OT: Baseball HOF - Last year of BBWAA eligibility for Bonds and Clemens. Yes? Or No?

[XXtwindad]

Originally Posted by prototoast

I think they should all be in. Can't just pretend that 20 years of baseball didn't happen. The game results still stand, the record books still stand, and it's just completely arbitrary who's in and who's out. I can't say for certain whether Jim Thome, Larry Walker, or Edgar Martinez doped any more or less than Barry Bonds did, but I do know he hit a lot more home runs.

And Roger Clemens is excluded, but his longtime manager Joe Torre is voted in?

The games were played, the players did great, the baseball writers who vote are arbitrary, let them all in.

Stone cold logic. No arguments here.

And being an “arrogant jerk” shouldn’t preclude inclusion in the Hall. Ty Cobb, Mickey Mantle, Reggie Jackson and numerous other players who bear no resemblance to Mother Teresa have plaques.

[72gmc]

If we're excluding jerks, that's going to go against someone in Barry's position who had a dad or other relative in the majors. My memories of a certain Mariners star include a few jerk moments; my read is that growing up around the pros, and probably listening to Dad, taught him to draw boundaries and not worry about who considered him a jerk for doing it.

[reuben]

Originally Posted by XXtwindad

Stone cold logic. No arguments here.

And being an “arrogant jerk” shouldn’t preclude inclusion in the Hall. Ty Cobb, Mickey Mantle, Reggie Jackson and numerous other players who bear no resemblance to Mother Teresa have plaques.

So, the UCI should give Lance Armstrong his TdF wins back? To paraphrase prototoast's "Stone cold logic" - "Can't just pretend that 7 Tours de France didn't happen."

[prototoast]

Originally Posted by reuben

So, the UCI should give Lance Armstrong his TdF wins back? To paraphrase prototoast's "Stone cold logic" - "Can't just pretend that 7 Tours de France didn't happen."

Personally, I think it's insane that Lance was stripped of his victories but Riis, Ulrich, and Pantani still have their wins. Completely arbitrary. But if you want to say there's a difference, at least cycling took the step of stripping Lance of those results. All of Barry Bonds' home run still count. The Yankees didn't have to give back any world series titles when Roger Clemens pitched. Joe Torre is in the Hall of Fame, but Johan Bruyneel is banned from cycling.

I don't like arbitrary applications of made up rules more than I don't like people who doped. Floyd Landis rightfully was stripped of his title because he actually tested positive and there were rules that clearly spelled out when results were avoided. The testing protocol might not be perfect, but at least it was applied fairly to all riders. In the case of Lance Armstrong, he lost his results because of testimonial evidence more than a decade later. But they didn't collect testimonial evidence on all riders equally. They didn't even apply penalties to all riders equally.

So yeah, there are a lot of parallels between the two situations, and I think Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens are currently being singled out, much the way Lance Armstrong was, for their individual successes.

[ScottW]

Baseball was still in limp mode after the strike until the home run derby season led by those guys who were all juiced. My vague recollection from that era was that Bonds & McGwire had been smacking HRs for a few years prior to that but I hadn't heard much of Sosa... seemingly a quicker rise due to the juice and a quicker drop after they started cracking down on it. Still, I'm indifferent to whether they get in the HOF and it's up to the writers whose job it is to geek out on the stats, so whatever.

In a decade or two there will be a player or two on the cusp of getting in who happened to be on a certain Astros team that cheated in a different way, and the writers may happen to pass them over for similar reasons, and I'd be indifferent to that too. They were probably good enough to win without cheating, but cheat they did.

Clemens should be in for sure. Schilling, yeah I guess. Gut feeling, not looking at stats.

[lavi]

Originally Posted by yinzerniner

Thing to remember with Rose is that HE IS THE REASON HE'S NOT IN THE HALL. It's no one else's fault - Rose made himself ineligible because he chose the lifetime ban rather than proof of his guilt being released.

As for the others, Bonds, Clemens, Sosa and Schilling all should be in the hall. They all have their character flaws but you can't write baseball history without them, and unlike Rose or Shoeless Joe they don't have lifetime ban against them.

Concur.

But, my $.02, Charlie Hustle should also be in too. Whatever. So he gambled. IDK. He was a great ball player.

Let the fans vote. Screw the "writers".

[Waldo62]

Clemens was done before he started juicing. He didn't want the ball in Game 6 in 1986 ("Here you go, Calvin Schiraldi, I don't have the balls for another inning.") and Dave Stewart lived in his head rent-free. Then he went to the Blue Jays, began doping, and signed with the Yanks with whom he became a 'roid-raging broken bat throwing a***ole.

[bthomas515]

As a child of the 90’s, who was enamored with their baseball era, I hope they get in. I’ve always loved the idea of someone belongs in the HOF if “you shouldnt tell the story of [whatever sport] without them.” They both fit that description, imo.

[Waldo62]

Originally Posted by XXtwindad

Stone cold logic. No arguments here.

And being an “arrogant jerk” shouldn’t preclude inclusion in the Hall. Ty Cobb, Mickey Mantle, Reggie Jackson and numerous other players who bear no resemblance to Mother Teresa have plaques.

Argument -- not only did they cheat to get ahead, they cheated those who pitched and batted against them out of better careers, longer careers, and better earnings. For me, that alone would disqualify them were I voting. Yeah, it's my arbitrary vote, and I would leave them out.

[XXtwindad]

Originally Posted by Waldo62

Argument -- not only did they cheat to get ahead, they cheated those who pitched and batted against them out of better careers, longer careers, and better earnings. For me, that alone would disqualify them were I voting. Yeah, it's my arbitrary vote, and I would leave them out.

Well, how do you determine who doped and who didn't?

Edit: Pudge Rodriguez is on the short list for best catchers of all-time. Right there with Berra and possibly Bench. 13 Gold Gloves and career batting average of close to .300. He's in the Hall. When asked if his name was included on a list of 100 players who tested positive for steroids in 2003, Pudge answered "only God knows."
https://www.espn.com/mlb/news/story?id=3909861

[cgolvin]

So much red meat here.

First off, I completely discard the jerk aspect. Entry in the HoF for players should be entirely about the performance on the field, it's not about being a humanitarian and there are already plenty of jerks enshrined. Plenty of jerks have been voting over the years too (should be a separate thread driven by @elefantino).

To me, it's clear from their performance pre-steroids (assuming we have an idea of when that is) that Bonds and Clemens deserve to be in. Even while juicing, Bonds's ability to hit was extraordinary, and Clemens was dominant (though on the sub-question my vote goes Pedro>Big Unit>Maddux>Clemens). I don't think you can say the same about, for example, Rafael Palmiero; Sosa is a more extreme case and a tougher call but I can't make the same argument for him so no. I have a very hard time being objective about Schilling because his jerkitude is, for me, at least an order of magnitude greater than Bonds (or Clemens). I personally don't want Curt Schilling in the HoF but I see the argument for him.

On other topics raised …

Per my inclusion criteria, I think Rose (also, btw, a world class jerk) belongs. I understand the "he broke the stated rules" reason for exclusion and how that makes him a separate case from the juicers, but IMO the all-time hits leader should be there.

Fans should vote on inclusion? Uh, no. Definitely no. Not that you can make a great case for the writers (for example, the boneheads who did not vote Mays in on the first ballot), but the fans would be a disaster.

Comparisons to cycling juicing don't carry much water with me. The team vs individual aspects are too different.

And finally, regarding feckless MLB leadership, I almost throw up in my mouth watching Cora, Bregman, Altuve, Correa et al in the playoffs let alone playing. And I used to have a lot more respect for Dusty Baker.

[cgolvin]

Originally Posted by ScottW

In a decade or two there will be a player or two on the cusp of getting in who happened to be on a certain Astros team that cheated in a different way, and the writers may happen to pass them over for similar reasons, and I'd be indifferent to that too. They were probably good enough to win without cheating, but cheat they did.

I'm unsure where you are coming down on this point, but to me it's very different from the steroids because it was an orchestrated team effort. How that title is not treated as an exception is a complete mystery to me and the whole episode is a damning black mark against Manfred et al.

[XXtwindad]

Originally Posted by cgolvin

So much red meat here.

First off, I completely discard the jerk aspect. Entry in the HoF for players should be entirely about the performance on the field, it's not about being a humanitarian and there are already plenty of jerks enshrined. Plenty of jerks have been voting over the years too (should be a separate thread driven by @elefantino).

To me, it's clear from their performance pre-steroids (assuming we have an idea of when that is) that Bonds and Clemens deserve to be in. Even while juicing, Bonds's ability to hit was extraordinary, and Clemens was dominant (though on the sub-question my vote goes Pedro>Big Unit>Maddux>Clemens). I don't think you can say the same about, for example, Rafael Palmiero; Sosa is a more extreme case and a tougher call but I can't make the same argument for him so no. I have a very hard time being objective about Schilling because his jerkitude is, for me, at least an order of magnitude greater than Bonds (or Clemens). I personally don't want Curt Schilling in the HoF but I see the argument for him.

On other topics raised …

Per my inclusion criteria, I think Rose (also, btw, a world class jerk) belongs. I understand the "he broke the stated rules" reason for exclusion and how that makes him a separate case from the juicers, but IMO the all-time hits leader should be there.

Fans should vote on inclusion? Uh, no. Definitely no. Not that you can make a great case for the writers (for example, the boneheads who did not vote Mays in on the first ballot), but the fans would be a disaster.

Comparisons to cycling juicing don't carry much water with me. The team vs individual aspects are too different.

And finally, regarding feckless MLB leadership, I almost throw up in my mouth watching Cora, Bregman, Altuve, Correa et al in the playoffs let alone playing. And I used to have a lot more respect for Dusty Baker.

I'll go with all that. I might flip Maddux/Big Unit but picking nits. Still love Dusty, though.

[prototoast]

Originally Posted by Waldo62

Argument -- not only did they cheat to get ahead, they cheated those who pitched and batted against them out of better careers, longer careers, and better earnings. For me, that alone would disqualify them were I voting. Yeah, it's my arbitrary vote, and I would leave them out.

What is "cheating"? MLB didn't have a rule against steroids until 2005. It is not only arbitrary to single out some players and not others when their was no consistent testing protocol in place, but it's also arbitrary to consider something "cheating" when it's not prohibited by the rules.

[makoti]

I won't be disappointed if they don't. Hank Aaron is the home run king, IMO. Bonds could have been a 1st ballot HOF'er on his raw talent, but no. Not enough.
No to him, Sosa, McGwire, the rest. No to Clemens. And always and forever, no to Rose. Charlie Hustle knew baseball and its history better than most, and baseball has one rule: Don't screw with the integrity of the game. Don't bet on the games. He did. He pays. Not sure why this is so hard for some folks.