Is Big Hurt Hall-bound?

[CatKnight]

I was about to post that. Looks pretty decisive to me.



Similar Batters

Jeff Bagwell (887)
Fred McGriff (857)
Manny Ramirez (838)
Gary Sheffield (835)
Mickey Mantle (833) *
Ken Griffey (819)
Jim Thome (811)
Willie McCovey (808) *
Jimmie Foxx (800) *
Willie Stargell (799) *

4 of 10 in the HoF looks marginal, but...

Similar Batters through Age 39

Fred McGriff (859)
Reggie Jackson (789) *
Rafael Palmeiro (784)
Willie McCovey (779) *
Mike Schmidt (774) *
Willie Stargell (772) *
Ted Williams (770) *
Eddie Murray (760) *
Harmon Killebrew (750) *
Frank Robinson (732) *

8 of 10. Yep, he should be in. Maybe not first ballot, I'm sure some people will look at the letters "DH" and go eww....but he'll be in.

[HoustonGM]

8 of 10

And the other two are one guy who would get in first ballot if not for steroid issues, and a guy who is going to draw a good amount of support when hes on the ballot (although I don't think he'll get elected, at least not for a while).

[boomboom]

for similar batters, I would say that every one of those batters may make it to the HOF, including the Crime Dog, Bags...

[ohms_law]

Palmeiro won't. He's the poster boy for the steroid issue.

[boomboom]

yes but he is HOF caliber

[ohms_law]

definitely.

[HoustonGM]

I'm undecided on McGriff. He was undoubtedly a very good player, but a 134 career OPS+ isn't anything superbdly remarkable for a first basemen, although he did have a very good peak from 1988 to 1994. I lean towards yes though.

[ohms_law]

Black Ink: Batting - 9 (243) (Average HOFer ≈ 27)
Gray Ink: Batting - 105 (203) (Average HOFer ≈ 144)
HOF Standards: Batting - 47.9 (87) (Average HOFer ≈ 50)
HOF Monitor: Batting - 100.0 (148) (Likely HOFer > 100)

He's definitely on the fence. The All Star appearances, silver slugger awards, and fairly constant consideration for MVP ought to help him out. He has good name recognition. I think he'll make it.

[AndrewOsborn]

I like Mcgriff. I hope he makes it.

[ohms_law]

I think that we're all just waiting for someone to vote no... and admit it.
lol

[dickay]

I'll give the Big Hurt a pass on the roids issue I suppose, but Bagwell upsets me because he's gotten a pass and I feel 100% sure this guy roided big time. I watched him as a skinny 3B for the AA New Britain Red Sox. He was to take over for Wade Boggs at the time, was traded in the infamous Larry Anderson trade and about 9 months later was in the pros looking massive slugging HR's. I was only 14 years old or so and remember thinking at that time that Bagwell was on steroids and everyone I conversed with who went with me to see bags in the minors a year prior thought the same. Imagine that, a bunch of 14 year old kids in 1990 watching one of their favorites roid up. There is now a conspiracy theory that Bagwell was a ring leader in the Roids movement. Check out this thread;

http://baseballevolution.com/asher/b...onspiracy.html

[chuckwillard]

Of the mid-90's sluggers, Thomas and Griffey are the two I am 100% certain never juiced.

Out of that list you have where only 4 of 10 are in, another 4 are still active, and neither of the 2 retired are eligible yet. I think 9 of the 10 will be in for certain (McGriff is the question mark). Griffey is as much of a lock as any active player; Sheffield might have steroid questions, but he should be in; Manny will easily hit 600 HR, Thome might get there.

As for Bagwell juicing, it's not at all uncommon for players to bulk up early in their careers. A guy in his early 20's (as Bagwell was in the Sox organization) can very easily build muscle mass naturally and put on weight. In addition, the move from third to first tends towards bulking up--first basemen are just bigger, bulkier players than third basemen as a rule. The suspcion about Bonds began not because he bulked up, but because he did so late in his career, in his mid-30's.

[boomboom]

http://baseballevolution.com/asher/b...onspiracy.html

So, when the Reds acquired Ken Griffey, Jr. in 2000, the Reds players welcomed Griffey with open arms, ready to share their locker room and their juice. But Griffey's juicing proved to be ill-fated. An already legendary slugger in his own right, Griffey didn't need steroids. But he was eager to impress the fans in his new city. From the first moment he started pumping 'roids into his body, he went from a nimble, athletic, power-hitting centerfielder to a fragile burden on his team, serving more time on the disabled list with strains, pulls, ruptures, and tears, than he would on the field, and derailing what at one time was a surefire Hall of Fame career.

Griffey didn't use roids and this article is farce.

[HoustonGM]

Griffey didn't use roids and this article is farce.

Well, I think that that article is a load of bull, and it's wrong for saying definitively that Griffey used steroids, but we can't also say that he didn't use steroids. There's no proof of steroid use, and he's never been connected to steroid use, but we cannot definitively state which players did or didn't use steroids, unless we have something on them (connection, positive test, etc.)

You know, it's funny. Ken Griffey and Sammy Sosa both have the exact same "steroid record"...which is, none. Neither have been connected to any shady dealers. Neither have tested positive. Nobody with intimate knowledge of either has accused either of them. Yet, everybody just says Sosa roided up while Griffey didn't. And yet, if in 1997 or 1998, 6 more of Griffey's flyballs ended up in the seats, he'd be fingered as a steroid user too.

[HoustonGM]

No way Griffey jr juiced. No way at all. If anything, he underperformed his potential because of nagging injuries steroids might have helped him recover faster from.

But, how do you know he didn't juice? How can you state that with 100% accuracy?

Now, like I said, there's nothing to indicate that he DID juice, so assuming that he didn't is what we should do, but there's also nothing to indicate that Sammy Sosa juiced, yet people assume he did, evne though we shouldn't.

That's the problem with this whole issue. Too often we assume who did or didn't do something based on what we think of that player. Griffey's a well-liked guy, so people assume he didn't do steroids. Sammy Sosa and Jeff Bagwell are thought of in a lesser light when it comes to their character, so people assume they did do steroids, even though no actual evidence exists, just as with Griffey.

I think the best way to approach the topic is this - Assume that every player did not do steroids unless there is substantial evidence that they did. You cannot run into any hypocrisy if you approach the steroid issue that way, as you can when you base your judgments on what you personally feel about the guy. For example of the hypocrisy which can be ran into, and I'm not pointing out anybody in this thread as nobody here has stated what they think about Sosa, there are very few people that think Griffey did steroids, yet there are numerous people that think Sosa did. Maybe hypocrisy is the incorrect term, but thinking that Griffey didn't juice and Sosa did is following irrational logic. No evidence of any sort exists against either player.