• For users coming over from tmlfans.ca your username will remain the same but you will need to use the password reset feature (check your spam folder) on the login page in order to set your password. If you encounter issues, email Rick couchmanrick@gmail.com

Nobody elected to Baseball HOF

Nik Pollock said:
Justin said:
So you don't agree that in all likelihood there are players in the hall who have taken steroids?

I don't think there's evidence either way and, absent that evidence, I'm not going to base any positions off of conjecture.

Justin said:
Anyways, all I'm saying is Bonds and Clemens et al shouldn't be penalized for doing something that a) everyone was doing and b) not illegal in baseball at the time. They did take steroids, but they still played better than all the other players on steroids. They were the best of the pack which regardless included juicers and clean players.

Well, a) not everyone was using steroids and b) if they were the best of a pack that included clean players that seems to validate my a).
If there was evidence of HOF players we don't know about taking steroids it would add much more credibility to my argument. I get that. Still, it would be foolish to deny that in all likelihood there are cheaters in the hall.

I simply take the position that Bonds and Clemens are still two of the greatest players of their generation regardless of their steroid use (which was not illegal at the time). It's also not like steroids were frowned upon and seen as morally wrong and cheating at the time. Steroids were encouraged from the top down, by executives, coaches, trainers, and players. Many players were using steroids, and Bonds and Clemens were the best of their time. Steroids don't erase their accomplishments, and although they're both dicks and liars, they were great players. They belong.
 
Justin said:
If there was evidence of HOF players we don't know about taking steroids it would add much more credibility to my argument. I get that. Still, it would be foolish to deny that in all likelihood there are cheaters in the hall.

No, it's prudent. You're not offering any circumstantial evidence either other than there are guys in the hall who played during a time when some players used steroids so maybe some of them did too. It's nothing other than guilt by association where the association is broad enough to include all ball players everywhere. None of the guys who are in the hall are even suspected of having used steroids by anyone seriously and the reason we know that is that guys who are seriously suspected without proof, like Jeff Bagwell, aren't going in. 

Justin said:
I simply take the position that Bonds and Clemens are still two of the greatest players of their generation regardless of their steroid use (which was not illegal at the time).

Um, yes it was. Steroid use for recreational purposes was and is illegal. You're confusing baseball's rules with the law. I don't think Baseball's rules need to specify that players aren't allowed to break the law.

Justin said:
Steroids were encouraged from the top down, by executives, coaches, trainers, and players.

This is more unfounded conjecture. There may be some people who turned a blind eye but there's nothing to suggest it was encouraged by management.
 
Nik Pollock said:
Justin said:
If there was evidence of HOF players we don't know about taking steroids it would add much more credibility to my argument. I get that. Still, it would be foolish to deny that in all likelihood there are cheaters in the hall.

No, it's prudent. You're not offering any circumstantial evidence either other than there are guys in the hall who played during a time when some players used steroids so maybe some of them did too. It's nothing other than guilt by association where the association is broad enough to include all ball players everywhere. None of the guys who are in the hall are even suspected of having used steroids by anyone seriously and the reason we know that is that guys who are seriously suspected without proof, like Jeff Bagwell, aren't going in. 

Justin said:
I simply take the position that Bonds and Clemens are still two of the greatest players of their generation regardless of their steroid use (which was not illegal at the time).

Um, yes it was. Steroid use for recreational purposes was and is illegal. You're confusing baseball's rules with the law. I don't think Baseball's rules need to specify that players aren't allowed to break the law.

Justin said:
Steroids were encouraged from the top down, by executives, coaches, trainers, and players.

This is more unfounded conjecture. There may be some people who turned a blind eye but there's nothing to suggest it was encouraged by management.
You're deconstructing little points here. The big picture is I don't think steroids should deter players from the hall of fame and you do. It's an endless debate where no person is right or wrong. I'm simply of the belief that in an era where many were juicing there's nothing wrong with inducting known juicers who were the best from that era.
 
Justin said:
You're deconstructing little points here.

That most of what you are saying in defense of your position is untrue is not a little point.

Justin said:
The big picture is I don't think steroids should deter players from the hall of fame and you do.

Where did I say that? I think the steroid debate is an ongoing and unsettled one. I just think that regardless of where you fall on the matter your arguments have to stand up to scrutiny and "Some guys in the Hall of Fame might have done steroids" doesn't do that.
 
Was listening to Prime Time Sports yesterday and, apparently, five sportswriters sent in blank ballots.  I think guys like Biggio and Trammal were caught in the crossfire of the ongoing steroid debate.  Biggio will almost certainly make it in, and I guess it's debatable whetehr he was a first-ballot HOF'r anyway.

 
Champ Kind said:
Was listening to Prime Time Sports yesterday and, apparently, five sportswriters sent in blank ballots.  I think guys like Biggio and Trammal were caught in the crossfire of the ongoing steroid debate.  Biggio will almost certainly make it in, and I guess it's debatable whetehr he was a first-ballot HOF'r anyway.

It's really not. There's no such thing as a first ballot hall of famer. You're either in the hall of fame or you're not. The idea that the honor of going in on your first year is greater than other HOF'ers or reserved for a particular type of player has no basis in reality.
 
Nik Pollock said:
Champ Kind said:
Was listening to Prime Time Sports yesterday and, apparently, five sportswriters sent in blank ballots.  I think guys like Biggio and Trammal were caught in the crossfire of the ongoing steroid debate.  Biggio will almost certainly make it in, and I guess it's debatable whetehr he was a first-ballot HOF'r anyway.

It's really not. There's no such thing as a first ballot hall of famer. You're either in the hall of fame or you're not. The idea that the honor of going in on your first year is greater than other HOF'ers or reserved for a particular type of player has no basis in reality.

Nik, respectfully I don't think that's quite true.  I think there is a intangible honor that's associated with finishing'top of the class', if you will.  Getting into the Hall of Fame in your first year of eligibility does mean something, and whether it's formal or not there is some pecking order associated with that.
 
http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/First_Ballot_Hall_of_Famer

A First Ballot Hall of Famer is a player who is elected to the Hall of Fame on their first ballot. The term has become known as a way to symbolize certain Hall of Famers and active players as above the rest.
 
Champ Kind said:
Nik, respectfully I don't think that's quite true.  I think there is a intangible honor that's associated with finishing'top of the class', if you will.  Getting into the Hall of Fame in your first year of eligibility does mean something, and whether it's formal or not there is some pecking order associated with that.

Yogi Berra didn't get elected in his first year of eligibility. Hell, neither did Cy Young of all people. On the flip side, guys like Robin Yount and Ozzie Smith did. Regardless, at the end of the day they all get the same plaque in the Museum.

But that's a little beside the point. I'm fine with the idea that someone getting into the Hall of Fame on the first ballot can be taken as a point of pride. What I object to is the idea that it then becomes exclusionary, where a clearly qualified candidate for the Hall of Fame, which has selection criteria even if they are vague, is denied on the basis that they don't meet the non-existent criteria for an invented standard.

If you finish top of the class, you get to be valedictorian. They don't compare you against previous valedictorians and decide whether or not you're worthy of the honor.
 
Champ Kind said:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/First_Ballot_Hall_of_Famer

A First Ballot Hall of Famer is a player who is elected to the Hall of Fame on their first ballot. The term has become known as a way to symbolize certain Hall of Famers and active players as above the rest.

Alright, but that very list points out that there are many players not on the list better than guys who are. Cy Young isn't on the list, Jim Palmer is. Joe Dimaggio isn't, Kirby Puckett is. Tris Speaker, lifetime .345 hitter(ranking sixth all time) with 3500 hits(fifth), all time MLB leader in doubles and a career WAR of 127.8 that has him as the 6th best position player of all-time, isn't one while Lou Brock, lifetime .293 hitter, career WAR of 42.8 having him as the 224th most valuable position player, is.

It's just not real.
 
Nik Pollock said:
Champ Kind said:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/First_Ballot_Hall_of_Famer

A First Ballot Hall of Famer is a player who is elected to the Hall of Fame on their first ballot. The term has become known as a way to symbolize certain Hall of Famers and active players as above the rest.

Alright, but that very list points out that there are many players not on the list better than guys who are. Cy Young isn't on the list, Jim Palmer is. Joe Dimaggio isn't, Kirby Puckett is. Tris Speaker, lifetime .345 hitter(ranking sixth all time) with 3500 hits(fifth), all time MLB leader in doubles and a career WAR of 127.8 that has him as the 6th best position player of all-time, isn't one while Lou Brock, lifetime .293 hitter, career WAR of 42.8 having him as the 224th most valuable position player, is.

It's just not real.

I know what you're saying, but I think it's fair to question your definitiuon of "real" in this instance.  First Ballot is something that is talked about, has some sort of perceived relevance or meaning, and, I would argue, had some impact on the way some baseball writers voted recently.  I would instead say that the notion of "First Ballot" is real, but that it's relevance or importance at the end of the day is debatable.

Also, other references on the matter indicate that the idea of "First Ballot" carrying greater weight didn't start until the 1980's, which is why Cy Young wasn't on the first ballot and someone like Kirby Puckett or Ozzie Smith was.
 
Champ Kind said:
I know what you're saying, but I think it's fair to question your definitiuon of "real" in this instance.  First Ballot is something that is talked about, has some sort of perceived relevance or meaning, and, I would argue, had some impact on the way some baseball writers voted recently.  I would instead say that the notion of "First Ballot" is real, but that it's relevance or importance at the end of the day is debatable.

Let's use Robbie Alomar as an example for a second. On Roberto Alomar's first appearance on the ballot he got 73.7 percent of the vote. The next year, when he was elected, he got 90.0% of the vote. Even if you want to attribute the entire difference there to a belief that your vote should be impacted by what year on the ballot someone is and the resulting difference in honor then it's 16.3% of the vote so it's a very, very limited minority that believe it is something that carries weight. By ascribing real weight to the idea that there's a real meaning to it you're disregarding the 68+ percent of people who think Biggio should have gone in and giving enormous weight to that small minority.

In order to have a debate about whether or not someone is "worthy" of first ballot induction you have to first establish that such a thing has a certain standard. Brock, again, made it. Alomar, who had a significantly more valuable career, didn't. There is no consistent standard being applied and there are no defined criteria. That, to me, doesn't register it as being "real" or worthy of debate.

That the HOF vote has been hijacked by idiots who do things like that, or who don't vote for guys like Cal Ripken or Nolan Ryan just so they don't get 100 percent of the vote does not lend it credence.

Champ Kind said:
Also, other references on the matter indicate that the idea of "First Ballot" carrying greater weight didn't start until the 1980's, which is why Cy Young wasn't on the first ballot and someone like Kirby Puckett or Ozzie Smith was.

But that's basically my point. It's something that has been only recently decided, has no criteria or appreciable standard, and bears no relationship to the actual honor.
 
Steve Simmons said on TSN 1050 yesterday that he didn't vote for Biggio this year because he didn't feel he was a 'first ballot hall of famer'.

He also said he would probably vote for him in subsequent years because he does believe Biggio should be in the hall of fame.

So obviously there is some bias toward first ballot HOF status.

My opinion: Simmons is an idiot and anyone else who shares that view point on first ballot HOF status. If you're good enough to be in the hall you should get the vote. You're either in or you're not. 

I also want to point out that Simmons only voted 6 out of a possible 10 players for the HOF. It wasn't that there were too many players more deserving (in his mind) than Biggio which is why he didn't vote for him.
 
Back
Top