Jump to content

Tenacious D

2019 MLB Hall of Fame

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, bobrob2004 said:

Sure, showing up drunk all the time shows a lack of integrity.  Does it mean they shouldn't get voted into the Hall of Fame?  Maybe.

Stealing a piece of candy and murdering someone are both against the law, but both carry vastly different punishments.  Taking steroids and using a foreign substance on a baseball are both forms of cheating and compromise the integrity of the game, but both carry vastly different punishments.  So it's reasonable that one would be bad enough to not be voted for the Hall of Fame while the other one may not.  

How do I feel about greenies?  Probably as bad as steroids. 

I think showing up drunk or hungover comprises the integrity of the game more than steroids do.   I guarantee the former has a far worse impact negatively on a players performance than the latter does positively.    Not saying Mantle necessarily did this but what if he showed up 10 times drunk against say the Red Sox but zero times against anybody else one season.   That would give the Red Sox a huge advantage over teams that had to face him at his best.   That could easily compromise the league standings.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If an athlete takes PEDs to help him work out or more or to recover faster from injuries, that does not seem like cheating to me.  It seems less like cheating that using a corked bat or throwing a spitball where you have a direct effect on the game.  I realize that some PEDs may be so strong that they could have an immediate effect on your performance.  If that's the case, then it could be cheating.  The seriousness of PED use just doesn't seem clean cut to me.  It also bothers me when I see a group of athletes from one era and one sport being demonized whereas players in a different era or different sport are left alone.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that I really have a dog in the fight, but there are lots of anecdotes about Mickey being drunk and rightly or wrongly Billy Martin was made to be the scapegoat in the Yankee clubhouse.  Not that Billy wasn't a degen drunk (holy ****, he was) but he didn't make Mickey do anything Mickey didn't want to do.

Jim Bouton talks a fair bit about Mickey in Ball Four, and his synopsis is as great as Mickey was, his drinking and partying cost him at least a few seasons on his career at a minimum and Jim was fairly critical of Mickey's showing up buzzed / drunk.  That is coming from someone in the clubhouse with Mickey and someone who idolized Mickey when he came up, and it didn't sound like a one time thing.

Jim also thought the Yankees and sportswriters did Mickey a disservice by making him out to be squeaky clean  angel to the public early in his career.  Jim felt that if they truly cared about Mickey, they should have pressed to get Mickey the help he needed at an early age rather than effectively enabling his habit by blaming others or staying silent or outright lying about it.

FWIW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, bobrob2004 said:

No, he shouldn't.  It's not the "Hall of Numbers," it's the "Hall of Fame."

I honestly do not know what this means.

First off, everyone is elected to the Hall based on the strength of his numbers.

Second, the name of the museum was chosen because it captures the essence of the thing succinctly and is marketable, much like the 'World's Series' was marketable, despite the only eligible teams were based in the northeastern half of the country when the thing started.  It is a name to drum up interest, not a literal definition.

Setting that aside, was Bonds (or Cabrera in the hypothetical given) not famous?  I mean, if it were called the Hall of Integrity or something, you would have a better argument on the semantics front.  But if the sole criterion is fame, I'd suggest both guys check that box.

Lastly, pretty much every regrettable selection in the history of the hall is/was sold on the basis that the player's numbers didn't capture his amazing intangibles on or off the field.  So I am skeptical of the 'sure his numbers are great but he was so bad for the game' argument, if for no other reason the reverse isn't true (guys with pedistrian numbers are or were not great).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hall of fame talk sucks every year. Every damn year. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

I honestly do not know what this means.

First off, everyone is elected to the Hall based on the strength of his numbers.

I disagree with this.  Bill Mazeroski, Rabbit Maranville, and possibly several other players didn't get voted in based on their numbers.  Even Jack Morris didn't get in based on his numbers, or else he would have been voted in a long time ago.  The reason Morris got elected is because compared to Roger Clemens and all the other "cheaters," Morris played "cleaned."  It's not like he got another 100 wins since he was first on the ballot.  

If they didn't want voters to take integrity, sportsmanship, and character into consideration, then they wouldn't have that clause in the HOF rules.  If it was truly all about numbers, then they would have created a formula and everyone who rated high on the formula would be in and those that failed would not.  There wouldn't be any voters and their biased opinions.  Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens would be in and, ho hum, it would be boring because then there wouldn't be any discussions about the Hall of Fame year after year.  And the HOF museum would probably lose money because people might forget that it even exits.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All three were voted in by the Veteran's Committee, which is how marginal candidates get in.  There are better players than those three who also have no questions about their character, but did not get the same treatment by the Veteran's Committee for no real good reason.  Lou Whitaker was twice the player Jack was. He was much better than Maz and Rabbit as well.

It seems to me It largely boils down to having an advocate on the committee and something that advocate can pitch to the committee, like best defensive 2b of all time, or winningest pitcher of the 80s or most games played at ss (at the time).

In any event, you are welcome to read into it whatever you want.  We all do it to some extent.  But I believe the idea that Rabbit Maranville and Jack Morris were selected to be in the hall because of their sterling reputation for character and integrity is objectively laughable.

Also, many (most?) HoFers have questions about their ethics, sportsmanship and/or character.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shelton said:

Hall of fame talk sucks every year. Every damn year. 

I love it.  It's almost as much fun as hearing about the Rule 5 draft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, bobrob2004 said:

I disagree with this.  Bill Mazeroski, Rabbit Maranville, and possibly several other players didn't get voted in based on their numbers.  Even Jack Morris didn't get in based on his numbers, or else he would have been voted in a long time ago.  The reason Morris got elected is because compared to Roger Clemens and all the other "cheaters," Morris played "cleaned."  It's not like he got another 100 wins since he was first on the ballot.  

If they didn't want voters to take integrity, sportsmanship, and character into consideration, then they wouldn't have that clause in the HOF rules.  If it was truly all about numbers, then they would have created a formula and everyone who rated high on the formula would be in and those that failed would not.  There wouldn't be any voters and their biased opinions.  Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens would be in and, ho hum, it would be boring because then there wouldn't be any discussions about the Hall of Fame year after year.  And the HOF museum would probably lose money because people might forget that it even exits.    

Are we sure that Jack Morris stayed clean?  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, tiger337 said:

Are we sure that Jack Morris stayed clean?  

Not 100% sure so he must be...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, 1776 said:

Not 100% sure so he must be...

His career arc looks like that of a stereotypical steroid user.  He faded in his early 30s and then bounced back at age 36. 

Of course, I have long believed that the majority of players took steroids back then.  It doesn't make sense that just a few would take it and benefit from it while everyone else stayed clean.  That is not how highly competitive people operate.  Besides, look at how many players got nailed in the Mitchell Report with almost zero cooperation.  There were almost certainly a lot more of them.  Probably hundreds throughout pro ball.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, tiger337 said:

Are we sure that Jack Morris stayed clean?  

No, but the voters are sure. Or at least they want him to be since it makes a nice narrative. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmmm?  Hall of Fame vs Hall of Integrity .. perhaps there is hope for Brandon Inge after all!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Shelton said:

Hall of fame talk sucks every year. Every damn year. 

hall of fame talk is always interesting.  explaining the veterans committee to people every year does get a bit tiresome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, tiger337 said:

His career arc looks like that of a stereotypical steroid user.  He faded in his early 30s and then bounced back at age 36. 

Of course, I have long believed that the majority of players took steroids back then.  It doesn't make sense that just a few would take it and benefit from it while everyone else stayed clean.  That is not how highly competitive people operate.  Besides, look at how many players got nailed in the Mitchell Report with almost zero cooperation.  There were almost certainly a lot more of them.  Probably hundreds throughout pro ball.  

david ortiz is still looking for the real killer...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Buddha said:

hall of fame talk is always interesting.  explaining the veterans committee to people every year does get a bit tiresome.

More tiresome than discussing steroids?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Shelton said:

More tiresome than discussing steroids?

I've never discussed steroids on this forum before, so it's a whole new experience for me.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Shelton said:

More tiresome than discussing steroids?

i never get tired of pontificating about whether greenies or roids were worse.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bobrob2004 said:

I've never discussed steroids on this forum before, so it's a whole new experience for me.  

Bert and Biggs are suspected of taking them during the season, others only indulge during their offseason training.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Buddha said:

i never get tired of pontificating about whether greenies or roids were worse.

But what about the classic “we don’t know who else was using steroids/greenies”?

I admit, I did read Henning’s hall of fame ballot piece, mostly because I am sucker, and his bonds/Clemens justification is one that I don’t often see. Basically, he argued that they were so good that they would have still put up numbers good enough to be hall of fame caliber. I think he’s trying to say that bonds would have still hit 50+ bombs the year he hit 73, or whatever. He then uses that logic to say that Sosa, without the steroids, would not have reached hall of fame numbers.

It kind of seems like Lynn is walking a tightrope here, but whatever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i dont agree with henning's analysis because i wouldnt take roids into account.  i would put bonds, clemens and manny in.  not sure on sosa but not because he did roids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Buddha said:

i dont agree with henning's analysis because i wouldnt take roids into account.  i would put bonds, clemens and manny in.  not sure on sosa but not because he did roids.

I generally don't take steroids into account, but I think it's fair to exclude Ramirez since he tested positive after it became clear that PED use was taboo and punishable.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Buddha said:

i never get tired of pontificating about whether greenies or roids were worse.

Like Lorne Michaels said of the question of which SNL cast was best.... "Probably depends on which ones you watched in high school and college"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bonds

Clemens

Halladay

Edgar

Mussina

Rivera

Rolen

Schilling

Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×