|
Post by Brett on Feb 5, 2013 11:14:36 GMT -8
Does Bonds, Clemens, Piazza, Biggio, Bagwell, McGwire, Sosa, Rose, Shoeless Joe, etc. meet the above definition? 1.) Known or talked about by many people? Yes. 2.) Especially on account of notable achievements. Yes. IMO yes, they should be in. Interesting way of looking at it Mud... Do you feel the criteria should be based off of the definition above and nothing else? Again, if we are talking numbers only, all of the above should be first ballot. Hell, you could look at all players pre-1947 and say that the competition they played against was lesser, because it was. My whole point is the game has changed through the years based off of the era. Surgeries today have allowed players to come back from injury faster than ever before - in many cases, coming back in the first 100 years of baseball from injury was exponentially more difficult. Science advances, knowledge advances, and the competitive spirit drives players to do things to get any advantage they can. I think we can agree that many of these numbers would not have been put up without PED's, medical advances, and many other technologies. It is the era in which we live. That's what makes the debate so interesting IMO.
|
|
|
Post by mudvnine on Feb 5, 2013 12:03:16 GMT -8
Does Bonds, Clemens, Piazza, Biggio, Bagwell, McGwire, Sosa, Rose, Shoeless Joe, etc. meet the above definition? 1.) Known or talked about by many people? Yes. 2.) Especially on account of notable achievements. Yes. IMO yes, they should be in. Interesting way of looking at it Mud... Do you feel the criteria should be based off of the definition above and nothing else? Again, if we are talking numbers only, all of the above should be first ballot. Because of what you mention below, what else can base entry on? It doesn't matter what caused the numbers, it's a matter of the numbers being put up against others in the same time period (with the same advantages or disadvantages at the time) not being able to achieve the same numbers. Just because someone in the future may never hit 73 HRs in a single season, or even 600 in a career, doesn't mean that some one having a couple 50+ single year seasons and 500+ for a career shouldn't get into the HOF. If he's " known or talked about by many people, esp. on account of notable achievements" when PEDs are not as available, or medical marvels are greater than we see now....it shouldn't detract from what he's done in comparison to those he's playing with, who have the same factors available or not available to them. Nor should what was available to those mentioned above at the time of their playing careers be an automatic disqualification (even if only by the "morally righteous" voters) of recognition of their individual accomplishments.
|
|
|
Post by Brett on Feb 5, 2013 12:18:52 GMT -8
I think those are good points Mud...but for the time being, I think we all know that those in the HOF are held to a 'Higher' standard.
I believe the conversation will move forward once voters realize that there is hypocrisy in what they consider 'morally righteous' based off of who is already in the Hall.
Good or bad, this is an era...the Hall shouldn't ignore it nor embrace it, but they should recognize the best of that era, just as they have done for the eras in the past. Put an asterisk next to those who tested positive or who were linked...
The criteria needs to change...or 'evolve,' just as each era does.
|
|
|
Post by mudvnine on Feb 5, 2013 12:34:37 GMT -8
I think those are good points Mud...but for the time being, I think we all know that those in the HOF are held to a 'Higher' standard. I don't know that for sure..... How many already in were boozers, smokers, or womanizers? Are those the "Higher' standards" you speak of? Yes, I think you're kind of contradicting your first sentence above, unless I'm reading either one of them wrong....wouldn't be the first time. Or simply add a new wing of the "Hall of Infamous".....that way the "morally righteous" can shield their innocents of the corruptions that "those" type of inducted players are sure to cause. It's the "Hall of Fame" for Pete's sakes....what other criteria does one need than to use the definition of "fame" to put those most meeting it in?
|
|
|
Post by Brett on Feb 5, 2013 13:20:29 GMT -8
I think those are good points Mud...but for the time being, I think we all know that those in the HOF are held to a 'Higher' standard. I don't know that for sure..... How many already in were boozers, smokers, or womanizers? Are those the "Higher' standards" you speak of? Yes, I think you're kind of contradicting your first sentence above, unless I'm reading either one of them wrong....wouldn't be the first time. I made the first quote with the second in mind...writers act like they hold these votes for 'High' standards, yet you have some unsavory characters (and PED users) already in the Hall. Granted, the criteria for the Hall is currently: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.I think 'integrity' was thrown out when Cobb was voted in...
|
|
|
Post by mudvnine on Feb 5, 2013 14:36:09 GMT -8
I don't know that for sure..... How many already in were boozers, smokers, or womanizers? Are those the "Higher' standards" you speak of? Yes, I think you're kind of contradicting your first sentence above, unless I'm reading either one of them wrong....wouldn't be the first time. I made the first quote with the second in mind...writers act like they hold these votes for 'High' standards, yet you have some unsavory characters (and PED users) already in the Hall. Granted, the criteria for the Hall is currently: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.I think 'integrity' was thrown out when Cobb was voted in... What about Cobb do you find to question his integrity? From what little I know about him, I might say his "sportsmanship" could fall into question, but his integrity?
|
|
|
Post by Brett on Feb 5, 2013 16:11:28 GMT -8
What about Cobb do you find to question his integrity? From what little I know about him, I might say his "sportsmanship" could fall into question, but his integrity? Sportsmanship, integrity, character...neither here nor there...just pointing out the hypocrisy in the voters. The voters want to act like they vote while taking all of these things into account, but they don't. Now they are taking the steroid era and making an example out of all players.
|
|
|
Post by mudvnine on Feb 5, 2013 17:38:18 GMT -8
What about Cobb do you find to question his integrity? From what little I know about him, I might say his "sportsmanship" could fall into question, but his integrity? Sportsmanship, integrity, character...neither here nor there...just pointing out the hypocrisy in the voters. The voters want to act like they vote while taking all of these things into account, but they don't. Now they are taking the steroid era and making an example out of all players. Gotcha, fair enough....but we have to remember that just as they're different players past and present, so are the voters. As is our overly politically correct society so much different than just a couple of dozen years ago..... Think a HS coach wouldn't put a disabled athlete on his team if the student could out perform any of those kids going out for a particular sport? I don't, but now we have to legislate it.....then again, that's probably for a different thread.
|
|
|
Post by swingbuilder on Feb 6, 2013 6:50:48 GMT -8
Just like Pete rose was made an example. Hell, half the voters bet on baseball.
If Rose and Joe don't get in neither then should those tested positive for PED's.
Which was my original post.
|
|
|
Post by mudvnine on Feb 6, 2013 7:56:06 GMT -8
Just like Pete rose was made an example. Hell, half the voters bet on baseball. If Rose and Joe don't get in neither then should those tested positive for PED's. Which was my original post. Sadly Pete is not in, as he is one of my all-time favorite players....loved the "Charlie Hustle" in him. Played the game for what appeared to be the love of it, and not simply for the money as so many seem to then and now. Personally, I could care less if a guy bets sports, even on his sport....even his own team, but it better be for them to win. Heck, sometimes I wish they all had money at risk on a game....maybe it'd make them "hustle" like "Charlie". Never saw Joe play, but from his numbers and "fame", would certainly think he should be in there also.
|
|
|
Post by swingbuilder on Feb 6, 2013 9:39:24 GMT -8
Good points Mud.
Pete should be in BUT he took Greenies. Wonder if it enhanced his ability to hit ball far and harder. LOL
Im not sure there are many like Musical, Aaron, Gwynn who had character and morals. Maybe a HOF of 3 would be best. As Im sure there are a "few" more Moral players with Integrity and Character to match the 3 above.
Anyway...seems the standard was set way back on Shoeless Joe. If your caught you don't get in. Then it was the same for Pete. So to should it be the same for the guys who tested positive for PED's. They got caught so they don't get in. Unless of course they want to "re"evaluate and put Rose and Joe where they rightfully belong based on all the other characters that line the halls.
|
|
|
Post by mudvnine on Feb 6, 2013 10:26:00 GMT -8
Good points Mud. Pete should be in BUT he took Greenies. Wonder if it enhanced his ability to hit ball far and harder. LOL Im not sure there are many like Musical, Aaron, Gwynn who had character and morals. Maybe a HOF of 3 would be best. As Im sure there are a "few" more Moral players with Integrity and Character to match the 3 above. Anyway...seems the standard was set way back on Shoeless Joe. If your caught you don't get in. Then it was the same for Pete. So to should it be the same for the guys who tested positive for PED's. They got caught so they don't get in. Unless of course they want to "re"evaluate and put Rose and Joe where they rightfully belong based on all the other characters that line the halls. Couldn't agree more.....
|
|
|
Post by Brett on Feb 6, 2013 11:10:48 GMT -8
Just like Pete rose was made an example. Hell, half the voters bet on baseball. If Rose and Joe don't get in neither then should those tested positive for PED's. Which was my original post. I am in agreement that this is the way things are voted on now, but how would you vote on it? What do you think should define who gets in and who doesn't?
|
|
|
Post by Brett on Feb 6, 2013 11:12:21 GMT -8
Pete should be in BUT he took Greenies. Wonder if it enhanced his ability to hit ball far and harder. LOL Ignorance is bliss, isn't it SB?
|
|
|
Post by swingbuilder on Feb 6, 2013 20:41:18 GMT -8
I told you how I'd vote. No PED's that tested positive. EVER.
I have no problem with the standards listed on paper.But in reality the standards are all statistical. Like you said on Biggio, 3000 hits. He goes in. Thats the standard. So put them in. I don't agree with ONLY a statistical standard but thats how its voted. To Bad.
Yes, very blissful. Considering I've talked to 50 or so ex players from the 60's-70's who talked about Greenies and how and why they used them.
Hell, whatya gonna do with the salt pill.
Gatorade gum.
What the players said Greenies did for them and what your internet definition of Greenies are do not match up. But lets be blissful and just leave it at that.
|
|