Which Player Belongs in the HOF?

[kenny1234]

I think that steroids are a relevant part of the discussion in comparing players of the past 10-20 years with players of past eras. I don't think they are particularly relevant in terms of comparing players with their contemporaries - because we have no idea who used what. Lots of players (probably almost all) have been using all kinds of nutritional supplements, protein powders and the like for years, many of which have been shown to include steroids. Even a supposedly clean player may have been on steroids his entire career - we will never know, hell, they might not know.

[dickay]

Not to me as their numbers could be inflated due to substance abuse. I say they can get in after Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe!

The thing is, sports writers are persecuting these Bonds, Clemens and McGwire as well by prohibiting access because of allegations that they did something that many 'alledge' most of the game was already doing. I think these two get in, with no astericks or mention of the 'steroid era'.

Well before the 'blacksox' scandal it is widely believed that Baseball was a corrupt sport which had the uppermost executives involved in fixing games for profit and to grow the game. That 'era' doesn't have any astericks. The Blacksox were the sacrificial lamb to change the times and clean up the sport. They were tossed from baseball in the same manner Rose was, so I understand why Rose was banned. The rules were clear.

As for Bonds & Clemens, theres not only no *conclusive* evidence, but there was no MLB rule or testing in place either.

[HoustonGM]

As for Bonds & Clemens, theres not only no evidence, but there was no MLB rule or testing in place either.

The latter half of this statement is correct.

There's certainly evidence against both Bonds and Clemens...it's just all circumstantial. So I think a qualifier needs to be placed to make the entire statement true - There is no conclusive evidence.

[dickay]

The latter half of this statement is correct.

There's certainly evidence against both Bonds and Clemens...it's just all circumstantial. So I think a qualifier needs to be placed to make the entire statement true - There is no conclusive evidence.

Thanks for stating the obvious Sherlock.

* There is no 'conclusive' evidence.*

[Wassit3]

Both easily. But folks are tired of my opinions on the matter. I still believe strongly that Pete Rose should unquestionably be in the Hall of Fame. The man with the most hits all time not being in the HOF is a travesty, unless you apply that same standard universally. In which case Babe Ruth should be removed, since he violated the United States Constitution on several hundred (thousand probably) occasions.

the difference being ruth never was never placed on an "permanently ineligible" list...which Rose agreed to permanent ineligibility from baseball amidst accusations that he gambled on baseball games while playing for and managing the Reds;the Baseball Hall of Fame formally voted to ban those on the "permanently ineligible" list from induction.

on a side note I for one am not tired of hearing your "arguments" on the subject because you are a passionate debater for what you believe in. Makes it more more interesting reading.

[justanewguy]

It's gonna take a lot to convince me that the best hitter (arguably) of all time and the best pitcher (arguably) of all time don't belong in the HOF.

[Arctic Blast]

Both. A pair of selfish prima donna jerks, but they were both incredibly good players.

[JeepGuy63]

the difference being ruth never was never placed on an "permanently ineligible" list...which Rose agreed to permanent ineligibility from baseball amidst accusations that he gambled on baseball games while playing for and managing the Reds;the Baseball Hall of Fame formally voted to ban those on the "permanently ineligible" list from induction.

Not only did he gamble on baseball games, he bet on his own games.

There is no argument from me that Rose's numbers stand up for first ballot unanimous voting BUT he agreed to the permanent ban in order for things not to get nastier. He agreed.

For years afterward, he continued to deny that he gambled on baseball. Had he come right out and apologized, I think baseball would have been more forgiving and if not MLB, the fans would have been which might have changed the attitude of of the Hall and baseball in general.

[Arctic Blast]

Not only did he gamble on baseball games, he bet on his own games.

There is no argument from me that Rose's numbers stand up for first ballot unanimous voting BUT he agreed to the permanent ban in order for things not to get nastier. He agreed.

For years afterward, he continued to deny that he gambled on baseball. Had he come right out and apologized, I think baseball would have been more forgiving and if not MLB, the fans would have been which might have changed the attitude of of the Hall and baseball in general.

Yeah, the last part is what really ticks me off about Rose. Denied it constantly, launched diatribes against those who continued to say he DID gamble on games...all until he admits in his book that yes, indeed, he did bet on baseball. Denied...until it was profitable for him to stop.

[dps]

Both.

[grasshopper]

Both. Clemens is probably the best pitcher ever.

If you dont know Ruth, read about him. He could hit a "dead ball" 400'. That is like Bonds hitting a ball 700'. (that never happended) Oh well, I think Ruth will still be remembered.

[Swampdog]

Speaking of the HOF, in another thread there were several comments on Jim Rice. It seems to be the consensus that he will get in, perhaps this year. I dont often get into debates about who "should" or "should not" be in the HOF, since there are no real, established standards. But I will say that, as a Red Sox fan, if Rice deserves to be in, then surely Fred Lynn and Dwight Evans, two of his former teammates should be in as well.

Briefly, Rice had an OPS+ of 128, to 129 for Lynn and 127 for Evans. About the same, in other words. Meanwhile, Evans won 8 Gold Gloves (RF), and Lynn 4(CF). Rice was a very mediocre left fielder. He probably wasn't as bad as Ramirez is now, or as, say, Greg Luzinski was during his era, but he wasn't especially good. Just my thoughts.

[HoustonGM]

Agreed. The difference between them is that Lynn and Evans derived their value from defense and walks, while Rice has the pretty batting average and RBI numbers. It's another classic case of the guy driving in the runs getting all the credit, and the guys setting him up getting none of the credit.

[ragecage]

Im kind of surprised how many of you guys feel that they both belong in the Hall. Seems like you guys are more competent to vote for HOFers than the actual people that vote.

[bethemooseman]

Im kind of surprised how many of you guys feel that they both belong in the Hall. Seems like you guys are more competent to vote for HOFers than the actual people that vote.

I second that.