The HuntingPA.com Outdoor Community banner

HOF vote

3K views 61 replies 13 participants last post by  lynxone 
#1 · (Edited)
#5 ·
Some of the best baseball players to ever put on a uniform will not get in due to the people who are doing the voting!! Barry Bonds should be in the HOF,he left my team to go to the Giants but as a fan im just looking at it as what his# where and if he was doing steriods why did nt the league suspend him or throw him out? Cause people came to see him hit and the league took the profits off it,same with A-ROD,Mcquier, and then the commisioner of that era gets in,go figure.
 
#7 ·
Yeah....don't care what Barry was taking there was about a six year period in his career where you could rarely sneak a fastball by him on the inside half. Lot of fun to see him turn on a pitch. He was as good a hitter as anyone I have seen in my life.

Mlb and everyone around the game knew what was going on despite what you hear. And it did not begin in the nineties......more like the late seventy's and early eighties. The results caused more and more to use and by the nineties Ped's were common as amphetamines in baseball. Canseco was telling the truth. (Even if he is a jerk) They needed the fans back after the strike and Ped's fueled the resurgence. I guess enshrinement means something to the players and their families, don't matter much to me. I love the game and will always remember a great player.
 
#6 ·
Of all the great players in the HOF it's amazing Rivera was the first unanimous selection. Think about it, Aaron, Greg Maddux, Carlton, Seaver. There are many more that make you scratch your head. How could anyone not vote for Aaron? His numbers when he became eligible were in the stratosphere. Nine voters thought Henry Aaron wasn't worthy!

Larry Walker? That one threw me a curve...........
 
#11 ·
Bonds and Clemens won t get in! unless a miracle happens the next 2 yrs. I had the fortune to talk to Chipper Jones and asked him about Bonds and he said he thought he was the best player he ever seen. Alot of sports writers don t like him due to his cockyness and the way he treated the media but i think it should be the eye test and if you go by that then him and Clemens are no doubters. How bout Joe Dimaggio took him 5 yrs to get in are you kidding me!! The guys who do this voting don t do what i think should be done, what are the guys # in his era what did you see when this guy played. Theres writers in Pgh who say they will never vote for Bonds and to me its a cop out saying cause he was a cheater. I guarantee you Bellicek will get in HOF and i think he should but whats the difference? And the excuse will be well thats different!
 
#12 ·
How does anyone hold guys like Bonds and Clemens out of the HOF because they used roids? Steroids and sports go back to before we kept records weather you want to believe it or not.
Like Dukehunter3 said Pgh writers will say they wont vote for bonds, but if you ask them about the 70 steelers and the fact there team Dr. admitted to pioneering the steroid era in the NFL they don't want to take away the 4 trophies they got do they? is it about the integrity of the game or legality? NO GAME has integrity never has never will.
 
#13 ·
Name someone in the HOF that used steroids as a performance enhancer. Than prove it and than we can talk about allowing someone in that used steroids.



Next tell me no one in the hall of fame bet on his own team while playing or managing a team. Anyone that would not bet on his own team should not be in the hall. Waugh!
 
#15 ·
So he had a drink of some snake oil before ONE game. Like most elixirs of the time it was most likely just whiskey with spices and some castor oil.



Brown-Séquard was quite a controversial and eccentric figure, and is also known for self-reporting, at age 72, "rejuvenated sexual prowess after subcutaneous injection of extracts of monkey testis". Thousands of men tried the therapy. The endocrinologist Robert B. Greenblatt wrote that this therapy could not have possibly worked because, unlike the thyroid gland, the testes do not store the hormones they produce and, therefore, obtaining a therapeutic dose of testosterone directly from animal glands "would require about one-quarter ton of bull's testes."[6] The positive response by many men is now thought to have been a placebo effect, but apparently this was "sufficient to set the field of endocrinology off and running."


Sure he took it to improve his baseball game or the bedroom game. Waugh!
 
#19 ·
Another point to ponder is that cocaine was legal back than and in the original recipe for coke a cola. So maybe monkey junk was also legal. We can not judge the past on current standards nor should we judge the present on the past. It was not a banned PED at the time. There were no banned PEDs at the time. Waugh!
 
#20 ·
I never claimed Pud's induction should be disallowed, merely stated he is the first known instance of what is now considered a banned substance (testosterone) in MLB. Granted, there is some question as to whether the form in which he was consuming it would even qualify under today's standards.

I suspect there were many cases of PEDs down through the ages, long before the 1970's. Some that even improved results on the field.
 
#23 ·
Pete Rose agreed to a lifetime ban because he didn’t want all of the facts of his case to be made public. He gambled that the ban would eventually be rescinded.......he lost. Great player, he has the numbers but he is a very despicable character.
 
#24 ·
When he made that agreement the HOF did not have a rule stating that banned players were not allowed in the hall. It was made after he agreed. He made that decision with the commissioner who needed to end his lawsuit that was giving baseball a black eye. Also as part of the agreement baseball would not make a formal statement about his case. Baseball broke that agreement when the commissioner made a public statement about his case based on opinion of the commissioner alone. The commissioner than died of a heart attack before he could clarify his statements. The Dowd report never could conclude if he did bet on games. At most the report is a detailed outline of the allegations. The whole thing is based on opinion and allegations that have been tried in the court of public opinion. Public opinion that has been tainted in the press by reporting any rumor as if it was fact.

None of us know the facts but we all feel we know the truth.
The truth is if the best hitter of all time is not in the hall than the hall is a joke. His gambling, if he did, had no bearing on his on field accomplishments. The hall is a shrine to on field individual accomplishments and is beginning to be watered down by looking for players that played on good to great teams but don't have the stats to stand alone.

The baseball Hall of Fame should be all about great players and should not be about one's character off the field. Waugh!
 
#25 ·
“It is not a part of my authority or responsibility here to make any determination concerning Mr. Rose’s eligibility as a candidate for election to the National Baseball Hall of Fame,” Manfred wrote. “In fact, in my view, the considerations that should drive a decision on whether an individual should be allowed to work in baseball are not the same as those that should drive a decision on Hall of Fame eligibility.”


Waugh!
 
#26 ·
There is no question he bet on baseball games, he admitted to betting on games.



Jan. 5, 2003 -- After denying it for nearly 15 years, sports legend Pete Rose is admitting that he bet on baseball and on his own team while managing the Cincinnati Reds.

"I bet on baseball in 1987 and 1988," the baseball great told ABCNEWS' Charles Gibson in an interview to be aired on Primetime Thursday on Jan. 8.
 
#29 · (Edited)
It just proves that of all the sports, baseball is run by a bunch of crusty fossilized leather-skinned psoriasis covered old flatulence blasts. Someone had to make a point and ensure no more "unanimous" votes.

Dumbest thing I ever heard, and I highly doubt Jeter or any other HOF'er cares. You're in the Hall of Fame, either by unanimous vote or you made it by one vote. They don't put the vote totals on the plaque.

And more than one voter not voting for Henry Aaron? Flat out racist. There is just no other explanation.

As for Pete Rose, first, can someone clarify whether or not anyone ever has found evidence that he bet on the Reds to lose? Then if not, if they want to keep him out of the HOF, then MLB certainly cannot take a single dime from all this legalized gambling that is everywhere now. I say allow Rose into the HOF for what he did in his career, but ban him from having any official capacity other than being a former player.

I don't care of Rose is a butt-head, or if Bond is an even bigger butt-head. Look at what they did on the field first and foremost. In Bonds' day, it was juiced pitchers throwing to juiced hitters. The stat numbers might be inflated a bit, but he was still a dominant force in the Sea of Juice.


When parents take kids to any HOF, they should hold up examples like Hank Aaron, or a guy like the recently retired Eli Manning as players who did it with grace and humility, and then guys like Rose and Bonds as great players who were not great people. A kid who sees someone with as great of athletic talents as those, but people remember them more for the wrong things they did, well, that can be a powerful lesson
 
  • Like
Reactions: jimbridger
#30 ·
The determination about Rose betting on baseball was never made formal, below is the reason why........



From Baseball Reference.com

The Banning of Pete Rose refers to a 1989 agreement between Commissioner A. Bartlett Giamatti and Pete Rose whereby Rose agreed to be banned from baseball for life in return for baseball not making a formal determination about whether or not he had bet on baseball
It’s because of his own actions that’s he not there. If he was innocent, he should have never agreed to a lifetime ban.
 
#32 ·
The determination about Rose betting on baseball was never made formal, below is the reason why........



From Baseball Reference.com



It’s because of his own actions that’s he not there. If he was innocent, he should have never agreed to a lifetime ban.

Who was in the room and what were the details. That commissioner died and may have died before he could hold up his end of allowing Rose back in after baseball recovered whatever they were hurting from that made them want a deal and not want a long drawn out case. Waugh!
 
#31 ·
Not trying to defend Rose, but did he, or did he not, bet on his own team to lose? Being guilty of betting on baseball, verses being guilty to throw games that you can control, are two different things in my opinion. What exactly did he admit to?

From what I have read and seen in the media, I don't think Rose is someone I would hang with socially. Seems like an arse. But, just in terms of what he did on the field, if they cannot prove that he fixed games, to me that is important. Baseball like all other sports is about to get more filthy rich from online gambling, and if they cannot prove Rose intentionally lost games, well, then either let him in the hall or don't take the money.

If MLB never ever takes a cent from the legal gambling, then they have leg to stand on in my opinion. If they choose to profit, then fine, they need to let Rose and Shoeless Joe be associated with the game in limited ways and document all their findings. Be up front about it, hey these guys were great players but they made a major mistake. As such we recognize what they did, but they are welcome here no more.

But of course, steroids and world series cheating does not matter, it put butts in the seats and dollars in their pockets. It's by far and away the worst of the pro sports leagues in the U.S.
 
#33 ·
To the point of the OP I wouldn't have voted for Jeter had I had a vote. I'm not saying he isn't deserving, he absolutely is, but in an era where much of the BBWAA is reporters who still consider HR and RBI the most crucial stat in the game it shows flaws. Then set a code of morality that pops up out of thin air for reasons that were not even proven only to deny genuine HoF players the opportunity. The voting process has become a joke. Therefore if I had a vote and knew the likes Bonds, Clemons, Schilling (for nothing but his political opinion) are on the fringe I would turn my vote to them knowing full well that Jeter would get the needed 75% to get in. I don't think anyone, in this era, should be unanimous. Simply to vote for Jeter because that is the thing to do is ridiculous. Vote for those fringe, yet deserving, guys who need to keep their percentages up before fading into the BBWAA basement. Eventually this system won't work, eventually more people will deny votes under my idea but by that time the perimeters (analytics) will be how people are judged for HoF worthiness.

That said Jeter, Walker, Bonds, Clemons (both he and Bonds were HoF before any PED use), and Schilling should have been put in.

Side Note: Rose might have been a shady dude but Charlie Hustle had game. His "deal" with MLB got him screwed and he should be put in.
 
#34 ·
The problem Rose has, IMO, is that betting on one's team to win compromises that person. By not betting on the next game that is an admission that the team has a less than favorable chance to win. Especially as being the manager, one can go 'all out' to win the game that was bet on to win.

Leave the pitcher in for 10-15 more pitches today than you normally would. Knowing full well that it gives you a less than desirable chance tomorrow, a game he won't bet on. It changes a season.



My opinion is that he should be acknowledged in the HoF as the hits leader. Nothing else.
 
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top