Baseball HOF selections announced today.

[Snoopy1 0]

If I were voting, Gwynn, Ripken, Gossage , Rice , Blyleven .

[swamp dog 0]

jack morris. alan trammell.

 

the tigers get routinely focked over, too.

[dirty dug 0]

If I was voting:

 

Tony Gwynn

Cal Ripken, Jr

Mark McGwire

Gil Hodges

Pete Rose

Shoeless Joe Jackson

[NewbieJr 541]

If I was voting:

 

Tony Gwynn

Cal Ripken, Jr

Mark McGwire

Gil Hodges

Pete Rose

Shoeless Joe Jackson

What? No Shawne Merriman, Ben Johnson, or Sammy Sosa?

[dirty dug 0]

What? No Shawne Merriman, Ben Johnson, or Sammy Sosa?

 

Are you honestly saying that Ty Cobb and Gaylord Perry are more deserving than Rose, Jackson or even McGwire?

[Snoopy1 0]

Are you honestly saying that Ty Cobb and Gaylord Perry are more deserving than Rose, Jackson or even McGwire?

 

Cobb's way more deserving the McGwire.

[NewbieJr 541]

Are you honestly saying that Ty Cobb and Gaylord Perry are more deserving than Rose, Jackson or even McGwire?

Ty Cobb was an ######, but he wasn't a cheater.

I was a bit young when Perry played. I really don't have much of an opinion on him.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Are you honestly saying that Ty Cobb and Gaylord Perry are more deserving than Rose, Jackson or even McGwire?

 

So Cobb was a d!ck, but he was one of the Top 5 best players of all-time. Rose and Jackson bet on baseball. Letting them in would be like keeping a priest because he was really good at speaking in Church, but he only molested ONE boy.

 

BTW - Gaylord Perry was probably not deserving either. Add guys like Tony Perez to that list as far as I am concerned.

[dirty dug 0]

Ty Cobb was an ######, but he wasn't a cheater.

I was a bit young when Perry played. I really don't have much of an opinion on him.

 

First, Perry admitted to doctoring balls. That's cheating.

 

Ty Cobb intentionally tried to injure people on the field.

 

All anybody has against McGwire (or Bonds) is allegations, never any proof. McGwire admitted taking Andro, I believe, which was not a banned substance, to my knowledge.

 

My point is that the Hall of Fame is about what happened on the field. Rose's betting had nothing to do with the fact that he is the all time hits leader. For him not to be in the Hall of Fame invalidates the Hall of Fame. It's not a Hall of Morality, it's the Hall of Fame.

[NewbieJr 541]

First, Perry admitted to doctoring balls. That's cheating.

 

Ty Cobb intentionally tried to injure people on the field.

 

All anybody has against McGwire (or Bonds) is allegations, never any proof. McGwire admitted taking Andro, I believe, which was not a banned substance, to my knowledge.

 

My point is that the Hall of Fame is about what happened on the field. Rose's betting had nothing to do with the fact that he is the all time hits leader. For him not to be in the Hall of Fame invalidates the Hall of Fame. It's not a Hall of Morality, it's the Hall of Fame.

Ok. Perry shouldn't be in.

Cobb tried to injure players? Fine. Like I said, he was a ######.

Hall of Fame is about what happened on the field, but when you need illegal drugs to enhance what happens on the field, you should be inelligible.

Omitting the roiders like McGwire, Sosa, Palmiero, Bonds, ect., is the baseball fans, writers, and players who did it the right way's only menas to express to them how they feel about their actions. Obviously, there's nothing that anyone can do but watch Bonds break Aaron's cherished record. The HOF is something that we can do about it.

[dirty dug 0]

Ok. Perry shouldn't be in.

Cobb tried to injure players? Fine. Like I said, he was a ######.

Hall of Fame is about what happened on the field, but when you need illegal drugs to enhance what happens on the field, you should be inelligible.

Omitting the roiders like McGwire, Sosa, Palmiero, Bonds, ect., is the baseball fans, writers, and players who did it the right way's only menas to express to them how they feel about their actions. Obviously, there's nothing that anyone can do but watch Bonds break Aaron's cherished record. The HOF is something that we can do about it.

 

The point is there is no proof they roided, other than Palmeiro. So without proof it is completely wrong to exclude their on field accomplishments, especially considering the HIGH likelihood that pitchers were roiding just as much as hitters (*cough*Roger Clemons*cough*)

[NewbieJr 541]

The point is there is no proof they roided, other than Palmeiro. So without proof it is completely wrong to exclude their on field accomplishments, especially considering the HIGH likelihood that pitchers were roiding just as much as hitters (*cough*Roger Clemons*cough*)

There's no proof OJ killed Nicole, either.

 

I ate a chicken sandwich last night, but I couldn't prove it.

 

There are a few players who MAY have done steroids, but we're not sure.

There are also a bunch of players that we're quite sure NEVER took steroids.

And, there are also a few players that every single person with an IQ higher than Suxbnu knows took steroids.

 

You're either in denial or your IQ is in that dangerously low area.

[dirty dug 0]

There's no proof OJ killed Nicole, either.

 

I ate a chicken sandwich last night, but I couldn't prove it.

 

There are a few players who MAY have done steroids, but we're not sure.

There are also a bunch of players that we're quite sure NEVER took steroids.

And, there are also a few players that every single person with an IQ higher than Suxbnu knows took steroids.

 

You're either in denial or your IQ is in that dangerously low area.

 

I'm definitely not in denial and I'm fairly certain my IQ is quite reasonable. And there was proof that OJ killed Nicole, but the lawyers apparently created enough "reasonable doubt." But that's for another thread.

 

However, you cannot prove any of them did or did not do steroids, so how can you sit there and judge them guilty on your own perceptions? How can you prove that the pitchers of that era did not use steroids? Was Kevin Brown on steroids? How about Clemens? how about Smoltz? If anybody would benefit from steroids and the "bounce-back" benefit it would be pitchers, I believe without a shadow of a doubt most pitchers took steroids during that era, should they all be excluded as well or should it just be those who the media shouts the loudest about?

[NewbieJr 541]

I'm definitely not in denial and I'm fairly certain my IQ is quite reasonable. And there was proof that OJ killed Nicole, but the lawyers apparently created enough "reasonable doubt." But that's for another thread.

 

However, you cannot prove any of them did or did not do steroids, so how can you sit there and judge them guilty on your own perceptions? How can you prove that the pitchers of that era did not use steroids? Was Kevin Brown on steroids? How about Clemens? how about Smoltz? If anybody would benefit from steroids and the "bounce-back" benefit it would be pitchers, I believe without a shadow of a doubt most pitchers took steroids during that era, should they all be excluded as well or should it just be those who the media shouts the loudest about?

I'm sure that some of the pitchers took steroids, but they obviously didn't take enough of them, or it doesn't give pitchers the advantages that it gives hitters.

 

11 of the best 16 all-time home run single-seasons took place between 1997-2001. How do you explain that close to 70% of the leader board played in a span that's only 5% of baseball's history?

[bostonlager 2,665]

Are you honestly saying that Ty Cobb and Gaylord Perry are more deserving than Rose, Jackson or even McGwire?

 

Hating black people doesn't make you a cheater.

 

HTH.

[dirty dug 0]

Hating black people doesn't make you a cheater.

 

HTH.

 

Intentionally sliding with spikes up trying to hurt people does. I'm fairly certain that's against the rules. Also, Cobb was forced to retire because he was implicated in game fixing.

 

And to NewbieJr, I believe the benefits of steroids are the ability to bounce back quicker, right? And muscle repair/building? How can you say that wouldn't benefit pitchers as much as hitters? How can you say that Clemens and Brown (et all) didn't/wouldn't benefit from steroids?

[NewbieJr 541]

Intentionally sliding with spikes up trying to hurt people does. I'm fairly certain that's against the rules. Also, Cobb was forced to retire because he was implicated in game fixing.

 

And to NewbieJr, I believe the benefits of steroids are the ability to bounce back quicker, right? And muscle repair/building? How can you say that wouldn't benefit pitchers as much as hitters? How can you say that Clemens and Brown (et all) didn't/wouldn't benefit from steroids?

Oh, I have no doubts that steroids also benefit pitchers, but not in a way that it's totally scewed all the big records in baseball's history. If you want to argue that pitchers who mysteriously put on 40 lbs. of muscle in their later years be banned, too, I'll be right there with ya.

[dirty dug 0]

Oh, I have no doubts that steroids also benefit pitchers, but not in a way that it's totally scewed all the big records in baseball's history. If you want to argue that pitchers who mysteriously put on 40 lbs. of muscle in their later years be banned, too, I'll be right there with ya.

 

The point is that steroids do benefit pitchers but perhaps not in the "mysterious 40 pound gain" way. Who's to say that Pedro Martinez didn't take steroids which allowed him to pitch longer and more effectively into games (just making up an example)?

 

George Brett was caught cheating, doubtful that was a one-time event. Gaylord Perry admits to scuffing balls, clearly illegal and giving him a significant advantage. Both are Hall of Famers who were or admit to cheating. Only Palmiero has been caught cheating. McGwire admits to taking andro, which was legal and over the counter. All other allegations are just that. Why keep him out of the Hall? Because he won't answer questions? Talk about an anti-American sense of justice.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Intentionally sliding with spikes up trying to hurt people does. I'm fairly certain that's against the rules. Also, Cobb was forced to retire because he was implicated in game fixing.

 

 

Cobb retired because he was old.

 

ETA: I think that you are confusing the time (2 years before he retired) when he was accused of fixing a game 7 years earlier. He was cleared of the accusation made by a disgruntled player. I believe another manager was accused (falsely) at the same time and also vindicated.

[NewbieJr 541]

The point is that steroids do benefit pitchers but perhaps not in the "mysterious 40 pound gain" way. Who's to say that Pedro Martinez didn't take steroids which allowed him to pitch longer and more effectively into games (just making up an example)?

 

George Brett was caught cheating, doubtful that was a one-time event. Gaylord Perry admits to scuffing balls, clearly illegal and giving him a significant advantage. Both are Hall of Famers who were or admit to cheating. Only Palmiero has been caught cheating. McGwire admits to taking andro, which was legal and over the counter. All other allegations are just that. Why keep him out of the Hall? Because he won't answer questions? Talk about an anti-American sense of justice.

What can I tell you? I'm a baseball purist. I had to watch Maris' 61 record become a thing of the past, and then had to watch guy after guy push it farther down the record books. This year, we all get the joy of seeing a class act like Hank Aaron have his 755 record be pushed to second place, while legends like Babe ruth and Willie Mays fall further and further down the list. Since we can't go back in time and create drug testing before the big-time abuse started in the late nineties, purists' only recourse is to use the Hall-of-Fame as a sounding board as to what a sham we think those players were.

[dirty dug 0]

What can I tell you? I'm a baseball purist. I had to watch Maris' 61 record become a thing of the past, and then had to watch guy after guy push it farther down the record books. This year, we all get the joy of seeing a class act like Hank Aaron have his 755 record be pushed to second place, while legends like Babe ruth and Willie Mays fall further and further down the list. Since we can't go back in time and create drug testing before the big-time abuse started in the late nineties, purists' only recourse is to use the Hall-of-Fame as a sounding board as to what a sham we think those players were.

 

IMO, that's a pitiful excuse to keep him (and others) out of the Hall. He was a dominant power hitter of his era and one of the best players (he also won a gold glove). I don't think he did anything different than most other players in that era, he should be judged against his era and in that vein he should be a Hall of Famer. But again, that's just my opinion.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

IMO, that's a pitiful excuse to keep him (and others) out of the Hall. He was a dominant power hitter of his era and one of the best players (he also won a gold glove). I don't think he did anything different than most other players in that era, he should be judged against his era and in that vein he should be a Hall of Famer. But again, that's just my opinion.

Here is what one voter said last week (I am paraphrasing).

 

" I look at McGwire with 583 homeruns and a .263 average. Without these questions, those are numbers that tell me that he should be in. However, with the questions about his steroids, I believe that he would not have had all of those homeruns without the use of steroids. Given the number of homeruns between 1995-2001, it is not unreasonable to say that he would not have had 100 of those homeruns without steroid use.

 

If I look at a guy with 483 homeruns and a .263 average (maybe lower without the homeruns), I see a guy that is not Hall worthy"

 

Remember, we are not talking about a guy who has denied the use of steroids. This is a guy who will not defend himself from these allegations. He can't because he did it and he knows that he would be exposed. His numbers without 'roids are not good enough to get him in. If you want to do the same with Bonds' numbers, I think that you have a better argument.

[dirty dug 0]

Here is what one voter said last week (I am paraphrasing).

 

" I look at McGwire with 583 homeruns and a .263 average. Without these questions, those are numbers that tell me that he should be in. However, with the questions about his steroids, I believe that he would not have had all of those homeruns without the use of steroids. Given the number of homeruns between 1995-2001, it is not unreasonable to say that he would not have had 100 of those homeruns without steroid use.

 

If I look at a guy with 483 homeruns and a .263 average (maybe lower without the homeruns), I see a guy that is not Hall worthy"

 

Remember, we are not talking about a guy who has denied the use of steroids. This is a guy who will not defend himself from these allegations. He can't because he did it and he knows that he would be exposed. His numbers without 'roids are not good enough to get him in. If you want to do the same with Bonds' numbers, I think that you have a better argument.

 

So this writer can just say he wouldn't hit 100 of his HRs because of alleged steroid usage? What about the pitchers he was facing, what if they weren't on steroids. Maybe he hits another 125 HRs because of their usage. He's got the highest homerrun per at bat ratio in history. That's easily the most retarded argument out there.

 

And since we're quoting writers:

 

Mark McGwire

There are a million reasons not to vote for McGwire. But of all the reasons people have dredged up lately, the one I find most amazing is the revisionist history that he wasn't that good -- except for those four years (1996-99) when he morphed into Babe Ruth.

 

Well, hold on. Ask any scout who saw him at USC, and they'll all tell you the same thing: This guy was a big-time masher from the day he was drafted until the day he quit.

 

If it took Jose Canseco's magic potion to make him any good, how come he had a .618 slugging percentage in his rookie season? Andruw Jones, Adam Dunn and Jeff Kent have never slugged .618 in any season, if that tells you anything.

 

And if McGwire wasn't any good until 1996, how did he manage to put up six seasons with at least 32 homers and 90 RBI in his seven healthy seasons before that? That's as many seasons of 32-90 as Chipper Jones and Moises Alou have, combined.

 

If he wasn't any good, how did this man make 12 All-Star teams -- as many as Mike Schmidt? If he wasn't any good, why did he collect MVP votes in every healthy season of his career except one?

 

The other shaky argument here is that McGwire just had one song on his jukebox, that all he could do was hit home runs, kind of like Dave Kingman. But if he was so one-dimensional, how did he win a Gold Glove? How did he compile that .394 career on-base percentage? And even if he had just one superior dimension, he had the best home run ratio of any player who ever lived (one every 10.6 at-bats).

 

So if people want to vote against him to make a steroid statement, I understand that. But arguing that he didn't have a Hall of Fame career? That one doesn't compute.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/hof07/column...&id=2724111

[NewbieJr 541]

IMO, that's a pitiful excuse to keep him (and others) out of the Hall. He was a dominant power hitter of his era and one of the best players (he also won a gold glove). I don't think he did anything different than most other players in that era, he should be judged against his era and in that vein he should be a Hall of Famer. But again, that's just my opinion.

First, I'll comment on your earlier statement about George Brett. If you want to put a guy who had pine tar too high up his bat in the same category as a guy who took illegal drugs to make his body bigger, stronger, and more durable, than you do that.

 

As for Bonds talent, I agree 100% with you that he was one of the best natural players of our generation in the early nineties. He would have still ended up as a top 15 player of all-time, even wiothout the steroids and growth hormone.

That doesn't chenge the fact that he needs to punished for using drugs to break the all-time home run records.

If Bonds were to get within one home run, then retire and give a speech about not wanting tarnish Aaron's accomplishments, while explaining that he was only taking drugs to keep up with the widespread abuse in the majors at that time, I would change my mind about him and wish him into the hall.

 

So, if anyone has a way of forwarding this message to him, please do so. I'm sure he would be interested in knowing what it would take for me to forgive him.

 

TIA

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

So this writer can just say he wouldn't hit 100 of his HRs because of alleged steroid usage? What about the pitchers he was facing, what if they weren't on steroids. Maybe he hits another 125 HRs because of their usage. He's got the highest homerrun per at bat ratio in history.

 

That has been brought up before as well. Based upon the numbers from MLB, you can say that 7% of the players were testing positive when there was no penalty. Even if you nearly triple that number and say that 20% of the players were using, then 1 out of every 5 players was juicing.

 

If you look at an at-bat, there is one pitcher and one batter. That means that 20% of the time, McGwire was facing a pitcher who was also juicing. For the other 80% of McGwire's at-bats, only the batter was on 'roids. Sure seems reasonable to think that his HR total would have gone down. That 100 was a determination of him hitting HR's at the same rate that he did earlier in his career (pre-roids).

[dirty dug 0]

First, I'll comment on your earlier statement about George Brett. If you want to put a guy who had pine tar too high up his bat in the same category as a guy who took illegal drugs to make his body bigger, stronger, and more durable, than you do that.

 

 

So some rules are OK to break but others aren't?

 

Gotcha.

 

That has been brought up before as well. Based upon the numbers from MLB, you can say that 7% of the players were testing positive when there was no penalty. Even if you nearly triple that number and say that 20% of the players were using, then 1 out of every 5 players was juicing.

 

If you look at an at-bat, there is one pitcher and one batter. That means that 20% of the time, McGwire was facing a pitcher who was also juicing. For the other 80% of McGwire's at-bats, only the batter was on 'roids. Sure seems reasonable to think that his HR total would have gone down. That 100 was a determination of him hitting HR's at the same rate that he did earlier in his career (pre-roids).

 

That's complete and utter speculation. Much like you trying to claim as fact that he took steroids. Again, he admits taking andro, which was both legal and over the counter. Why couldn't that have been the reason for his increased bulk and productivity?

 

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

So some rules are OK to break but others aren't?

 

Gotcha.

That's complete and utter speculation. Much like you trying to claim as fact that he took steroids. Again, he admits taking andro, which was both legal and over the counter. Why couldn't that have been the reason for his increased bulk and productivity?

 

 

Please give me some indication that he has denied using steroids. All I have to go from is his testimony (or lack thereof), anecdotal evidence of his use, and his stats. Circumstantial, but definitely enough in light of McGwire's lack of rebuttal.

[edjr 6,602]

McGwire shouldn't be in the hall of fame because he doesn't have the #'s. Not because he did or didn't take steroids.

[dirty dug 0]

Please give me some indication that he has denied using steroids. All I have to go from is his testimony (or lack thereof), anecdotal evidence of his use, and his stats. Circumstantial, but definitely enough in light of McGwire's lack of rebuttal.

 

So because he hasn't come out and denied it (like Palmiero did) he is guilty? I guess that means Clinton never had sexual relations with that woman. And Nixon didn't play a roll in Watergate.

 

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

So because he hasn't come out and denied it (like Palmiero did) he is guilty? I guess that means Clinton never had sexual relations with that woman. And Nixon didn't play a roll in Watergate.

 

 

Not really catching on are you? As I said before, he has never denied because he can't. He would be exposed so fast it would make your head spin. Just like Clinton and Nixon.

 

Are you honestly sitting there and telling me that Mark McGwire never did steroids? Is that your position? If so, then you have no basis is reality.

[dirty dug 0]

Not really catching on are you? As I said before, he has never denied because he can't. He would be exposed so fast it would make your head spin. Just like Clinton and Nixon.

 

Are you honestly sitting there and telling me that Mark McGwire never did steroids? Is that your position? If so, then you have no basis is reality.

 

Prove it. If he definitively did it, prove it. I say you can't prove it so I therefore say it's unfair to judge him guilty with NO PROOF.

 

In the meantime:

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/hof07/column...&id=2724114

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Prove it. If he definitively did it, prove it. I say you can't prove it so I therefore say it's unfair to judge him guilty with NO PROOF.

 

In the meantime:

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/hof07/column...&id=2724114

 

You did not answer the question. This is not a court of law and neither is the HOF balloting. I say (as do most people with half a brain) that McGwire was doing steroids. McGwire has done nothing to even remotely imply that he did not do steroids. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck, it is a duck.

 

As far as Jayson Stark goes:

- Using the Gaylord Perry defense is a joke. Perry does not belong either. Two wrongs don't make a right. That sort of thinking belittles the value of the HOF

- Stark does nothing to say that McGwire's play makes him HOF worthy other than saying that he was #7 on the HR list. If the only thing that he did well was hit HR and there are questions about how he hit those HR's, so I don't see him being an overwhelming candidate without the steroid question. We are not talking about Bonds here.

- Stark fails in the most important part of his argument. He says that if more evidence comes about, then he will change his mind. Well, the fact of the matter is that you probably can't change your mind once he is in. I believe that the voters are sending a message that he is not a first-ballot guy and they want more info before they feel comfortable voting him in, because you will not be able to get him out once he is in.

[NewbieJr 541]

So some rules are OK to break but others aren't?

 

Gotcha.

 

I see. So if a pitcher is told he must take a gold chain off during a game, since it's against the rules to wear anything that may be reflective towards the batter, he should be in the same category as a person who takes illegal drugs to give himself an unfair advantage. I got it.

By that token, a jaywalker and a child molester should be given identical punishments. It's totally black and white and there aren't any gray areas.

You've made some decent points in this thread, but your argument is starting to become silly.

[dirty dug 0]

I see. So if a pitcher is told he must take a gold chain off during a game, since it's against the rules to wear anything that may be reflective towards the batter, he should be in the same category as a person who takes illegal drugs to give himself an unfair advantage. I got it.

By that token, a jaywalker and a child molester should be given identical punishments. It's totally black and white and there aren't any gray areas.

You've made some decent points in this thread, but your argument is starting to become silly.

 

What's silly is excluding him based upon allegations, judging him differently than other players (how many HoF players do you think took amphetamines? I'll bet more than one) of different eras. Who knows what someone like Reggie Jackson did (BTW, did you know he's Barry Bonds' cousin, I had no clue). McGwire's numbers are better than Jackson's.

 

If MLB invalidates his numbers he doesn't belong, but clearly MLB honors his accomplishments and his statistics stand valid and true. As such, he belongs in the Hall. It's speculation and accusations that are keeping him out, and his testimony in congress which happened 3 years after his retirement!

[paulinstl 296]

Ty Cobb is in the Hall Of Fame already. He was inducted in 1936. WTF are you guys talking about?

 

[dirty dug 0]

Ty Cobb is in the Hall Of Fame already. He was inducted in 1936. WTF are you guys talking about?

 

 

Please go back to sleep.

 

Thanks.

[paulinstl 296]

Please go back to sleep.

 

Thanks.

 

Yeah, just reread the first few posts. Hard to get to the meaning behind all thrat drivel.

[Stumpnov 0]

That has been brought up before as well. Based upon the numbers from MLB, you can say that 7% of the players were testing positive when there was no penalty. Even if you nearly triple that number and say that 20% of the players were using, then 1 out of every 5 players was juicing.

 

If you look at an at-bat, there is one pitcher and one batter. That means that 20% of the time, McGwire was facing a pitcher who was also juicing. For the other 80% of McGwire's at-bats, only the batter was on 'roids. Sure seems reasonable to think that his HR total would have gone down. That 100 was a determination of him hitting HR's at the same rate that he did earlier in his career (pre-roids).

Is it not also fair to speculate that steroids contributed to his injuries and that if he were healthier he may have hit more home runs without being on steroids?

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Is it not also fair to speculate that steroids contributed to his injuries and that if he were healthier he may have hit more home runs without being on steroids?

 

Quite the opposite. One of the reasons that guys use steroids and HGH is that they allow for shorter recuperation times from injuries (large and small).

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Orioles shortstop Cal Ripken (98.5 percent of the vote) and Padres outfielder Tony Gwynn have been elected into the Baseball Hall of Fame, it was announced today. Controversial Cardinals slugger Mark McGwire and Red Sox great Jim Rice each fell short. Rice received 63.5 percent of the vote (75 percent is needed for induction).

 

I hear that McGwire had less than 25% of the vote.