Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is this years Hall of fame class a Black eye on HOF

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Is this years Hall of fame class a Black eye on HOF

    In a sense the Hall of fame is supposed to be about memories.

    People get nostalgic for players and a different time

    This years hall of fame class includes a person very few people ever heard of except the hard core Sabrists and nobody saw him play

    An Umpire who also is not a house hold name and likely very few ever heard of him either (MAYBE in regards to the Merkle Boner)

    And Ruppert who most proably never heard of but if you tell people he bought Babe Ruth you will get an AHA.

    But no players even a hardcore fan ever saw play

    Is this a black mark on the Hall of Fame

  • #2
    Obviously not. They denied entrance to both Clemens and Bonds. This years BBWAA showed that if a commissioner, if owners and if players can't control their selves, that at least the writer's don't have to sanction it. It's the wall of silence and the collusion of cheating coming crashing down officially.

    Had 30% of the voters not wasted their votes on 2 players that could not get elected, then Biggio, Bagwell, and Piazza would be in. Next year, maybe the minority of writer's will get it right.

    Black eye? For what? For being correct?
    "It's better to look good, than be good."

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by drstrangelove View Post
      Obviously not. They denied entrance to both Clemens and Bonds. This years BBWAA showed that if a commissioner, if owners and if players can't control their selves, that at least the writer's don't have to sanction it. It's the wall of silence and the collusion of cheating coming crashing down officially.

      Had 30% of the voters not wasted their votes on 2 players that could not get elected, then Biggio, Bagwell, and Piazza would be in. Next year, maybe the minority of writer's will get it right.

      Black eye? For what? For being correct?
      Wisdom, especially the bolded part.

      This has happened as recently as 1996 and (as angry as I was about Niekro being snubbed) the sun still rose the next day. Six of the top eight finishers were eventually elected.
      3 6 10 21 29 31 35 41 42 44 47

      Comment


      • #4
        I think it's a black eye on the BBWAA. The players know who the best players in the game were. The fans know who the best players in the game were. It's too bad the BBWAA have no clue - some even turning in blank ballots. I think eventually 10 or 12 of the players on this years ballot will get in the HOF.

        Comment


        • #5
          It's a response to the black eye baseball gave itself. What went on and goes on can't just be ignored. What happened with this year's class is not a black eye. What happens next is most telling. Does the era continue to get recognized for what it was or will it all be swept under the rug after a year? All cheaters at this level should be treated accordingly.
          Dave Bill Tom George Mark Bob Ernie Soupy Dick Alex Sparky
          Joe Gary MCA Emanuel Sonny Dave Earl Stan
          Jonathan Neil Roger Anthony Ray Thomas Art Don
          Gates Philip John Warrior Rik Casey Tony Horace
          Robin Bill Ernie JEDI

          Comment


          • #6
            At this point, I don't think it's a black mark, as there is sentiment about first ballot guys. If the exclusion of guys who don't have any more evidence against them than Bagwell or Piazza do at this point continues, I'd say that would rate as a black mark. Excluding known roiders, while I have reservations for guys who demonstrated they were HOFers before there's any evidence they juiced, is defensible because PED usage is contrary to the idea of sport as contests between human beings (it warps it toward who has the better pharmacist).

            I have trouble seeing the "no roiders at any cost" stance staying in force. Every guy we do elect from the 1990's (and probably later) is a risk of electing a juicer--yet I can't see fans standing for excluding everyone from the era. I think we've got to accept it's inevitable some juicers will be elected at some point. Now whether we should elect known juicers, especially those who may have risen to the heights required by the Hall through pharmaceutical help, is another debate. My personal preference is only to exclude known juicers who didn't demonstrate they were HOFers without the juice. I'm OK with excluding Palmeiro, McGwire and Sosa, for example. In any event, excluding known juicers or known juicers who rose to HOF heights due to juice may be a sustainable stance. But I believe excluding guys on mere suspicion will only serve to discredit the anti-roid position in the long run.
            Seen on a bumper sticker: If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
            Some minds are like concrete--thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
            A Lincoln: I don't think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday.

            Comment


            • #7
              Most of the players everybody is upset about will eventually get in - so this isn't as tragic as some are making it out to be. The deserving guys that were way down the list, like Trammel and Edgar and Walker, wouldn't have been close in a normal year either.

              Now if we go 4-5 years and only Maddux, Griffey, and Unit getting elected...then we will have an issue.
              1885 1886 1926 1931 1934 1942 1944 1946 1964 1967 1982 2006 2011

              1887 1888 1928 1930 1943 1968 1985 1987 2004 2013

              1996 2000 2001 2002 2005 2009 2012 2014 2015


              The Top 100 Pitchers In MLB History
              The Top 100 Position Players In MLB History

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Matthew C. View Post
                Most of the players everybody is upset about will eventually get in - so this isn't as tragic as some are making it out to be. The deserving guys that were way down the list, like Trammel and Edgar and Walker, wouldn't have been close in a normal year either.

                Now if we go 4-5 years and only Maddux, Griffey, and Unit getting elected...then we will have an issue.
                I found that Gil Hodges is the only player in history who has at any point received 50% of the vote and not eventually made it to Cooperstwon. Morris will likely just be the second...barely. So anybody 50% or higher is close to a sure thing.
                1885 1886 1926 1931 1934 1942 1944 1946 1964 1967 1982 2006 2011

                1887 1888 1928 1930 1943 1968 1985 1987 2004 2013

                1996 2000 2001 2002 2005 2009 2012 2014 2015


                The Top 100 Pitchers In MLB History
                The Top 100 Position Players In MLB History

                Comment


                • #9
                  Lee Smith may join that dubious distinction

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by jalbright View Post
                    In any event, excluding known juicers or known juicers who rose to HOF heights due to juice may be a sustainable stance. But I believe excluding guys on mere suspicion will only serve to discredit the anti-roid position in the long run.
                    That's true and I think both parts of it (excluding those with proof or strong circumstantial evidence against them while giving a pass to those who don't) will end up as the consensus.

                    Barring a revelation of credible evidence of their PED use, Piazza and Bagwell will make it in. All in all, I'm pretty much okay with that and I think most people will be. I just don't want to be asked to ignore evidence that's right in front of my nose.
                    3 6 10 21 29 31 35 41 42 44 47

                    Comment

                    Ad Widget

                    Collapse
                    Working...
                    X