Jump to content

Baseball Hall of Fame Ballot 2007


gueman

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 89
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Rice deserves to be in, but he probably will never get to be in because he wasn't friendly with the media. It's really a shame....

Sounds like another guy that deserves to be in but won't because the media wasn't enamored with him. (hint: check my sig ;))

"In the arena of logic, I fight unarmed."

I tweet & tumble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lee Smith seems like he should go in...he did have the most saves all-time until Hoffman broke the ecord this season.

I think Saberhagen, Mattingly, Hershiser, and Garvey have outside shots, some better than others. I'd like to see Wally Joyner get in, but that's just me being an Angels fan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rice deserves to be in, but he probably will never get to be in because he wasn't friendly with the media. It's really a shame....

Sounds like another guy that deserves to be in but won't because the media wasn't enamored with him. (hint: check my sig ;))

Exactly. That's why the media SHOULD NOT vote who gets into the Hall. They should be voted in by current Hall-of-Famers.

On 4/10/2017 at 3:05 PM, Rollins Man said:

what the hell is ccslc?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rice deserves to be in, but he probably will never get to be in because he wasn't friendly with the media. It's really a shame....

Sounds like another guy that deserves to be in but won't because the media wasn't enamored with him. (hint: check my sig ;))

Exactly. That's why the media SHOULD NOT vote who gets into the Hall. They should be voted in by current Hall-of-Famers.

This already exists. Its called the Veterans Committee. Its all the living hall-of-famers, plus all the frick (announcer) award winners, plus spink winners (writters).

After playing 10 years of baseball, and you haven't played in 20, if you get 75% of the vote your in.

Regular voting is 10 years of service/5 years out/ 75% of the vote. You can't be elected by the writers after being out of baseball for 20 years, that's when it shifts to the Veterans Committee. There is no limit on the Veterans Committee. They could put Shoeless Joe in next time they vote (Every 2 years) if he was taken off the inactive list. Same with Pete Rose.

The writers must cover baseball for 10 years to be eligible to vote. There are 500+ voters. I'd think them covering baseball as their jobs for 10 years certainly gives them enough knowledge of the game to make one of the nearly 400 votes it takes to get someone into the hall of fame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve Garvey should get in because he had a consective games streak before Ripken's was making headlines. As far as Big Mac goes, he won't get in, not because of steroids, but of two other factors:

1. 583 Homers

2. He retired WAY TOO EARLY!!!!

Had McGwire played after 2001, he would have had at least 700-750 HRs, if not broke Aaron's record before

Bonds.

So much for baseball's last great white hope....... :(

BRING BASEBALL BACK TO MONTREAL!!!!

MON AMOURS SIEMPRE!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the McGwire issue, I think that hitting 500+ homers in your career definitely makes you Hall of Fame worthy. The irony of his early retirement is that it was brought about my his steroid (andro) use. He got too big and his joints (knee specifically) gave out. That's the cruel irony of steroids, they can boost performance (Bonds' 73 HRs) but they shorten career lengths (Bonds being on the DL all the time).

pcgd, you bring up a good point about the veteran's committee. If Maris would get in he would get in that way. How many HoFers have been elected via the Veteran's Committee? I think the baseball writers have enough authority to vote on Hall of Fame inductees, but that works against players like Maris or Rice because they didn't curry much favor with the writers.

"In the arena of logic, I fight unarmed."

I tweet & tumble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the McGwire issue, I think that hitting 500+ homers in your career definitely makes you Hall of Fame worthy. The irony of his early retirement is that it was brought about my his steroid (andro) use. He got too big and his joints (knee specifically) gave out. That's the cruel irony of steroids, they can boost performance (Bonds' 73 HRs) but they shorten career lengths (Bonds being on the DL all the time).

pcgd, you bring up a good point about the veteran's committee. If Maris would get in he would get in that way. How many HoFers have been elected via the Veteran's Committee? I think the baseball writers have enough authority to vote on Hall of Fame inductees, but that works against players like Maris or Rice because they didn't curry much favor with the writers.

I certainly understand that arguement, but how many out of the 500plus writers that include writers actually ever interacted with Rice or Maris? I understand that the writers are a fraternity that sticks together (maybe) but I still think a vast majority never interacted with them, even if they were working during their careers.

Both have been out of baseball for some time, so I imagine they are beyond the 20 year mark anyway.

Am I missing something outside of 61 that makes maris hall worthy? He's got 275 career home runs, 851 RBI, and a career .260 hitter. I'm not saying his Jersey, or Bat, or something from the 61 season shouldn't be in or some recognition of his achievements, but is this really hall worthy? I can be convinced otherwise if someone wants to step up.

Jim Rice is as iffy as he's made out to be. He was an excellent player. .298/380hr/1400rbi (approx numbers) but again, hall worthy? He's more than marris, but I think keeping him on the edge is the right call.

Edit myself:

I just checked out your site there epiphanic. Interesting stats when put together. I'm still on the fence about maris but that opened my eyes a bit. Although I think you can find certain stats to justify just about anyone that played over 10 years for the hall of fame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I could vote there in Cooperstown, they are my choices:

Jay Buhner, Andre Dawson, Tony Gwynn, Jim Rice and Cal Ripken Jr.

To McGwire I wouldn't give him my vote. If I must vote him, so I'll vote Barry Bonds and Rafael Palmeiro someday.

pennants.png


It's great to be young and a Giant! - Larry Doyle

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rice deserves to be in, but he probably will never get to be in because he wasn't friendly with the media. It's really a shame....

Sounds like another guy that deserves to be in but won't because the media wasn't enamored with him. (hint: check my sig ;))

Exactly. That's why the media SHOULD NOT vote who gets into the Hall. They should be voted in by current Hall-of-Famers.

This already exists. Its called the Veterans Committee. Its all the living hall-of-famers, plus all the frick (announcer) award winners, plus spink winners (writters).

After playing 10 years of baseball, and you haven't played in 20, if you get 75% of the vote your in.

Regular voting is 10 years of service/5 years out/ 75% of the vote. You can't be elected by the writers after being out of baseball for 20 years, that's when it shifts to the Veterans Committee. There is no limit on the Veterans Committee. They could put Shoeless Joe in next time they vote (Every 2 years) if he was taken off the inactive list. Same with Pete Rose.

The writers must cover baseball for 10 years to be eligible to vote. There are 500+ voters. I'd think them covering baseball as their jobs for 10 years certainly gives them enough knowledge of the game to make one of the nearly 400 votes it takes to get someone into the hall of fame.

Yeah, but I think covering the MLB as a reporter and actually playing in the MLB and against these guys should be the deciding factor on whether or not you get to vote someone into the Hall.

On 4/10/2017 at 3:05 PM, Rollins Man said:

what the hell is ccslc?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My thoughts on McGwire.

I'd vote him in. Nothings been proven. We know he used andro, but that was legal. He never tested positive, never admitted, and was never revealed by any really reliable source. He might have done it, but it's all speculation.

Regardless of it, is he hall of fame worthy anyways, or does cheating automatically make you not hall worthy? To me, cheating as a character flaw shouldn't stop you from being in the hall. Gaylord Perry jokes about all the ways he cheated to pitch. He's a hall of famer anyways though, because he was that good. I think it should be the same with Barry Bonds. There's lots and lots of evidence against him, but no proof, but even if they find proof (he'll probably never test positive, but other things can prove it), look at his first 10 years, look just how dominant he was even while he might have been on steroids. He's a jerk and possibly a cheater, but he's a hall of famer.

So I don't think cheating should knock you out of the hall of fame because it's a character flaw. If the only reason you got hall of fam numbers was because you cheated, that's another story. But even if something more legit came out against Mac, he very probably deserves in anyways. He hit 49 home runs as a rookie. He was bound to be a legendary power hitter. And he fulfilled that.

I think he deserves in. Mere speculation should not stop him from getting in.

And for those who want to make an example or won't allow someone the "honor" of going in on the first ballot. That's the dumbest honor in the world to me. Players credentials don't get better after another year of retirement. Either they deserve in or they don't. Getting in on the first ballot shouldn't be an honor--getting in is the honor. Voting someone in on the second ballot or after just is an admittace of an error the first time a player was eligible, except that now we know writers intentionally make this "error". Seriously, it's some of the worst logic I've ever heard.

So with all that in mind, there is only one reason not to put Mac in the Hall this time around that won't completely infuriate me. That reason is because they want more time to see how much he (and maybe his competiton) was involved with steriods. I think he's a HOFer even if he took them, but if he did, it becomes more debatable. Keeping him out because of speculation is stupid, but if they're keeping him out temporarily to see if that speculation has any merit, well, that's a little different.

That said, none of the voters that I've seen quoted have held that line of thinking. To them he's either a hall of famer period, or they just decide he cheated so they won't let him in. None that I read were hoping to find out more information.

So I'd put him in no matter what.

I think he was clean (in regards to illegal supplements). The voters and fans don't know for sure.

People shouldn't keep him out because they assume he cheated.

If people are waiting to see whether he cheated, that becomes more understandable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canseco has proven to be quite a reliable source.

semperfi.gif

"It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the

press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of

speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who has given us

the freedom to demonstrate. And it is the soldier who salutes the

flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, and

who allows the protester to burn the flag."

Marine Chaplain Dennis Edward O' Brien

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canseco has proven to be quite a reliable source.

Because of Palmeiro?

I don't think getting one guy (who seems like he'll take it to his death bad that he has no idea how steroids got into his body) to test positive out of a bunch of accusations really makes a guy with that many things against him reliable.

In front of a jury you'd need a lot more than him to prove something because he just doesn't have that much credibility.

As I've said before. His accusation along with a couple of other things might call for further investigation. It in now way calls for a guilty conclusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMHO, you would do your argument much more service by stopping with the "nothing has been proven" defence.

Outside of you everyone else in the world thinks Bonds and McGwire did steroids, just like everyone believes OJ did it. At least OJ can say he was proven not guilty.

Go with the "OK he did them, but they weren't illegal at the time" line. Which by the way, is my stance. I believe 50-80% of the players during the 96-04 time period did them to some degree or the other, so the playing field was equal for all.

I too think he should get in and if you keep him out you have to keep all the players from that era out. You can't just single the 3 or 4 best and give the others a pass.

semperfi.gif

"It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the

press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of

speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who has given us

the freedom to demonstrate. And it is the soldier who salutes the

flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, and

who allows the protester to burn the flag."

Marine Chaplain Dennis Edward O' Brien

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the McGwire issue, I think that hitting 500+ homers in your career definitely makes you Hall of Fame worthy. The irony of his early retirement is that it was brought about my his steroid (andro) use.

Now I could be wrong, but wasnt the use of andro not only legal, but widely known and accepted as well when McGwire was using it?

spacer.png

On 11/19/2012 at 7:23 PM, oldschoolvikings said:
She’s still half convinced “Chris Creamer” is a porn site.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMHO, you would do your argument much more service by stopping with the "nothing has been proven" defence.

Outside of you everyone else in the world thinks Bonds and McGwire did steroids, just like everyone believes OJ did it. At least OJ can say he was proven not guilty.

Go with the "OK he did them, but they weren't illegal at the time" line. Which by the way, is my stance. I believe 50-80% of the players during the 96-04 time period did them to some degree or the other, so the playing field was equal for all.

I too think he should get in and if you keep him out you have to keep all the players from that era out. You can't just single the 3 or 4 best and give the others a pass.

Pretty sure that's factually incorrect though, Joe. It wasn't written in with testing and setup punishments, but I believe anabolic steroids had been officially banned via official memo around 1991.

If they weren't illegal then there shouldn't even be a contreversy. But I'm pretty sure they were.

Also, he really hasn't been proven guilty, and there's a good chunk who understand that. If everyone else in the world believes for a fact he did it, then I guess everyone else is really pretty stupid to jump to such quick conclusions.

Those quick, unproven conclusions should not keep him out of the hall of fame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.