|
Hypocrisy
Jan 26, 2022 15:33:59 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Islandboagie on Jan 26, 2022 15:33:59 GMT -5
All of us are obviously supporters of Bonds going to the Hall of Fame, but I understand why some didn't vote for him. I think it's stupid and I don't agree, because I think the Hall of Fame is about telling a story of the history of Major League Baseball. It's a museum, and museums don't always tell stories of good moral value - but I understand why some want to hold the players to a certain standard.
What I don't understand is why David Ortiz is held to a different standard than Bonds is..they both tested positive for steroid use and they both deny taking anything.
Anyone have any guesses why Ortiz was voted in and Bonds wasn't?
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Jan 26, 2022 16:40:28 GMT -5
they seem to give a free pass to Ivan Rodriguez, Mike Piazza, and Jeff Bagwell, also. Actually, Ortiz had a positive test and Manfred tried to spin it as being inconclusive. Bonds never failed a test, as far as I know. To be honest, it is a popularity contest and guys who were friendly to the press get preferential voting.
HOF voting is a bad joke now. I get that a lot of sportswriters have a beef with Bonds but there has also been a tendency to elect players after they passed. I mean, why not elect guys like Minoso, O'Neil, Santo, and Allen while they are alive to enjoy it? Frank Thomas has called out Rodriguez and Bagwell and Piazza admitted using androstenedione. Sportswriters now think they are the morality police. Might as well let them all in at this point but I think I'm going to scratch the Cooperstown vacation off of my bucket list.
|
|
|
Hypocrisy
Jan 26, 2022 17:03:05 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Islandboagie on Jan 26, 2022 17:03:05 GMT -5
Bonds apparently tested positive when it was said that nobody would ever publicly release the tests results and nobody would be suspended. But regardless, Ortiz tested positive and their argument for allowing Ortiz in the HoF is "well..he only got caught once, so it was probably a flawed test."
Anyone who voted for Ortiz and not Bonds should be removed from the voting committee.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Jan 26, 2022 22:06:19 GMT -5
What really is hypocritical is that the sportswriters determine what behaviors are permissible. Ped users are out, wife beaters are out, some users of cocaine and amphetamines in, racists in, gamblers out (except for Cobb and Speaker), alt-right tweets out. The Giants even erected a statue of one of these guys. I think that many of these sportswriters really do not do their due diligence when they mark their ballots and it probably comes down to who gave you a good interview in the past and who did not. The minute they elected Rodriguez, Piazza, and Bagwell into the hall was the time these sportswriters should have gotten off of their high horse. Those sportswriters loved it when McGwire and Sosa were hitting all of those home runs so they are part of the problem, too. Let those without sin cast the first stone.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Jan 26, 2022 22:07:55 GMT -5
The stories of Cobb's racism might in part be fairy tale. Cobb said that Willie was "the only player I'd pay money to see."
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Jan 27, 2022 17:04:49 GMT -5
I couldn't agree more, guys. IMHO the writers have lost the privilege of selecting who gets in and who doesn't because clearly they let personal opinions effect their decisions.
Clemens and Bonds weren't 'press-friendly,' and so they are out.
They let Bud Selig in who sat by and let all of the peds happen, look the other way for Ortiz and others and then pretend they are 'holier than thou.'
The HOF is flat out FULL of bigots and I don't see sports writer whining and bitching about them.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Jan 28, 2022 11:33:39 GMT -5
I think most of it is the sportswriters need to get even with players who they perceived to have bad attitudes. Its not just Bonds and Clemens. Dick Allen probably should have been in years ago and if Kent acted more like Steve Garvey, he would have been in, as well.
The problem is, who would you give ballots to in the future? If you give it to the fans, they will just stuff the ballot box for their favorite players regardless of value and fan voting will skew towards the more modern players. If you give it to living Hall Of Fame players or coaches, I do not believe they would be so un-biased either. A lot of them are like Joe Morgan who don't want any steroid players in, or are old-timers who harbor resentment over the high salaries of modern players. Furthermore, a lot of the living hall of famers are not model citizens and some of their stories are getting weird (Steve Carlton). Maybe it should be a hybrid vote where you give the sportswriters a list of eligible players. Then it goes to a HOF committee where anyone who received more than say 66% of the sportswriters votes are then considered. If they get 66% of the committee vote AND 66% of the sportswriters votes, then they are in.
Another thing, who the heck voted for A J Pierzynski?
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Jan 28, 2022 11:36:42 GMT -5
I couldn't agree more, guys. IMHO the writers have lost the privilege of selecting who gets in and who doesn't because clearly they let personal opinions effect their decisions. Clemens and Bonds weren't 'press-friendly,' and so they are out. They let Bud Selig in who sat by and let all of the peds happen, look the other way for Ortiz and others and then pretend they are 'holier than thou.' The HOF is flat out FULL of bigots and I don't see sports writer whining and bitching about them. I think it is because there are a few writers who have some underlying bigotry themselves but if you ask them, they will probably deny it.
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Jan 28, 2022 16:03:22 GMT -5
I think most of it is the sportswriters need to get even with players who they perceived to have bad attitudes. Its not just Bonds and Clemens. Dick Allen probably should have been in years ago and if Kent acted more like Steve Garvey, he would have been in, as well. The problem is, who would you give ballots to in the future? If you give it to the fans, they will just stuff the ballot box for their favorite players regardless of value and fan voting will skew towards the more modern players. If you give it to living Hall Of Fame players or coaches, I do not believe they would be so un-biased either. A lot of them are like Joe Morgan who don't want any steroid players in, or are old-timers who harbor resentment over the high salaries of modern players. Furthermore, a lot of the living hall of famers are not model citizens and some of their stories are getting weird (Steve Carlton). Maybe it should be a hybrid vote where you give the sportswriters a list of eligible players. Then it goes to a HOF committee where anyone who received more than say 66% of the sportswriters votes are then considered. If they get 66% of the committee vote AND 66% of the sportswriters votes, then they are in. Another thing, who the heck voted for A J Pierzynski? My personal choice is what no longer exists: The Veterans committee.
Ex players should be the ones doing the voting, not moronic, often biased and prejudiced writers, who, as you said, have a sick need to 'get even.'
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Jan 28, 2022 16:40:54 GMT -5
I'm not sure if the Vet Committee would be much better, to be honest. When Frankie Frisch was on the Vet Committee, he influenced the committee to let in a lot of his old cronies such as Dave Bancroft. A lot of the guys that most people think should be borderline in the HOF were attributed to Frisch.
I've heard one proposal to use WAR as a basis but that would reward longevity and guys that cranked out counting stats. Interestingly, that would mean Lou Whitaker and Bobby Grich who have higher career WARs than Frisch, Sandberg, and Alomar. Another metric might be number of hits and that would include Pujols, Beltre, Ichiro, Bonds, Rose, Cabrera and Vada Pinson and Al Oliver. Maybe they need to give everyone who votes for the HOF a crash course in baseball history because it seems that most of those hacks don't know much or are just familiar with their own local players.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Feb 4, 2022 11:41:45 GMT -5
Supposedly, there was something on the bargaining table about using WAR as a way to determine the pool of super-arbitration players but stats geeks said that was not a good idea. The stats geeks thought it was because players and owners did not really understand the concept of WAR and WAR is somewhat dependent on position (tended to favor position players).
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Feb 4, 2022 15:07:31 GMT -5
I'm not sure if the Vet Committee would be much better, to be honest. When Frankie Frisch was on the Vet Committee, he influenced the committee to let in a lot of his old cronies such as Dave Bancroft. A lot of the guys that most people think should be borderline in the HOF were attributed to Frisch. I've heard one proposal to use WAR as a basis but that would reward longevity and guys that cranked out counting stats. Interestingly, that would mean Lou Whitaker and Bobby Grich who have higher career WARs than Frisch, Sandberg, and Alomar. Another metric might be number of hits and that would include Pujols, Beltre, Ichiro, Bonds, Rose, Cabrera and Vada Pinson and Al Oliver. Maybe they need to give everyone who votes for the HOF a crash course in baseball history because it seems that most of those hacks don't know much or are just familiar with their own local players. Totally agree, but I'd STILL rather have them choose than biased, never-played-the-game writers.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Feb 4, 2022 16:40:34 GMT -5
Supposedly, there was something on the bargaining table about using WAR as a way to determine the pool of super-arbitration players but stats geeks said that was not a good idea. The stats geeks thought it was because players and owners did not really understand the concept of WAR and WAR is somewhat dependent on position (tended to favor position players). Also, baseball reference, fangraphs, and baseball prospectus calculate WAR differently. I'm not sure which is which because I really don't pay close attention to WAR but one of these bases WAR on game results and another one focuses on peripherals. The problems is that the concept of WAR will change over the next few years and could greatly affect the players on the pre-arbitration borderline. One article on yahoo sports cited an example of Robbie Ray having a WAR of 3.5 when calculated one way and as much as 6.7 when calculated another. I did not realize that all those stats geeks calculated WAR differently and it enables people to have the ability to cherry pick whichever WAR they want to use to prove their point.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Feb 4, 2022 16:47:34 GMT -5
Bill James has a hall of fame calculator on his website. you punch in the last name of a player and it spits out a number which combined win share and WAR and if a number over 500 is generated, the player is HOF worthy. Ortiz produced a 537 number. Type in "Bonds" and you get 533. Wait, that was for Bobby Bonds. Barry Bonds generates 1355. The way James calculates it, Bonds would have been a HOF worthy player if he quit after his second year with the Giants.
|
|
|
Hypocrisy
Feb 4, 2022 17:38:26 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Islandboagie on Feb 4, 2022 17:38:26 GMT -5
Maybe the sabremetric community should decide who gets in the HoF. I mean..I hate to justify their "stats only" opinion. But they seem to have a better grasp on reality than the current voters.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Feb 5, 2022 16:04:14 GMT -5
Here is the Bill James list. However, if you go strictly by sabermetrics, the closest ones after Bonds and Clemens would be Rodriguez and Ramirez. I'm pretty sure you don't include those two because they incurred suspensions. The list shows how borderline Ortiz is and Rolen, Helton, and Kent have a case to be inducted before Ortiz. The weakness in the sabermetric approach to the HOF is that it doesn't take into account things like character (Rollins won a Clemente award and was a key player on a World Series winning team and Vizquel allegedly beat his wife) and doesn't account for position (Teixeira a first baseman is ranked higher than he should be).
Highest Hall of Fame Value Score
Among Candidates Likely on 2022 Hall of Fame Ballot
Player HOF Value
Barry Bonds 1355.2
Roger Clemens 993.8
Alex Rodriguez 961.0
Manny RamÃrez 685.2
Gary Sheffield 672.0
Bobby Abreu 596.8
Scott Rolen 584.4
Curt Schilling 570.0
Todd Helton 565.2
Jeff Kent 560.6
Sammy Sosa 555.4
David Ortiz 537.2
Andruw Jones 526.8
Jimmy Rollins 493.4
Torii Hunter 479.4
Mark Teixeira 468.4
Andy Pettitte 464.8
Omar Vizquel 464.4
Mark Buehrle 456.4
Tim Hudson 450.6
|
|
|
Hypocrisy
Feb 7, 2022 14:13:53 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Islandboagie on Feb 7, 2022 14:13:53 GMT -5
To me, Bonds and Clemens should be in. It's the other players like Sosa, McGwire, Ramirez etc..that should be held out. Without steriods I don't believe the second tier make it. The evidence would say Bonds started juicing around 1999, which was after he had established an undeniable case for being a first ballot Hall of Famer. I believe the same can be said of Clemens. Sosa's juicing enabled him to be in elite company, before that he was not even an all-star caliber player.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Feb 8, 2022 9:09:37 GMT -5
I feel that anyone who received a suspension after the ground rules laid out should not get in. so we are talking Beltran going forward
|
|
|
Hypocrisy
Feb 8, 2022 10:44:38 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Islandboagie on Feb 8, 2022 10:44:38 GMT -5
Beltran had a nice career, but I don't see him as a Hall of Famer. He's an outfielder who didn't surpass 500 homeruns or 3000 hits, he wasn't considered an overally special fielder nor was he a game changer on the base paths. He was undoubtedly good to very good all around at all those categories, but no one skill was he at a Hall of Fame level. And that's my opinion not even considering his steroid suspicions or his role in the Astros cheating scandal. When you add those I think I could probably come up with at least 20 players more deserving of the Hall of Fame that didn't get in. Will Clark, Ellis Burks, Darryl Strawberry, Chili Davis to name a few.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Feb 8, 2022 11:28:40 GMT -5
In addition to Beltran, the future HOF candidates on the 2017 Astros are Altuve, Bregman, Correa, maybe Springer, and Verlander. I think down the line, the sportswriters will judge the hitters more harshly than Verlander but Verlander got a ring from the cheating scandal and he probably knew about it all along so I don't think they should let him slide entirely. Verlander probably will get in and the sanctimonious sportswriters will go after Altuve.
As far as Beltran's career, he is most similar to Andre Dawson. Dawson is in the HOF but I think he should not be. Dawson is another outfielder who did not make 500 home runs or 3000 hits. If Beltran somehow gets elected in while Bonds is still out, then the hypocrisy becomes even greater.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Feb 9, 2022 11:17:07 GMT -5
Ironically, I've just read that MLB put a temporary halt to steroid testing because of the lockout. As such, players could potentially use micro-doses of testosterone and possibly gels or oral tabs which could be cleared by the system in a few weeks.
|
|
|
Hypocrisy
Feb 9, 2022 19:54:40 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Islandboagie on Feb 9, 2022 19:54:40 GMT -5
They're already taking stuff that can be out of your system in less than 48 hrs.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Feb 10, 2022 11:08:33 GMT -5
Supposedly, the thing to watch for is if players start out 2022 hotter than expected.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Feb 15, 2022 11:32:40 GMT -5
Maybe the sabremetric community should decide who gets in the HoF. I mean..I hate to justify their "stats only" opinion. But they seem to have a better grasp on reality than the current voters. The way I see it, the sabermetric community has their own version of reality and tend to ignore the intangibles. I seem to recall that they projected last year's Giants team as a .500 team so it shows they missed the boat a bit. I am definitely not a fan of endless acronyms and complicated calculations, especially when they change their parameters to fit their own purposes. Also, there is a tendency of the stats geeks to defend a rock, no matter how small, and twist the semantics to their own ends when their arguments start leaking. For example, I was getting frustrated with a certain poster saying that the Giants' bullpen should not have been tired. He cherry picked certain playoff games and end of season games to prove they were not tired and conveniently leaving out games that the bullpen was getting shelled. The other thing I getting frustrated with was being challenged to come up with finding sixty starting pitchers better than Desclafani. I came up with eighteen better starting pitchers in the playoffs alone and this point was ignored. Sabermertic community is a tool like any other but I would be very hesitant to use it as a sole source of information and I think Farhan is smart enough guy not to rely solely on spreadsheets.
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Feb 16, 2022 10:43:25 GMT -5
I'm right there with you, Reed. The sabermetric guys, as I've said hundreds and hundreds of times before, likely never played the game beyond little league.
I'm guessing that what they lacked in talent they feel they make up for in their understanding, and subsequent mismanagement, of numbers.
Just my guess.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Feb 17, 2022 11:28:25 GMT -5
They're already taking stuff that can be out of your system in less than 48 hrs. I'm worried about Logan Webb trying to use something during the lockdown. When he tested positive in 2019, Webb professed his innocence after the test but the stuff that was found in his system is similar to the stuff that the East Germans were using in the 60s and weightlifter and sprinters were caught with in 2008 and 2012 Olympics (Russia, Ukraine, Belarus). Highly unlikely that dehydrochloromethyltestosterone is in vitamins or supplements. This is one of the reasons that I feel we have to be careful in declaring Webb to be the #1 starter. He also says he drinks three Red Bulls before each game. That represents over 300mg of caffeine. Webb definitely does not worry about what goes in.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Mar 21, 2022 20:43:53 GMT -5
Bonds apparently tested positive when it was said that nobody would ever publicly release the tests results and nobody would be suspended. But regardless, Ortiz tested positive and their argument for allowing Ortiz in the HoF is "well..he only got caught once, so it was probably a flawed test." Anyone who voted for Ortiz and not Bonds should be removed from the voting committee. Now, information comes out that a drug kingpin had Ortiz shot because Ortiz disrespected him. This was likely not a random shooting. What was Ortiz doing hanging with a guy like that? Not only is Ortiz less Hall worthy than about ten other players but now he has been shown to come into contact and "close friends" (the words of Peralta's lawyer) with a powerful drug lord in the Dominican. Anyone who could do a rudimentary internet search could come up with enough information not to vote for him and Ortiz seems to have more going against him than most of the others not in the Hall. The most hypocritical are the writers who are on the high horse about steroid use. I guess its easier to get elected by sportswriters if you are always smiling and saying the right things and people will look away even if you are on the Mitchell Report or cross paths with the wrong people.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Mar 23, 2022 9:02:00 GMT -5
Bonds apparently tested positive when it was said that nobody would ever publicly release the tests results and nobody would be suspended. But regardless, Ortiz tested positive and their argument for allowing Ortiz in the HoF is "well..he only got caught once, so it was probably a flawed test." Anyone who voted for Ortiz and not Bonds should be removed from the voting committee. Now, information comes out that a drug kingpin had Ortiz shot because Ortiz disrespected him. This was likely not a random shooting. Not only is Ortiz less Hall worthy than about ten other players but now he has been shown to come into contact and "close friends" (the words of Peralta's lawyer, Peralta being a powerful drug lord in the Dominican). There are questions about whether or not Peralta actually ordered the hit on Ortiz but what was Ortiz thinking when he hung around a guy who has the nickname "the Abuser"? Anyone who could do a rudimentary internet search could come up with enough information not to vote for him and Ortiz seems to have more going against him than most of the others not in the Hall. The most hypocritical are the writers who are on the high horse about steroid use. I guess its easier to get elected by sportswriters if you are always smiling and saying the right things and people will look away even if you are on the Mitchell Report or cross paths with the wrong people.
|
|