2022 Baseball Hall of Fame - tracker

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Tabe

I will never understand voters who vote for Ortiz but not Bonds or Clemens or Rodriguez. Bonds and Clemens didn't even fail tests - Ortiz did*. Rodriguez did - and paid for it. Ortiz did and received no punishment.

Maybe if those three had given a profane speech and been historically awful defensively they, too, could get elected.

* - Ortiz and Rob Manfred have both confirmed he failed a test. It's not speculation, unlike anything surrounding Bonds and Clemens.

Last I read Manfred was spinning a story about how it could have been a false positive.

I'm fuzzy on the Bonds story now. Didn't he acknowledge using the "clear" but claimed his trainer told him it was a lawful supplement?

Anyhow there is no good answer to this once you make an exception for anyone. Even if you don't make an overt exception, you've almost certainly already let in people who used but managed to keep the lid on suspicions.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Last I read Manfred was spinning a story about how it could have been a false positive.

I'm fuzzy on the Bonds story now. Didn't he acknowledge using the "clear" but claimed his trainer told him it was a lawful supplement?

Anyhow there is no good answer to this once you make an exception for anyone. Even if you don't make an overt exception, you've almost certainly already let in people who used but managed to keep the lid on suspicions.

Peter, by Manfred saying there might be a false positive on Ortiz, he's admitting there was a positive, right? So Ortiz lied when he said he never failed a test.

You are correct about Bonds, admited in Grand Jury, he "unknowingly" took the Clear and the Cream but that it had no affect on him.

There are Steroid cheaters in the HOF, Pudge Rodriguez, just to name one. Does that mean they should make more mistakes? Just an analogy, because Jack the Ripper and the Zodiac were never caught, do we stop arresting people for murder?

[GeoPoto]

Originally Posted by Jim65

Peter, by Manfred saying there might be a false positive on Ortiz, he's admitting there was a positive, right? So Ortiz lied when he said he never failed a test.

I think Manfred's point is that many (I think he said 10-15) players who tested positive had explanations that would have negated the test results. Ortiz could have been one of them, but the adjudication process was truncated since, in theory, obtaining definitive results by player was never intended and would never be revealed or used for any purpose.

[SAllen2556]

The use of steroids was (and maybe still is) way more widespread than we'll ever know. It's pointless to try to figure out who did and who didn't. Why not just assume everyone did and take the best players from that era and put them in the hall of fame. Isn't that how hall of famers are typically determined, by how they compare to others of their own era?

Shouldn't Bonds and Clemens be in just because they were better than everyone else during their era?

Think back to the 80's and remember all the cocaine users in baseball: Willie Wilson, Gooden, Strawberry. Different era, different drugs. Amphetamines in the 70's were widespread.

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by SAllen2556

The use of steroids was (and maybe still is) way more widespread than we'll ever know. It's pointless to try to figure out who did and who didn't. Why not just assume everyone did and take the best players from that era and put them in the hall of fame. Isn't that how hall of famers are typically determined, by how they compare to others of their own era?



Shouldn't Bonds and Clemens be in just because they were better than everyone else during their era?



Think back to the 80's and remember all the cocaine users in baseball: Willie Wilson, Gooden, Strawberry. Different era, different drugs. Amphetamines in the 70's were widespread.

Cheaters shouldn't be in the Hall. They lessen the accomplishments of all the players who played fair. They set a terrible example for everyone who looked up to them and they influenced countless teenagers to take steroids too. It is the most important factor anyone should consider when voting. Their actions should never be normalized.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[skelly423]

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

Cheaters shouldn't be in the Hall. They lessen the accomplishments of all the players who played fair. They set a terrible example for everyone who looked up to them and they influenced countless teenagers to take steroids too. It is the most important factor anyone should consider when voting. Their actions should never be normalized.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I think there's an interesting conversation around the purpose of the Hall of Fame. If you subscribe to the idea that it's to honor the best and most virtuous of the players, your point is valid. That being said, there is a long list of guys racists, cheaters, abusers, and awful executives who should not be honored that are currently enshrined. (Anson, Landis, Yawkey, Perry, Ford, Puckett, Alomar, Piazza, Pudge, Selig)

If you think the purpose of the Hall of Fame is to tell the history of the game of baseball, warts and all, you simply can't tell that story without Bonds and Clemens (and Rose and Shoeless Joe).

For what my two cents are worth, the Hall has clearly failed to establish itself as a place honoring the virtuous. It should accept that, and try to tell the best, most complete history of the game. Bonds and Clemens belong in Cooperstown.

[SyrNy1960]

Originally Posted by skelly423

I think there's an interesting conversation around the purpose of the Hall of Fame. If you subscribe to the idea that it's to honor the best and most virtuous of the players, your point is valid. That being said, there is a long list of guys racists, cheaters, abusers, and awful executives who should not be honored that are currently enshrined. (Anson, Landis, Yawkey, Perry, Ford, Puckett, Alomar, Piazza, Pudge, Selig)

If you think the purpose of the Hall of Fame is to tell the history of the game of baseball, warts and all, you simply can't tell that story without Bonds and Clemens (and Rose and Shoeless Joe).

For what my two cents are worth, the Hall has clearly failed to establish itself as a place honoring the virtuous. It should accept that, and try to tell the best, most complete history of the game. Bonds and Clemens belong in Cooperstown.

Well said!!!!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

Cheaters shouldn't be in the Hall. They lessen the accomplishments of all the players who played fair. They set a terrible example for everyone who looked up to them and they influenced countless teenagers to take steroids too. It is the most important factor anyone should consider when voting. Their actions should never be normalized.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Would you put throwing illegal pitches in the same category of cheating or is that different? Genuine question, not arguing.

[skelly423]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Would you put throwing illegal pitches in the same category of cheating or is that different? Genuine question, not arguing.

How about guys with too much pine tar on their bats?

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Would you put throwing illegal pitches in the same category of cheating or is that different? Genuine question, not arguing.

I put throwing illegal pitches in the same category as corking a bat, steroids are different, IMO.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

Cheaters shouldn't be in the Hall. They lessen the accomplishments of all the players who played fair. They set a terrible example for everyone who looked up to them and they influenced countless teenagers to take steroids too. It is the most important factor anyone should consider when voting. Their actions should never be normalized.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

So do you think all the Astros players who cheated should have been ruled ineligible and permanently banned from the HOF?

[abothebear]

Originally Posted by BobC

So do you think all the Astros players who cheated should have been ruled ineligible and permanently banned from the HOF?

Maybe. It would have been better if MLB took real action and stripped them of the WS. Then it would be easier to deal with players about their Hall of Fame potential, having been penalized in an appropriate way. Same with the roiders, if MLB did real testing and had real punishments (not just suspensions, but statistical judgments, like removing HRs). Bonds would probably be in if MLB tested, he was guilty, and they took away 150 home runs. I have some sympathy for the Joe Jackson case for the Hall because he was banned from the game for his actions. He paid a price that affected his career performance (since his career was over). I also still see the case against him, throwing games is a foundational blow to the spirit of the game. I consider the kind of steroid use alleged by the biggest stars of the game - significantly distorting aging curves, salary economics, and the sacred record books - to also be a foundational blow to the spirit of the game, so if I was voting, I don't think I'd vote them in even if they were appropriately tested, caught, and punished. But it would make it easier to sort through these things if they had.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by SAllen2556

The use of steroids was (and maybe still is) way more widespread than we'll ever know. It's pointless to try to figure out who did and who didn't. Why not just assume everyone did and take the best players from that era and put them in the hall of fame. Isn't that how hall of famers are typically determined, by how they compare to others of their own era?

Shouldn't Bonds and Clemens be in just because they were better than everyone else during their era?

Think back to the 80's and remember all the cocaine users in baseball: Willie Wilson, Gooden, Strawberry. Different era, different drugs. Amphetamines in the 70's were widespread.

This is exactly my thought process. Every era has its "thing". If the MLB let's something affect results, then it's part of the game during the era it's allowed. They let roids save baseball.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by GeoPoto

I think Manfred's point is that many (I think he said 10-15) players who tested positive had explanations that would have negated the test results. Ortiz could have been one of them, but the adjudication process was truncated since, in theory, obtaining definitive results by player was never intended and would never be revealed or used for any purpose.

Understood but the point I was trying to make was, whether the test was questionable or not, Ortiz claimed he never failed a drug test and thats a lie.

[nat]

Rolen's defense is what makes him a HOF caliber player. Rfield measures expected runs saved defensively, numbers to follow are based on Rfield. Now, at 3B, nobody touches Brooks, but Rolen stacks up well against the next tier. He saved 35 more runs across his career than did Graig Nettles - to take one great defensive third baseman. He did this, moreover, in 700 fewer games than did Nettles. So, he was saving far more runs per-game than was Nettles. And his best season is equal to Nettles' best season (30 runs saved).

Nettles, of course, isn't a hall of famer. But Rolen hit like Paul Molitor (as noted above, both have career 122 OPS+), and fielded BETTER than Nettles. It's that combination that will get him into the hall.

Given historical voting patterns, he'll probably get in next year, maybe the year after. He's at 69% on the tracker, and vote percentages for most players go down some when the final vote tally is in. So Rolen will probably end up in the mid-to-high 60s. Players with vote percentages in the mid-to-high 60s, and no steroid taint, usually get in pretty quickly.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Jim65

Understood but the point I was trying to make was, whether the test was questionable or not, Ortiz claimed he never failed a drug test and thats a lie.

He has since admitted he failed.

[Dead-Ball-Hitter]

Originally Posted by Jim65

Peter, by Manfred saying there might be a false positive on Ortiz, he's admitting there was a positive, right? So Ortiz lied when he said he never failed a test.

What was the banned substance that Ortiz took? I don't believe we even know. Some banned substance, not necessarily steriods. Where do you draw the line?

[SyrNy1960]

If Barry Bonds isn't a Hall of Famer by the end of the day, it's a failure by the Hall of Fame

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/...lure-hall-fame