn't play long enough card on Bo. Not fair to the history - the greatness that was Bo Jackson.

I am a tax guy. There are a lot of rules. There are also sometimes exceptions to the rules. Its not always, 'Ach Tung!" Black and white. Bo is an exception.