PDA

View Full Version : 2007 Hall of Fame ballot released


Fenway
11-27-2006, 11:09 AM
Tony Gwynn and Cal Ripken Jr should be elected first ballot, I don't think McGwire has a prayer.


• Harold Baines
• Albert Belle
• Dante Bichette
• Bert Blyleven
• Bobby Bonilla
• Scott Brosius
• Jay Buhner
• Ken Caminiti
• Jose Canseco
• Dave Concepcion
• Eric Davis
• Andre Dawson
• Tony Fernandez
• Steve Garvey
• Rich Gossage
• Tony Gwynn
• Orel Hershiser
• Tommy John
• Wally Joyner
• Don Mattingly
• Mark McGwire
• Jack Morris
• Dale Murphy
• Paul O'Neill
• Dave Parker
• Jim Rice
• Cal Ripken Jr.
• Bret Saberhagen
• Lee Smith
• Alan Trammell
• Devon White
• Bobby Witt

WizardsofOzzie
11-27-2006, 11:17 AM
Tony Gwynn and Cal Ripken Jr should be elected first ballot, I don't think McGwire has a prayer.

Please lord let McGwire never make it into the Hall :praying:

SOXintheBURGH
11-27-2006, 11:19 AM
I'd love to see Harold make it in, but I know it won't happen. :(:

Orel isn't in the Hall yet? That's surprising..

Is this Blyleven's last shot?

Fenway
11-27-2006, 11:22 AM
I'd love to see Harold make it in, but I know it won't happen. :(:

Orel isn't in the Hall yet? That's surprising..

Is this Blyleven's last shot?

I honestly think Jim Rice should be in there but he didn't make nice with the writers when he played. Rich Gossage should be in as well.

guillen4life13
11-27-2006, 11:29 AM
I would love to see Baines get in, but I too think it's not going to happen.

I want Mags back
11-27-2006, 11:36 AM
poor Harold. there's just to much competition this year and to come

MUsoxfan
11-27-2006, 11:36 AM
Tony Gwynn and Cal Ripken Jr should be elected first ballot, I don't think McGwire has a prayer.


• Harold Baines -no
• Albert Belle -no
• Dante Bichette -no
• Bert Blyleven -hopefully, even though he toots his own horn too much ala Santo
• Bobby Bonilla -no
• Scott Brosius -no
• Jay Buhner -no
• Ken Caminiti -not after the way he went out
• Jose Canseco -no
• Dave Concepcion -no
• Eric Davis -no
• Andre Dawson -yes
• Tony Fernandez -no
• Steve Garvey -no
• Rich Gossage - hopefully
• Tony Gwynn -yes
• Orel Hershiser -maybe
• Tommy John -no
• Wally Joyner -no
• Don Mattingly -maybe
• Mark McGwire -no
• Jack Morris -no
• Dale Murphy -no
• Paul O'Neill -no
• Dave Parker -no
• Jim Rice -no
• Cal Ripken Jr. -no
• Bret Saberhagen -no
• Lee Smith -yes
• Alan Trammell -no
• Devon White -no
• Bobby Witt -no


That's the way I see it going down

Madvora
11-27-2006, 11:48 AM
Dante Bichette?

EDIT - Wow, he did actually have a nice stretch between 1995 and 1999
http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/bicheda01.shtml

chaerulez
11-27-2006, 11:59 AM
I don't get how Andre Dawson isn't in. 438 home runs, several gold gloves, a MVP, and 300+ stolen bases.

areilly
11-27-2006, 12:18 PM
Gwynn and Ripken should be unanimous, Dawson, Blyleven and Rice deserve to be in there, and I'd really like to see Harold get in...but he probably won't.

McGwire can rot and I can't wait to hear the Yankee fans' uproar over Paul O'Neill not getting in. He was the captain of Noo Yawk baby!


I also think there should be a special wing (Hall of Notoriety?) for people like Canseco and Caminiti. While their careers may have been questionable (to say the least), I think they both did the game and the fans a great service by going public with their stories, although it's too bad only Caminiti took the less sleazy road to it.

Oblong
11-27-2006, 12:41 PM
What I think:
Gwynn
Ripken

What I think should be:
Gwynn
Ripken
Gossage

I'd also add that if Puckett got in then guys like Albert Belle and Jim Rice deserve to be in. But that's more of a shot at Puckett than saying belle/rice should be in. Obviously Belle doesn't have a prayer and Rice gets closer and closer. I still go back and forth.

EastCoastSoxFan
11-27-2006, 01:16 PM
What I think:
Gwynn
Ripken

What I think should be:
Gwynn
Ripken
Gossage

I'd also add that if Puckett got in then guys like Albert Belle and Jim Rice deserve to be in. But that's more of a shot at Puckett than saying belle/rice should be in. Obviously Belle doesn't have a prayer and Rice gets closer and closer. I still go back and forth.What, no Jack Morris man-love from a Tigers fan?
I think he should be in the Hall of Fame. It's too bad that the writers don't seem to give more weight to postseason accomplishments. Yeah, I know Morris's career regular season ERA is 3.90, but he was a winner and big-game pitcher.
Oh, well, I'm sure such debates will never end...

sox1970
11-27-2006, 01:28 PM
Dante Bichette?

EDIT - Wow, he did actually have a nice stretch between 1995 and 1999
http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/bicheda01.shtml

Being on the ballot isn't a matter of accomplishment. It's basically service time.

sox1970
11-27-2006, 01:32 PM
I would have said McGwire if he just admitted what he did, and didn't act like a jagbag to congress. Now I say no way on him.

If I was voting, I'd go with Blyleven, Dawson, Gwynn, Morris, and Ripken.

To me, Jack Morris being out is the biggest omission for the Hall.

AL Pitcher of the 80's. Won World Series with 3 different teams, including one of the most famous games in World Series history. His ERA wasn't great, but he took the ball, and won a ton of games. He deserves to be in.

Oblong
11-27-2006, 01:52 PM
What, no Jack Morris man-love from a Tigers fan?
I think he should be in the Hall of Fame. It's too bad that the writers don't seem to give more weight to postseason accomplishments. Yeah, I know Morris's career regular season ERA is 3.90, but he was a winner and big-game pitcher.
Oh, well, I'm sure such debates will never end...

Nope, no Jack for me. I liked him as a player but once I look at his numbers objectively, he falls short. As for his "big game" numbers, take another look at his post season record. In 84 and 91, fantastic. Just don't look at 87 and 92. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't complain if he made it but if I were not a Tiger fan I'd be upset if he did.

Now Tram on the other hand... I think he should make it. It's hard to be objective though. He's hands down my all time favorite. I think he deserves it more than Morris. I just don't like to list him because his vote totals are so low it would be an obvious homer pick. He was robbed of the MVP vote in 1987 and I really think if he won it that year he'd make the HOF.

PKalltheway
11-27-2006, 02:03 PM
I really hope McGwire doesn't get in. If he does though, who does he go in with? Oakland or St. Louis?

I don't think Orel Hershiser or Jim Rice deserve to go in either. Great careers, but not great enough for me.

rookieroy
11-27-2006, 02:13 PM
Blyleven, Gywnn, Ripken and Smith should all be in. Except for 1979 and 1987, Blyleven played for all garbage teams. It's scary to think how many more wins he could have had with more run support. Lee Smith played for mostly lousy teams as well. I would like to see Dawson, Rice and Gossage get in too. Morris is borderline imo.

WhiteSox5187
11-27-2006, 02:38 PM
If McGwire gets in then that means Bonds and Sosa have to get in too. I don't think McGwire is getting in, not on this ballot at least. But I'd go so far as to say that he NEVER belongs in the Hall of Fame.

As for Harold, he had what? 2,800 hits, right? One could make the arguement he belongs in there. He certainly was one of the best DHs of all time. But, if you're a DH and you want to get into the hall you have to have at least 3,000 hits. 500 HRs is no longer a guarentee because steroids destroyed the importance of the homerun stat. If Harold played his whole career in the outfield then one could make a better arguement that he belongs in the hall.

Oh, and someone said that Albert Belle belongs in the hall?!?!?! What the hell is that?!?!?! Belle could only do one thing and that was hit, and he did that in the midst of the steroid age. No. He doesn't belong in the same sentence as the HOF.

Oblong
11-27-2006, 02:51 PM
If McGwire gets in then that means Bonds and Sosa have to get in too. I don't think McGwire is getting in, not on this ballot at least. But I'd go so far as to say that he NEVER belongs in the Hall of Fame.

As for Harold, he had what? 2,800 hits, right? One could make the arguement he belongs in there. He certainly was one of the best DHs of all time. But, if you're a DH and you want to get into the hall you have to have at least 3,000 hits. 500 HRs is no longer a guarentee because steroids destroyed the importance of the homerun stat. If Harold played his whole career in the outfield then one could make a better arguement that he belongs in the hall.

Oh, and someone said that Albert Belle belongs in the hall?!?!?! What the hell is that?!?!?! Belle could only do one thing and that was hit, and he did that in the midst of the steroid age. No. He doesn't belong in the same sentence as the HOF.

I brought up Belle's name. I didn't say he belongs in the hall. I was saying that I don't think Puckett belongs in the hall. Avoiding any steroid stuff, which I don't think he's been linked to, I could be wrong, how can you say Puckett should be in and not Albert? Both were fantastic hitters who had their career shut down due to an injury. (Not to mention the other thing they had in common)

I think it would be interesting if all the stuff that happened with Kirby came out before his election to see if he would have gotten in.

Jerko
11-27-2006, 03:44 PM
Well, since the HOF deals with numbers that have been put up in the PAST, McLiar should not get in.

http://media.scout.com/Media/Image/26/260325.jpg

I'm not here to talk about the past........

http://www.radiohound.com/MaleCelebs/pics/sammysosa.jpg

Wha he said.... All I know is I don't know.

soxinem1
11-27-2006, 04:11 PM
poor Harold. there's just to much competition this year and to come

I'm sure he won't make it in with these guys (if at all), but I am curious to see how he does. If he does well with the votes, he could in a few years.

Goose
11-27-2006, 04:26 PM
Just curious here...

I am not too familiar with how the HOF voting works, so forgive my ignorance, but with all the Chicago news coverage (was it the past couple of years?) with Santo trying to make it into the HOF, why is he not on the list? I am one the does not think that he actually belongs, but you hear a lot about it in these parts and was wondering if he was no longer eligible or is there another reason his name does not appear on the above list?

Thanks.

Fenway
11-27-2006, 04:28 PM
Just curious here...

I am not too familiar with how the HOF voting works, so forgive my ignorance, but with all the Chicago news coverage (was it the past couple of years?) with Santo trying to make it into the HOF, why is he not on the list? I am one the does not think that he actually belongs, but you hear a lot about it in these parts and was wondering if he was no longer eligible or is there another reason his name does not appear on the above list?

Thanks.

Santo was before the veterans commitee which looks at players the writers didn't vote in.

DumpJerry
11-27-2006, 04:58 PM
I don't get how Andre Dawson isn't in. 438 home runs, several gold gloves, a MVP, and 300+ stolen bases.
All those last and near last place finished by the Cubs probably hurt him.

All I have to say is Harold! Harold! Harold!

Will Cowley be allowed to vote?

Oblong
11-27-2006, 04:59 PM
One of our local radio guys made a good point regarding McGwire. It's pretty comical that the BBWAA can get high and mighty now when they get to vote on him for the HOF. But where was that morality in 1998 and 1999 when you needed a good story? Did they look the other way on what he was doing?

jamokes
11-27-2006, 05:37 PM
Relief pitchers get the short end of the stick. Goose and Lee Smith should get in.........if Blyleven gets in the Kaat should be in............Gwynn and Ripken for sure.

Oblong
11-27-2006, 05:52 PM
I think catchers do too. Their careers are not very long so they can't rack up the numbers. You can make the case for 4 or 5 catchers being the best of all time and those guys are the standard that candidates get compared to. I don't think a HOF candidate should be compared tot eh best at their position but to other HOFers.

The fact that Fisk had to wait is proof of that. If there's ever a HOFer, he was it. Not sure what else a catcher should have done. Was he Bench? No. But who was?

SouthSide_HitMen
11-27-2006, 05:53 PM
Gwynn and Ripken should be unanimous, Dawson, Blyleven and Rice deserve to be in there, and I'd really like to see Harold get in...but he probably won't.

Nobody will ever enter in a unanimous vote. Ripken does have a chance to break the 98.94% mark set by Tom Seaver.

Ted Williams had over 6% of voters leave him off. Mickey Mantle received 88.22% of the vote and Rogers Hornsby received a scant 78.11%. :o:

I think Ripken and Gwynn will crowd everyone else out this time around. Look for Blyleven and possibly Lee Smith to be inducted in 2008 when Tim Raines is the only credible player (which I think the voters will screw up and leave him out at least initially).

2008: Shawon Dunston, Travis Fryman, David Justice, Mike Morgan, Tim Raines, Randy Velarde

Rickey Henderson is the only player who will make it in 2009 and Edgar Martinez will probably be rejected in 2010 due to his role as DH.

Fenway
11-27-2006, 06:09 PM
Nobody will ever enter in a unanimous vote. Ripken does have a chance to break the 98.94% mark set by Tom Seaver.

Ted Williams had over 6% of voters leave him off. Mickey Mantle received 88.22% of the vote and Rogers Hornsby received a scant 78.11%. :o:



Look at some of the names that were not elected on a first ballot

Joe DiMaggio, Yogi Berra, Whitey Ford, Rogers Hornsby and Harmon Killebrew.

WizardsofOzzie
11-27-2006, 06:54 PM
If McGwire gets in then that means Bonds and Sosa have to get in too. I don't think McGwire is getting in, not on this ballot at least. But I'd go so far as to say that he NEVER belongs in the Hall of Fame.

Oh, and someone said that Albert Belle belongs in the hall?!?!?! What the hell is that?!?!?! Belle could only do one thing and that was hit, and he did that in the midst of the steroid age. No. He doesn't belong in the same sentence as the HOF.

How are the 2 different? McGwire was a power guy in the midst of the present steroid age (Mcgwire, Sosa, Palmero, Bonds, Prior) while Belle is a power guy in the mids of the past steroid age along with Canseco, Caminetti (spelling?), and Brady Anderson.

Oblong
11-27-2006, 07:38 PM
Does the "steroid era" simply mean any big guy who slugged a lot of HR's used steroids without a doubt and it must be proven they didn't?

Player A:
12 seasons, 207 HR, 1085 RBI, 1071 R .318/.360/.477

Player B:
12 seasons, 381 HR, 1239 RBI, 974 R .295/.369/.564

Both players had their careers
Granted, one player was a better defender but the difference isn't that much. But one shouldn't be a first ballot HOFer and the other hardly a mention.

Foulke You
11-27-2006, 07:48 PM
Here are the career numbers of Harold Baines:

2866 Hits
488 Doubles
384 HRs
1628 RBIs
1062 BBs
1299 Runs Scored
.465 SLG%
4604 TB

If that isn't career numbers worthy of the hall, it's pretty damn close. He has two major things going against him though. 1) He was a DH for 75% of his career 2) He played most of his career on the White Sox

Oblong
11-27-2006, 07:52 PM
DH's and relief pitchers are the toughest for me to sort out. Should the person be punished? Obviously Baines was good enough to play the OF or 1B if he really had to but he played in a league that didn't require it. Same with Edgar. Is there a difference from having a butcher in the field from the 50s or 60s in the HOF? I can't think of any right now but I don't recall Reggie Jackson being too swift out there. If he played today he'd be a DH, wouldn't he? Would you exclude him?

Foulke You
11-27-2006, 08:12 PM
DH's and relief pitchers are the toughest for me to sort out. Should the person be punished? Obviously Baines was good enough to play the OF or 1B if he really had to but he played in a league that didn't require it. Same with Edgar. Is there a difference from having a butcher in the field from the 50s or 60s in the HOF? I can't think of any right now but I don't recall Reggie Jackson being too swift out there. If he played today he'd be a DH, wouldn't he? Would you exclude him?
That is the point I make when the writers use the DH excuse to not give the MVP to guys like Frank Thomas or David Ortiz simply because they don't play the field. I remember in 2000 that a lot of writers gave Giambi the MVP over Frank simply because he played 1B. Who cares? Giambi doesn't play 1B very well, he is out there for his bat. Somehow, just the fact that he went out there and sucked up his position made him more "valuable" in the eyes of most writers. The voters and writers need to lose their holier than thou attitude about the DH. The position is now a part of baseball and has been around for decades now. It should be treated as a real position and not half a position! Sadly, I doubt the situation will get better any time soon.

thomas35forever
11-27-2006, 08:31 PM
Ripken should get at least 97 percent of the vote. Given that the writers get more than one vote, Gwynn should make it too. The Bash Brothers will never get in as long as there is justice.

Johnny Mostil
11-27-2006, 09:48 PM
The AP (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061128/ap_on_sp_ba_ne/bbo_hall_of_fame_mcgwire_8) polled 150 BBWAA writers on whether they would vote for McGwire. Of those expressing a preference, only about one-fourth would vote for him this year. Hal McCoy made the same point raised earlier in this thread, that if McGwire doesn't want to talk about his past then he won't consider it. Paul Sullivan said he would never vote for him. Jerome Holtzman said he would not vote for him this year but would in the future.

TornLabrum
11-27-2006, 09:50 PM
My should be (but not necessarily will be) list.

• Harold Baines - Too bad, but no.
• Albert Belle - NO
• Dante Bichette - No
• Bert Blyleven -Yes
• Bobby Bonilla - No
• Scott Brosius -No
• Jay Buhner -No
• Ken Caminiti - No
• Jose Canseco - NEVER
• Dave Concepcion - Yes
• Eric Davis -No
• Andre Dawson - Yes
• Tony Fernandez -No
• Steve Garvey - NO
• Rich Gossage - Yes
• Tony Gwynn - First ballot
• Orel Hershiser - Yes
• Tommy John - Yes
• Wally Joyner -No
• Don Mattingly - No
• Mark McGwire - NEVER
• Jack Morris - Yes
• Dale Murphy - No (and for a few years in the middle of his career, I thought he was a shoe-in)
• Paul O'Neill - No
• Dave Parker - No
• Jim Rice - Yes
• Cal Ripken Jr. - First ballot
• Bret Saberhagen - No
• Lee Smith - Yes
• Alan Trammell - Yes
• Devon White - No
• Bobby Witt - No

Oblong
11-27-2006, 10:22 PM
All I ask HOF voters to do is to take thier vote seriously and have a consistent set of criteria. Do the research and consider the position the player had. I'd love to see Trammell, and Whitaker for that matter, make it but I also don't think there's any shame in falling short. Should the HOF be for the players who were very good for a long time? (Baines, Whitaker, Trammell) What about players who were "more than great" for a shorter period of time (Murphy, Mattingly,). Or did you have to be great for a number of years? I think there's been some screwups, like Don Drysdale. That shouldn't mean that players like Drysdale suddenly become HOFers.

Dawson and Rice are two other guys who I go back and forth on. I think Dawson is higher.


It's a fascinating topic for me. I could go on and on.

ondafarm
11-27-2006, 10:55 PM
Here are the career numbers of Harold Baines:

2866 Hits
488 Doubles
384 HRs
1628 RBIs
1062 BBs
1299 Runs Scored
.465 SLG%
4604 TB

If that isn't career numbers worthy of the hall, it's pretty damn close. He has two major things going against him though. 1) He was a DH for 75% of his career 2) He played most of his career on the White Sox

Just want to point out while we are on the topic of HOF, Frank Thomas' numbers. Everyone can see why I get upset when idiots say he doesn't deserve HOF.

2262 Hits
458 Doubles
487 HRs
1579 RBIs
1547 BBs
1404 Runs Scored
.566 SLG%
4203 TB

All in 7422 AB vs. 9908 AB for Baines.


Baines may be a marginal HOF er. Frank Thomas, especially if he gets his 500th homerun (13 shy) should be pretty close to a first ballot guy.

SouthSide_HitMen
11-27-2006, 11:49 PM
I don't like the argument "well, if this guy is in, then you have to vote that guy in". Two wrongs don't make a right. There are plenty of players who shouldn't be in but are. No need to exacerbate it by voting in other marginal players. I rather have the Hall of Fame as a upper echelon of players and be biased in favor of a no vote. This is the HOF, not the he played a long time or he is better than that undeserving guy museum.

The Negro League fiasco last year (17 elected including the wife of an owner yet Minnie Minoso was left off) and the many fiascos of the veterans committee over the years (Tinker, Evers, Chance - a single sportwriter (http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/extra/tinker_evers_chance.htm) was responsible for getting in three players who had no business being in the HOF).

I am only concerned with the BBWAA inductees - too many non worthy members were elected via alternative methods.

Players who were voted in who I don't think should have gotten in over the past two decades are Kirby Puckett (though he has extenuating circumstances) & Tony Perez (no way).

Players who will get in based on the past few elections are Jim Rice, Goose Gossage, Andre Dawson and Bert Blyleven. IIRC, no player who inched their way up to 50% + has ever not reached the HOF eventually. One of these four may get in this year but it will be hard with Ripken and Gwynn mortal locks. I would vote yes for the two pitchers and no for Rice and Dawson.

I would vote no for everyone else on the ballot except Alan Trammell. This includes Baines :(: , Concepcion, Hershiser, John, Morris, Smith.

I would vote yes for Raines and Henderson over the next three years worth of ballots.

I would vote no for now on McGwire and see how this pans out.

I would vote yes for Pete Rose - his omission is ludicrous.

I would vote yes first ballot for Thomas and Bagwell.

I think Lou Whitaker should have been elected as well (with Trammell). He can only get in via the veterans committee at this point.

WizardsofOzzie
11-28-2006, 12:19 AM
McGwire's chances aren't looking too good :bandance:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2677950

TommyJohn
11-28-2006, 07:17 AM
Paul Sullivan said he would never vote for him.

Is this the same Paul Sullivan who is now acting as Sammy Sosa's Public
Relations Boy?

Johnny Mostil
11-28-2006, 07:23 AM
Is this the same Paul Sullivan who is now acting as Sammy Sosa's Public
Relations Boy?

Yep. Go figure.

Fenway
11-28-2006, 08:18 AM
Bob Ryan admits this morning he was duped in 1998 by McGwire and Sosa


That glorious weekend in St. Louis eight years ago? I now feel I was used. And I'm sorry, but I cannot get past that sad day in March 2005 when Mark McGwire appeared before the House Government Reform Committee and became the first American citizen to invoke the 4 1/2 Amendment. Asked if he had used performance-enhancing substances, he said, "My lawyers have advised me that I cannot answer these questions without jeopardizing my friends, my family, and myself."

And then there was this classic: "I'm not here to talk about the past," he whimpered.

Well, Mark, if you can't bring yourself to talk about your past, I don't see any reason why we should waste time evaluating it. Tony Gwynn, Cal Ripken, Jim Rice, Goose Gossage, Dave Concepcion, and perhaps one or two others will get my vote. You won't.
Bob Ryan is a Globe columnist. His e-mail address is ryan@globe.com (ryan@globe.com). http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/File-Based_Image_Resource/dingbat_story_end_icon.gif

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/articles/2006/11/28/a_no_vote_for_mcgwire/?page=full

Fenway
11-28-2006, 09:19 AM
another no vote for Big Mac

Big Mac won't get my vote for hall (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1164667810289&call_pageid=968867503640&col=970081593064&t=TS_Home)
Nov. 28, 2006. 06:26 AM
Mark McGwire may well make it to the National Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, N.Y., on the strength of his home run numbers, but it won't be with Dave Perkins' vote.

The feeling here is that McGwire simply has very borderline numbers, even including his home-run exploits. Hitting it over the fence was his strength. Period. From 1988 to 1992, he batted, in order, .260, .231, .235, .201 and .226. You could certainly pitch to him. His on-base percentage those years was .352, .339, .370, .330 and .385, or somewhere between Reed Johnson and Alex Rios. Those pedestrian numbers, in addition to the Roger Maris-breaking home runs, are all part of it.

soxinem1
11-28-2006, 05:08 PM
All those last and near last place finished by the Cubs probably hurt him.

All I have to say is Harold! Harold! Harold!

Will Cowley be allowed to vote?

As much as I like Harold, he sure played on a bunch of losers himself...........

SouthSide_HitMen
11-28-2006, 07:12 PM
Tammy Wynette is standing by her man (http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-hall-mcgwire-larussa&prov=ap&type=lgns).

La Russa on McGwire: `I've believed in him from day one. I still believe in him'

Ol' No. 2
11-29-2006, 04:04 PM
Phil Taylor wrote as well-reasoned an article (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/phil_taylor/11/29/mcgwire.hof/index.html?cnn=yes) on why McGwire should not be in the HOF as you're ever going to find.
Is it fair to assume McGwire used steroids? For the purposes of determining his Hall of Fame worthiness, it is. This isn't a legal proceeding in which we need a preponderance of evidence, it's a decision on whether to award McGwire an honor, and for that, the voters have a right to cast their ballot based on their informed opinion.

Oblong
11-29-2006, 06:39 PM
The thing that I just can't reconcile is why McGwire should be singled out over any other potential HOFers who may have just as well used this stuff but were never asked under oath in front of Congress. How do we know that Ken Griffey Jr, Frank Thomas, or any other sure bet for the HOF didn't use them? McGwire never failed a test. You don't need bulging neck muscles and acne to get the benefits of steroids.

PKalltheway
11-29-2006, 07:29 PM
One thing is absolutely for sure: when Rafael Palmeiro comes up for induction, he ain't gettin' in. Period. End of story.

Ol' No. 2
11-29-2006, 08:45 PM
The thing that I just can't reconcile is why McGwire should be singled out over any other potential HOFers who may have just as well used this stuff but were never asked under oath in front of Congress. How do we know that Ken Griffey Jr, Frank Thomas, or any other sure bet for the HOF didn't use them? McGwire never failed a test. You don't need bulging neck muscles and acne to get the benefits of steroids.McGwire failed a very important test - testifying before Congress. His testimony was as much an admission as OJ's book.

Oblong
11-29-2006, 10:00 PM
but only because he was there. The others weren't asked in that environment so we'll never know. Did he have to go there? What was the criteria for the guys who were there? Sosa and Palmeiro were not retired yet were they? And the issue isn't about McGwire doing something by himself. It's an industry problem and he was one participant. Maybe it's just because he's the first one up that I'm thinking he'll take the bullet. I really do think a big percentage of players, including pitchers, were taking something. I don't know if it's a majority but I think it's a signifigant number.

That said, right now I'd not vote for him. To be honest, I'm not sure he's even a HOFer without the PED controversy.

Bonds will be a tougher call for me because I thought he was a HOFer before 2001.

Ol' No. 2
11-29-2006, 10:08 PM
but only because he was there. The others weren't asked in that environment so we'll never know. Did he have to go there? What was the criteria for the guys who were there? Sosa and Palmeiro were not retired yet were they? And the issue isn't about McGwire doing something by himself. It's an industry problem and he was one participant. Maybe it's just because he's the first one up that I'm thinking he'll take the bullet. I really do think a big percentage of players, including pitchers, were taking something. I don't know if it's a majority but I think it's a signifigant number.

That said, right now I'd not vote for him. To be honest, I'm not sure he's even a HOFer without the PED controversy.

Bonds will be a tougher call for me because I thought he was a HOFer before 2001.Read the article I referenced above. He offers very cogent arguments for each of those points - better than I could.

Daver
11-29-2006, 10:12 PM
The thing that I just can't reconcile is why McGwire should be singled out over any other potential HOFers who may have just as well used this stuff but were never asked under oath in front of Congress. How do we know that Ken Griffey Jr, Frank Thomas, or any other sure bet for the HOF didn't use them? McGwire never failed a test. You don't need bulging neck muscles and acne to get the benefits of steroids.

He retired before he was ever forced to take a test, was a team mate of self admitted steroid users for an extended period of time, and made an absolute fool of himself in front of a congressional committee.

Frank Thomas and Ken Griffey Jr. are both on record offering to take a drug test long before testing was embraced by MLB, and both were shot down by the MLBPA.

If the truth ever comes out, and I doubt it will, I would believe you would find more pitchers than hitters are guilty of using steroids.

fquaye149
11-29-2006, 10:14 PM
but only because he was there. The others weren't asked in that environment so we'll never know. Did he have to go there? What was the criteria for the guys who were there? Sosa and Palmeiro were not retired yet were they? And the issue isn't about McGwire doing something by himself. It's an industry problem and he was one participant. Maybe it's just because he's the first one up that I'm thinking he'll take the bullet. I really do think a big percentage of players, including pitchers, were taking something. I don't know if it's a majority but I think it's a signifigant number.

That said, right now I'd not vote for him. To be honest, I'm not sure he's even a HOFer without the PED controversy.

Bonds will be a tougher call for me because I thought he was a HOFer before 2001.

So what you're saying is....since ANYONE could have conceivably used steroids, we shouldn't single someone out who we are almost positive DID use steroids

Fenway
11-30-2006, 09:31 AM
McGwire has at least ONE vote from a Tampa writer

The straw polls tell me I'm a fool.
Those shouting loudest seem to suggest I might be gullible and naive. Or, even worse, that I lack integrity or common sense.
And, perhaps, they have a point.
You see, I have come down on the unpopular side of a contentious issue. I have chosen to cast a vote for Mark McGwire for the Hall of Fame.

http://www.sptimes.com/2006/11/30/Sports/Cheated_like_many__hi.shtml

fquaye149
11-30-2006, 09:38 AM
McGwire has at least ONE vote from a Tampa writer

The straw polls tell me I'm a fool.
Those shouting loudest seem to suggest I might be gullible and naive. Or, even worse, that I lack integrity or common sense.
And, perhaps, they have a point.
You see, I have come down on the unpopular side of a contentious issue. I have chosen to cast a vote for Mark McGwire for the Hall of Fame.

http://www.sptimes.com/2006/11/30/Sports/Cheated_like_many__hi.shtml

That article's called "Cheated like many, hit like no one"

Lol. McGwire's not even the best of the steroids users. Bonds you might say cheated like many hit like no one.

McGwire "cheated like many, hit like most of the others who cheated"

Fenway
11-30-2006, 12:22 PM
this will certainly help Bret's chances :tongue:

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/sports/16111397.htm

Bret Saberhagen doesn’t hold any illusions about his chances of making it into the Baseball Hall of Fame now that he’s entered his first year on the ballot.

But Saberhagen had some startling words for Hall voters about what he’d do if he got in.

“I’d have to decline,” Saberhagen said by phone. “I wouldn’t accept it unless the Hall decides to put Pete Rose in, which is where he belongs. You’re talking about the all-time hits leader. It’s never been proven that he bet on baseball while he played.”

WizardsofOzzie
11-30-2006, 12:44 PM
this will certainly help Bret's chances :tongue:

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/sports/16111397.htm

Bret Saberhagen doesn’t hold any illusions about his chances of making it into the Baseball Hall of Fame now that he’s entered his first year on the ballot.

But Saberhagen had some startling words for Hall voters about what he’d do if he got in.

“I’d have to decline,” Saberhagen said by phone. “I wouldn’t accept it unless the Hall decides to put Pete Rose in, which is where he belongs. You’re talking about the all-time hits leader. It’s never been proven that he bet on baseball while he played.”
Thats also a good point. If Pete Rose isn't going to ever be admitted to the hall of fame, it would be a joke to let Bonds, Sosa, and McGwire in

Oblong
11-30-2006, 04:03 PM
Did those guys do anything that was against baseball's rules of lifetime eligibility?

Rose should never be in the HOF. He signed away his chances with the 1989 agreement which stated baseball had a good reason to ban him for life. If he didn't bet on baseball then why did he "plea bargain" tot he maximum punishment? Whether he was a player or manager is irrelevant. In fact it's worse to do it as a manager because you have greater control.

Oblong
11-30-2006, 04:09 PM
So what you're saying is....since ANYONE could have conceivably used steroids, we shouldn't single someone out who we are almost positive DID use steroids


In fact, yes it is. The reason McGwire and Co. went to Congress wasn't because they thought a few guys were using PED. I'm saying it's not fair to single out the few that were under oath when asked. Put the entire rosters of baseball during 1992-2005 under the same oath, ask them the same question, let them answer, and then we can start singling out individuals. Until then it's an industry problem. I'm starting to think we shouldn't let anybody in, pitchers or catchers, who played their prime during the "steroid" era.

Ol' No. 2
11-30-2006, 04:30 PM
In fact, yes it is. The reason McGwire and Co. went to Congress wasn't because they thought a few guys were using PED. I'm saying it's not fair to single out the few that were under oath when asked. Put the entire rosters of baseball during 1992-2005 under the same oath, ask them the same question, let them answer, and then we can start singling out individuals. Until then it's an industry problem. I'm starting to think we shouldn't let anybody in, pitchers or catchers, who played their prime during the "steroid" era.Try using that excuse the next time a cop rings you up.

"But judge, there were lots of other people on the road who might also have been intoxicated, but they weren't tested. It's not fair to single me out."

Flight #24
11-30-2006, 04:37 PM
McGwire has at least ONE vote from a Tampa writer

The straw polls tell me I'm a fool.
Those shouting loudest seem to suggest I might be gullible and naive. Or, even worse, that I lack integrity or common sense.
And, perhaps, they have a point.
You see, I have come down on the unpopular side of a contentious issue. I have chosen to cast a vote for Mark McGwire for the Hall of Fame.

http://www.sptimes.com/2006/11/30/Sports/Cheated_like_many__hi.shtml

So basically, this clown says: I think he used steroids, but so did a lot of guys. And the bottom line is that I had such a good time at the game where he passed Maris that I have to vote him in.

:puking:

Oblong
11-30-2006, 05:12 PM
Try using that excuse the next time a cop rings you up.

"But judge, there were lots of other people on the road who might also have been intoxicated, but they weren't tested. It's not fair to single me out."

Apples and oranges. This isn't a criminal proceeding. It's a value based subjective call on the part of the voters. McGwire wasn't "pulled over" because he was observed doing something wrong.

Ol' No. 2
11-30-2006, 07:29 PM
Apples and oranges. This isn't a criminal proceeding. It's a value based subjective call on the part of the voters. McGwire wasn't "pulled over" because he was observed doing something wrong.Exactly. And it doesn't require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The voters are considering whether to bestow an honor. McGwire's actions have rendered him unfit for that honor and whether anyone else did steroids or not is utterly irrelevant.

fquaye149
11-30-2006, 07:40 PM
Exactly. And it doesn't require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The voters are considering whether to bestow an honor. McGwire's actions have rendered him unfit for that honor and whether anyone else did steroids or not is utterly irrelevant.

as much as it pains me to say it, ON2 is 100% right.

What is so hard to understand about this Oblong?

Oblong
11-30-2006, 08:38 PM
Exactly. And it doesn't require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The voters are considering whether to bestow an honor. McGwire's actions have rendered him unfit for that honor and whether anyone else did steroids or not is utterly irrelevant.

I agree with you on the first part, I said as much in my first posts on the subject. But I do think it's relevant what others did, or more precisely, didn't ever have the chance to do: testify before congress under oath. Did that testimony change the opinions of the writers? I'm not saying it means McGwire should get in. I guess my point is that I think the voters and public are using the congress thing as if it were a trial and the only ones we're going to hold to a tough standard are those who got up there when I don't think they even had to do that. Sure I think McGwire did take steroids and I'd vote a note for it, but I don't want him to be a scapegoat because I think lots of others are guilty of it too. How do we know who they are? I don't know. But I'm certain there's others.

as much as it pains me to say it, ON2 is 100% right.

What is so hard to understand about this Oblong?

I do understand it. I'm just trying to stimulate the dicsussion. I'm having a conversation, not an argument. I agree more than you might have thought.

samram
11-30-2006, 11:12 PM
I agree with you on the first part, I said as much in my first posts on the subject. But I do think it's relevant what others did, or more precisely, didn't ever have the chance to do: testify before congress under oath. Did that testimony change the opinions of the writers? I'm not saying it means McGwire should get in. I guess my point is that I think the voters and public are using the congress thing as if it were a trial and the only ones we're going to hold to a tough standard are those who got up there when I don't think they even had to do that. Sure I think McGwire did take steroids and I'd vote a note for it, but I don't want him to be a scapegoat because I think lots of others are guilty of it too. How do we know who they are? I don't know. But I'm certain there's others.

I guess my thought for McGwire would be "tough ****." He was there because he was one of those suspected of using. He happens to be on the short list of "would be a shoo-in if the numbers were produced free of enhancement/suspected of using steroids" players and those are the guys people are going to care about. The Congressional hearing/dog and pony show probably won't even make much of a difference except for Palmeiro. I don't think McGwire was thought of as having been clean anyway.

I think Sosa is trying to see how things play out with McGwire before he retires. That's why he's trying to come back. If McGwire gets in this year for some reason, I could see Sammy pulling a Kruk as soon as McGwire is done with his induction speech.

Ol' No. 2
11-30-2006, 11:23 PM
I agree with you on the first part, I said as much in my first posts on the subject. But I do think it's relevant what others did, or more precisely, didn't ever have the chance to do: testify before congress under oath. Did that testimony change the opinions of the writers? I'm not saying it means McGwire should get in. I guess my point is that I think the voters and public are using the congress thing as if it were a trial and the only ones we're going to hold to a tough standard are those who got up there when I don't think they even had to do that. Sure I think McGwire did take steroids and I'd vote a note for it, but I don't want him to be a scapegoat because I think lots of others are guilty of it too. How do we know who they are? I don't know. But I'm certain there's others.



I do understand it. I'm just trying to stimulate the dicsussion. I'm having a conversation, not an argument. I agree more than you might have thought.They did not have a choice in testifying. If you remember, Palmiero wasn't going to testify at first. He has some lame excuse or other. But an "invitation" to testify at a congressional hearing isn't like being invited to a garden party. "No, thanks" is not an option. They would have been subpoenaed.

Flight #24
12-01-2006, 09:35 AM
Well-phrased statement on this by Morrissey in today's Trib:

I've heard some baseball writers ask how they could keep McGwire out of the Hall when steroids were not banned by the sport during his career. It's an argument so thin it could be made into gruel. Steroids might not have been banned by baseball, but unprescribed steroids were illegal in society. Likewise, Major League Baseball rules do not outlaw the planting of land mines in center field, but federal laws do prohibit them.

...

Unfair? Of course it's unfair. But so was an entire era in which we were fooled by blown-up second basemen who went from 10 home runs apiece per year to 30. We all bring our own criteria into decision-making. Mine is that I won't get fooled again.

I don't care that pitcher Gaylord Perry made the Hall even though he slathered the ball with Vaseline. I care about now. I care about the effect steroid use has on impressionable kids.

Fenway
12-01-2006, 09:36 AM
So basically, this clown says: I think he used steroids, but so did a lot of guys. And the bottom line is that I had such a good time at the game where he passed Maris that I have to vote him in.

:puking:

When you are a Tampa baseball writer good times don't happen often. :tongue: