Even my buddy, whom I mentioned in a Sox thread, is baffled. He thinks that the Veterans’ Committee is purposely keeping players out to keep it their own private club.
Even my buddy, whom I mentioned in a Sox thread, is baffled. He thinks that the Veterans’ Committee is purposely keeping players out to keep it their own private club.
Private club = hookers
I think the Veteran’s Committee is gay...... at least that’s what Ozzie said.....
Since the bitch is about HOW the HOF inducts members and the criteria they may or may not use, I thought I would toss up a rough idea that just came to me. It isn’t perfect, but it is a start.
Compare players, by position, to other players within a five year span (both before and after) said player’s career. So, a 3rd baseman who played from 1960 to 1970 would be compared to 3rd basemen from 1955 to 1975. I figure that way we can limit guys to the era in which they played. If they are in the top 3 both offensively and defensively, they get in. If they are in the top 4 through 10, it is up to a vote.
For designated hitters, relievers, closers and so on, it would be based on their position and the skills required. But, after that I would still say the top 3 get in and so on.
I agree with Tom that anything is better than the system we have now. By the way if you scroll down this page you can see all the players to be on the ballots in the next few years:
The 2010 ballot doesn’t have a slam dunk favorite to win so if Dawson and/or Baines don’t go in this year they have a shot. The 2011 ballot includes Ugueth Urbina so may be a bad year to try to win against him.
How can either the HOF or BBWAA justify some on the panel refusing to vote for any player accused/proven/named/etc. as using PEDs while others don’t take that into consideration?
That is a great question..McGwire and Palmeiro are hoping the anti-steroid voters will become pro-steroid voters very soon. Palmeiro, Bonds and McGwire profited more from steroids than any other players with Giambi and Roger Clemens close behind.
How can either the HOF or BBWAA justify some on the panel refusing to vote for any player accused/proven/named/etc. as using PEDs while others don’t take that into consideration?
There is absolutely no criteria on the matter.
Excellent question. In my scenario Bonds gets in. So does McGwire. Like I said, it was a rough idea. While there are no tests that are 100% accurate that check for steroids, there are tests that are 100% accurate when it comes to testing for the after-effects of them. Do we ask each potential inductee to give blood?
As the steroid era goes, I still think potential Hall of Famers should be considered against their peers in a particular time period. A lot of guys did ‘em, so something else had to separate the ones that put up the big numbers. Barry Bonds still belongs in the hall.
Best move for the Hall to make would be to mention the steroid era somewhere in baseball’s history. Baseball didn’t make any real effort to quell steroid use until the fans returned in bigger numbers well after the ‘94 strike. A steroid wing, perhaps? In any case, the hall would do a disservice to fans by not having any mention of the era.
Then again, the hall’s used to that.
Bud Selig will never admit he acted slowly to stop the use of steroids so he wants no part of having steroids mentioned as part of baseball history since his name may be included in any history of steroids in baseball. Donald Fehr the head of the player’s union likewise doesn’t want this brought up. Some of the players he represented became rich off of steroids. Without steroids Jason Giambi would not have been paid $23 million last season. I like Chronek’s idea about the steroid wing because it is generally well known who took steroids and who didn’t but I am sure the Mitchell Report left a few names out that should have been included. The problem was that there was no documentation proving those players took steroids.
Jose Canseco said Bret Boone took steroids but if I remember right Boone was not included in the Mitchell Report. Just looking at his stats shows something was rotten in Seattle. In 2000 with the Padres Boone had 19 homers and 74 RBI’s but in 2001 he had 37 homers and 141 RBI’s. His slugging percentage jumped from .421 to .578. His extra base hits jumped from 39 to 80. He also hit .331 in 2001 after hitting .251 in 2000 for an increase of 80 points. He made $3.25 million in 2001 but was rewarded for his sudden jump in power numbers by making $8 million in 2002, 2003 and 2004 and $9 million in 2005. He made $33 million in four years because of steroids but in 2005 he came crashing back to earth when the steroids wore off. All of a sudden he was back to being the same Bret Boone he was before steroids. His last season was 2005 and he hit only 7 homers in 326 at bats and was released on July 31st of 2005 by the Twins. Baseball-reference.com compares his stats with those of Joe Gordon who was voted into the Hall of Fame and also compared to two other players linked to steroids Ken Caminiti and Miguel Tejada.
This is what Dennis Eckersley had to say about Hall of Fame voting at Boston.com:
DE: “I’m shocked. I know the other committee elected Joe Gordon, but I thought we’d get somebody in there this time. This was the first year we were able to consider playing career and managing career, and if you do that, how does [Joe ] Torre not make it? Ron Santo should have been in. Gil Hodges. I was a big fan of Tony Oliva. I guess we’re a tough group to impress.”
Everyone is saying Ron Santo should be in...would llike to know who is not voting for him. I wouldn’t be surprised if he is not even on the ballots of some voters.
As the steroid era goes, I still think potential Hall of Famers should be considered against their peers in a particular time period. A lot of guys did ‘em, so something else had to separate the ones that put up the big numbers. Barry Bonds still belongs in the hall.
Best move for the Hall to make would be to mention the steroid era somewhere in baseball’s history. Baseball didn’t make any real effort to quell steroid use until the fans returned in bigger numbers well after the ‘94 strike. A steroid wing, perhaps? In any case, the hall would do a disservice to fans by not having any mention of the era.
Then again, the hall’s used to that.
The Hall of Fame should instruct the voting panel on the criteria relevant towards the so-called “steroid era”.
It is inconsistent for some to vote against players simply as an issue of morality unless specifically instructed to do so by the Hall. And if that was the case, then why would these players in question even appear on the HOF ballot?
I have my own opinion on this subject and it is pretty cut and dry. If you are caught cheating, you are a cheat among your peers and should be treated accordingly. When this occurs to an athlete caught illegal doping/PEDs usage in the Olympics, the IOC strips the medal (if relevant) and acknowledgment in their record books.
For the HOF to simply ignore this issue and leave it entirely in the hands of the voters (where anything goes apparently with respect to criteria), it does both itself and the game of baseball a huge disservice.
