6 new members of the Hall of Fame

[sveumrules]

That "steroids" are even an issue is pretty much a joke when the Commish who presided over the whole ordeal is already enshrined.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

If PED’s mean you are out, then Bonds, Clemens, and Ortiz are out. If PED’s are ok, then Bonds and Clemens are first ballot and Ortiz is still borderline in at best. Ortiz being a first ballot while two vastly better players are out, when all three did the same thing, is ridiculous. In fact, there is more concrete evidence of Ortiz (failed test) using than the two better players left out. Ortiz is a first ballot Hall of Media Favorites inductee.

Clemens never failed a test, his name was not on the affidavit for the Grimsley search warrant, and was acquitted of all charges of lying to Congress. And pretty much everyone who has accused Clemens of doing PEDs is a questionable character at best - every mention of Clemens in the Mitchell report was from McNamee.

 

Don't get me wrong, Clemens is a prick, but he hasn't failed a test nor has he been found guilty of lying.

 

Same is true of Barry Bonds. The media made him the poster child for steroids without acknowledging or understanding the quality of actual evidence against him. (I personally think he probably was using something, but to what extent is not clear. The mere fact that he bulked up as he got older and made a deliberate choice to change his physique is such nonsense "evidence.")

 

The normal human body typically cannot go from what he looked like in 1996 to what he looked like in 1998 without external chemical help. Yes, you can hit the weights, but they don't make your head larger. Bonds went from looking like Willie Mays to looking like Shrek in less than two seasons.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Bonds used roids, lol, c'mon.

 

What's particularly sad about his case is that he was going to be remembered as a Top 5 player of all-time without ever touching them. You could already argue he was the best ever before them.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Bonds used roids, lol, c'mon.

 

What's particularly sad about his case is that he was going to be remembered as a Top 5 player of all-time without ever touching them. You could already argue he was the best ever before them.

 

His ego couldn't handle the notoriety that McGwire and Sosa got.

[TURBO]

I'm actually pretty shocked that anyone is defending Bonds to be honest.

 

Grade A douchebag who cheated his ass off. Doesn't belong in the hall, but everyone has opinions.

 

I'm glad he was denied once again, and hope it stays that way.

[homer]

Bonds used roids, lol, c'mon.

 

What's particularly sad about his case is that he was going to be remembered as a Top 5 player of all-time without ever touching them. You could already argue he was the best ever before them.

 

Yep. Just exclude all his "Steroid" years and he's still a lock.

[TURBO]

You could argue that Pete Rose was a lock as well before he gambled on his team...

 

If Bonds gets in, Rose deserves it as well imo.

[homer]

You could argue that Pete Rose was a lock as well before he gambled on his team...

 

If Bonds gets in, Rose deserves it as well imo.

 

No argument here.

[tmwiese55]

I'm actually pretty shocked that anyone is defending Bonds to be honest.

 

Grade A douchebag who cheated his ass off. Doesn't belong in the hall, but everyone has opinions.

 

I'm glad he was denied once again, and hope it stays that way.

 

Then you can't have other guys in either. Essentially they're saying it's better to be like the 5-10th best player in the league while doing your roids, so you fly under the radar with them. But if you're far and away the best player it puts more spotlight on you so you're out. It's akin to everyone freaking out/booing/heckling Braun while cheering for guys on their own team who were in the same scandal, Braun being the MVP just got more attention/headlines/news.

 

Guys like Pudge and Ortiz can't be in, plus countless other cheats who are in (not just ped guys), but then say Bonds can't be.

 

For Rose, wasn't him not being eligible part of the deal he made to avoid prosecution or some kind of larger penalty for it? Could be fuzzy on my memory but I had it in my head that I thought it was disingenuous to always be whining about this when he agreed to it.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Bonds used roids, lol, c'mon.

 

What's particularly sad about his case is that he was going to be remembered as a Top 5 player of all-time without ever touching them. You could already argue he was the best ever before them.

 

His ego couldn't handle the notoriety that McGwire and Sosa got.

 

I don't know even know if it was so much the notoriety; just the fact that he knew they were cheating and weren't a whole lot better than he was. If he cheated, he knew he'd be a monster. And yeah, he was. He was also pretty old and falling apart by then too. He would have been even more ridiculous had he juiced earlier.

 

Don't really care as a fan who is nice and who is mean. Dude was a remarkable player though, not just the kind of volume hits player that Rose was. Bonds was incredible, maybe the best we will ever seen, and he could field too.

[SeaBass]

I'm actually pretty shocked that anyone is defending Bonds to be honest.

 

Grade A douchebag who cheated his ass off. Doesn't belong in the hall, but everyone has opinions.

 

I'm glad he was denied once again, and hope it stays that way.

I respect your opinion that because he cheated he doesn't belong, I don't agree, but at least it's valid.

 

Him being a douche is not so valid. You're free to dislike him, I dislike him too. And I'm not even saying you can't be happy he's not in because you don't like him. It's just not a valid reason to exclude him from the Hall, there are way too many other douchebags already in that crowd for it to matter.

 

You could argue that Pete Rose was a lock as well before he gambled on his team...

 

If Bonds gets in, Rose deserves it as well imo.

True. Again, this is all part of me not really caring about the Hall of Fame, not specifically Rose but a culmination of similar circumstances. Rose is kind of above his ban, he was an amazingly great player. Will anybody really not remember him because he isn't in the Hall? Of course not. His stats are going to live on forever as testament.

 

Also, by some reports Rose was/is a pretty big douchebag himself. So I really hope you're as ok with him being out of the Hall just as much as you are for Bonds.

[Devinep]

It is true that Bonds and Clemens never tested positive, but what they did just completely denies natural logic. They were shattering records and winning awards in their late 30s or even early 40s! Plus, especially with Bonds, his whole body grew and his head became the size of a Charlie Brown character. Despite never testing “positive” there’s no way they weren’t juicing. That’s why I don’t mine HOF voters viewing them as for sure juicers.

 

Now if they could vote in some of the other guys who do deserve it: Rolen, Helton, Wagner, Andruw Jones. They’re better than some of the vets committe pics

[Opening Day]

To me there are degrees of character issues. Disposition with the media, off putting political views (subjective obviously), minor drug offenses, and generally being a dick shouldn’t keep you out. Rapists, pedos, extreme domestic violence, and killers should be left out. Anything that directly affects the game should also be considered, including gambling and PED’s. Shilling should be in. Bonds and Clemens should be in if other PED users, especially those who actually failed like Ortiz, are in. There is no good argument in me that Roger Clemens isn’t a HOF but Ortiz is. For me, Rose is out, betting on games you actively participate is over the line.

[LouisEly]

It is true that Bonds and Clemens never tested positive, but what they did just completely denies natural logic. They were shattering records and winning awards in their late 30s or even early 40s! Plus, especially with Bonds, his whole body grew and his head became the size of a Charlie Brown character. Despite never testing “positive” there’s no way they weren’t juicing. That’s why I don’t mine HOF voters viewing them as for sure juicers.

 

Now if they could vote in some of the other guys who do deserve it: Rolen, Helton, Wagner, Andruw Jones. They’re better than some of the vets committe pics

Not really true with Clemens - his years with NYY (age 36-40), when he supposedly was using PEDs, were the worst of his career. He had two resurgent years in Houston at age 41 and 42, but that's not unheard of for a pitcher; Nolan Ryan led the league in strikeouts ages 40-43, Warren Spahn was good into his early 40's, Randy Johnson led the league in K's at 40, etc.. Clemens after age 35 was good, but not the pitcher he was ages 24-35.

[JosephC]

For me, Rose is out, betting on games you actively participate is over the line.

 

If betting on games is over the line, is it over the line for owners to put gambling kiosks in the stadiums and directly profit from gambling revenue that is generated from the performance of teams that they own?

 

It was never proven or even believed that Rose ever bet against his team. So the grey area becomes, since he is so close to the game, could he have conspired with an opponent to fix a game and benefit from his gambling? That is why I had previously opposed Rose going into the Hall of Fame. But are owners not so close to the game where it's impossible to think that they could give a direct order to a manager in an effort to try to affect the outcome of a game?

 

I honestly don't think "baseball" (being owners, Hall of Fame voters) can have it both ways. Either ban the concept of owners making 1 penny off of gambling, or put Pete Rose in the Hall of Fame.

 

And to state it again, I was 100% against Rose being in the Hall of Fame prior to a bunch of already filthy rich owners decided they needed to be involved in GAMBLING ON BASEBALL GAMES in order to put even more money in their pockets.

[homer]

For me, Rose is out, betting on games you actively participate is over the line.

 

If betting on games is over the line, is it over the line for owners to put gambling kiosks in the stadiums and directly profit from gambling revenue that is generated from the performance of teams that they own?

 

It was never proven or even believed that Rose ever bet against his team. So the grey area becomes, since he is so close to the game, could he have conspired with an opponent to fix a game and benefit from his gambling? That is why I had previously opposed Rose going into the Hall of Fame. But are owners not so close to the game where it's impossible to think that they could give a direct order to a manager in an effort to try to affect the outcome of a game?

 

I honestly don't think "baseball" (being owners, Hall of Fame voters) can have it both ways. Either ban the concept of owners making 1 penny off of gambling, or put Pete Rose in the Hall of Fame.

 

And to state it again, I was 100% against Rose being in the Hall of Fame prior to a bunch of already filthy rich owners decided they needed to be involved in GAMBLING ON BASEBALL GAMES in order to put even more money in their pockets.

 

I think your point only applies if the owners themselves are gambling on the outcome of the games which they could have done without the in-stadium sportsbooks and kiosks.

 

I'm fine letting everyone in the hall of fame that performed on the field. For some reason, we treat it like getting beatified by the Catholic Church.

[JosephC]

For me, Rose is out, betting on games you actively participate is over the line.

 

If betting on games is over the line, is it over the line for owners to put gambling kiosks in the stadiums and directly profit from gambling revenue that is generated from the performance of teams that they own?

 

It was never proven or even believed that Rose ever bet against his team. So the grey area becomes, since he is so close to the game, could he have conspired with an opponent to fix a game and benefit from his gambling? That is why I had previously opposed Rose going into the Hall of Fame. But are owners not so close to the game where it's impossible to think that they could give a direct order to a manager in an effort to try to affect the outcome of a game?

 

I honestly don't think "baseball" (being owners, Hall of Fame voters) can have it both ways. Either ban the concept of owners making 1 penny off of gambling, or put Pete Rose in the Hall of Fame.

 

And to state it again, I was 100% against Rose being in the Hall of Fame prior to a bunch of already filthy rich owners decided they needed to be involved in GAMBLING ON BASEBALL GAMES in order to put even more money in their pockets.

 

I think your point only applies if the owners themselves are gambling on the outcome of the games which they could have done without the in-stadium sportsbooks and kiosks.

 

I'm fine letting everyone in the hall of fame that performed on the field. For some reason, we treat it like getting beatified by the Catholic Church.

 

Completely disagree. Once an MLB owner partners with a sportsbook, then they are in the same bed. If there is a money line on a baseball game and gamblers throw 85% of the bets on one side and the sportsbook stands to make a huge loss, is there now the potential for an owner to fix a game since he and that sportsbook are actual business partners? This is no less questionable than the concept that Rose could have partnered with an opposing player in order to get them to fix a game. I have no idea if an owner gets a flat fee for putting a sportsbook in a stadium or if he gets a percentage of the sportsbook revenue generated at the site? If he gets a percentage, then if he fixes a game and gets the desired outcome, he's made more money just as he had placed a bet himself. If it's a flat fee, then the more money a sportsbook makes from the first contract translates into a bigger fee on the second contract, so the motivation for the owner to see advantageous results in games based on gambling still exists.

[markedman5]

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/33181692/doug-glanville-why-glad-barry-bonds-elected-hall-fame

[sixtolezcano16]

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/33181692/doug-glanville-why-glad-barry-bonds-elected-hall-fame

 

Doug has made some extremely strong points. Just because there are players in the HOF that took PEDs doesn’t mean that all players who cheated should be eligible. There is no reason that the HOF cannot recognize PED users and the stats they accumulated over the course of their career. You should acknowledge their their place in baseball history and how they were able to accumulate those stats (i.e.: wins, home runs, BA, etc.) regardless what they needed to ingest to get there. Induction into the HOF should not be based upon numbers in record books, “especially when the inductees did not stand on the shoulders of their predecessors so much as trample them into the ground with glee.”

 

If all that matters is the history the winners tell us, what about the stories of the honest players who had to play against these cheaters, are they any less? Bonds, Clemens, Ramirez and the rest are just egomaniacal and wanted fame at the expense of most everyone else who played fairly. They made their choice when they decided to artificially manipulate their bodies to improve their performance. Let’s call it like it truly is….it’s not how you play the game that counts. It’s only if you win or lose that really matters in our society. Take every advantage you can possibly obtain no matter how immoral, fraudulent and corrupt it may be…..as long as you don’t get caught.

[NievesNoNO]

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/33181692/doug-glanville-why-glad-barry-bonds-elected-hall-fame

 

I read and appreciate his take on things, but where was this group of players when it was happening? I don't recall any outcry from the "clean" players at the time. (and I could be mis-remembering)

 

I don't much care about the HOF, and honestly I'm not sure most of the players actually do either but if you're going to have one, then it's almost criminal to leave out Clemens and Bonds, imo. I could type out a lengthy reasoning but I think it's a topic that almost everyone has a pretty strong opinion on one way or another on already.

[sixtolezcano16]

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/32806209/barry-bonds-roger-clemens-far-less-great-subtract-ped-factor

 

Another good article on the HOF credentials of Bonds and Clemens.

[sveumrules]

Putting in Selig (who oversaw the whole fiasco) and Torre/TLR (who turned a blind eye because they were winning games), but excluding just certain players seems like a pretty glaring double triple standard to me.

 

But ownership/management vs the players is one of the oldest stories in baseball & one that's playing out again in yet another iteration at this very moment, so not really all that surprising I guess.

[MVP2110]

Putting in Selig (who oversaw the whole fiasco) and Torre/TLR (who turned a blind eye because they were winning games), but excluding just certain players seems like a pretty glaring double triple standard to me.

 

But ownership/management vs the players is one of the oldest stories in baseball & one that's playing out again in yet another iteration at this very moment, so not really all that surprising I guess.

100%. I have yet to see anybody give a good reason why Selig, Ortiz, etc. should be in but not Bonds, Clemens, etc.

[JimH5]

Putting in Selig (who oversaw the whole fiasco) and Torre/TLR (who turned a blind eye because they were winning games), but excluding just certain players seems like a pretty glaring double triple standard to me.

 

But ownership/management vs the players is one of the oldest stories in baseball & one that's playing out again in yet another iteration at this very moment, so not really all that surprising I guess.

 

Absolutely spot on.

 

The difference is between the voting bodies. The BBWAA only gets to decide on the new player retirees, while the special committees vote on all Execs, Umpires, Managers and the reconsidered BBWAA rejects.

 

The HOF seems not to want to clarify their voting standards, but its clear that the different voting bodies don't consider the character issue in the same way.

[jerichoholicninja]

If the HOF was to institute some character guidelines now that opens up the argument for players being taken out. Neither will ever happen.