Hall Of Fame 2013

I think you mistakenly hit the "Post" button, and yet your silence was actually a quite accurate representation of how the voting went.

I felt the writers did a good job except on Morris, I felt he should make it this year. Sad thing is he only has a shot with the Veterans Commity because Maddux comes up next year. Biggio was borderline and could have saw him get in, one of the best middle infielders of the 90's/00's. Trammel has a bit of a case too.

Dark day for Baseball. People need to get over the Steroids thing. It was not illegel when they took it. It saved baseball and most of the players were taking it. Including pitchers. It is ashame that people want to act high and mighty on it, but yet say nothing about football. How many football players are in the hall and juice their whole career? You can not prove everyone and some that is proven still deserve to be in the ball. Just another black eye against baseball.

I'll leave out players who have been implicated for use of performance enhancing drugs out of this, since that's a different debate. Based on performance...

Craig Biggio should have gotten in on the first try. He had over 3,000 hits and was an all star as a catcher, a second baseman, and an outfielder. No one else has ever done that. Moreover, since it's obviously a sticking point for many voters, he obviously didn't use steroids, nor has he ever been implicated for using any of those substances. I'm sure he'll get in next year, but he deserved to get in this year.

The same goes for Mike Piazza, who is probably the best hitting catcher of all-time. There's no reason why he shouldn't be a first ballot Hall of Famer.

As for other players that have never been implicated for performance enhancing drugs, I believe Jeff Bagwell, Tim Raines, and Curt Schilling should be in there as well.

Never looked at Piazza as anything more than a first baseman, he was bad defensively and didnt play behind the plate as long as other HOF catchers.  So was Piazza one of the best hitting 1B of his era, maybe, depends if he was on steroids.  I believe he was on some so I would not vote him in. 

Biggio has a really strong case and I can understand why some people are frustrated at him not being voted in.

In regards to performance enhancing drugs, I don't want anyone in the HOF in there that used them.  Whats a legal or illegal PED is a BS reason in my perspective, you play the game using your skills to outperform the opponent that does not factor in some product.  If you took some sort of product to gain a comparitive advantage of other players than that would make you ineligible.  I don't care how much money it made baseball, it took credibility away from the game in my opinion and players using this embarrassed the game for personal gain.

Another real life example is college.  Many college kids are knowingly cheating and using academic illegal means to get an edge and pass.  So when they graduate with a 4.0 do you think I want people looking up to a person like that or include them in some sort of Hall of Fame from my school, Hell no, they're are cheaters and took the easy way out.  Why professional athletes did this was purely an economic and prestige thing, zero respect for the game.  

I saw that none of the juicers made it,if it were up to me,Bonds,Sosa,Big Mac,Clemens,Palmerio and A-Rod would never see the HOF.

Never really got into the HOF thing in any of the pro sports.

But I do have my own personal list from what I've got to see in my lifetime.....


1B Albert Pujols
2B Ryne Sandberg
SS Cal Ripken
3B George Brett
LF Rickey Henderson
CF Kirby Puckett
RF Reggie Jackson 

I'd give my DH to Frank Thomas.

SP- Randy Johnson, Nolan Ryan, Steve Carlton, Greg Maddux, Tom Seaver

Closer- Rich Gossage

I like Brett over Schmidt because, quite frankly, Brett was a far better hitter, not even close.

I like Puckett over Griffey Jr. But certainly wouldn't win an aguement over it by looking at career stats..
Puckett was a hitting machine in his short career (.318) and played harder "with less" than anyone I can remember.

Nice to see I've taken the thread off track somewhat.

Never looked at Piazza as anything more than a first baseman, he was bad defensively and didnt play behind the plate as long as other HOF catchers. 

Huh?

Your statements on Mike Piazza are so off base, I'm wondering if you're even talking about the same player.

The only years catcher wasn't his primary position was 2004, where he had only a handful more at bats as a first baseman, and 2007, when he was Oakland's DH. 

In fact, there were only two other seasons in which he even had appearances at first base (1993 and 2003), and both of those were for one inning each. For you to think of him as a first baseman is to think of Carlos Zambrano primarily as a relief pitcher.

Catcher was his primary position up until the age of 37, when he was with the Padres and played 99 games there. That is much longer than the majority of catchers in Major League history have ever lasted behind the plate. Johnny Bench, who most consider the greatest hitting catcher of all time, stopped playing behind the plate regularly at age 32. He went from first, to third, to splitting time between first and third for the final three years of his career.

As far as his defense goes, throwing out base stealers was never his forte (23% caught for his career), but he actually had good range from behind the plate and fielded the position quite well.

Your misconceptions about Piazza aside, his body of work speaks for itself. 1993 Rookie of the Year, 12-time All Star, 10-time Silver Slugger at catcher. He finished top ten in MVP voting seven times, including a pair of runner-up finishes. His career batting line was .308/.377/.545 with 2,127 hits and 427 home runs. He knocks every other catcher in history out of the park with these numbers.

So was Piazza one of the best hitting 1B of his era, maybe, depends if he was on steroids.  I believe he was on some so I would not vote him in. 

You believe he was on steroids? Based on what evidence? He wasn't mentioned in the Mitchell Report, nor was he one of the players who tested positive for a banned substance back in 2003 like Sammy Sosa or Alex Rodriguez. There is literally no evidence to support your "belief". 

In regards to performance enhancing drugs, I don't want anyone in the HOF in there that used them.  Whats a legal or illegal PED is a BS reason in my perspective, you play the game using your skills to outperform the opponent that does not factor in some product.  If you took some sort of product to gain a comparitive advantage of other players than that would make you ineligible.

Then you'll probably be disappointed to learn that several Hall of Famers used amphetimines throughout their careers. 

I guess I was wrong about the 1B thing, puts him top ten in catchers all time had he not used enhancers. He openly admitted using androstenedione early in his career and said it made no difference. He then stated it didn't factor into his power. So, a drug that makes a person stronger faster doesn't factor into his hitting power, BS. Even if they weren't illegal a person knew what roids were. I highly doubt he wasn't on this, at the time is wasn't that hard to hide the substance. Bagwell probably did the same thing.

My empty Hall Of Fame post was intentional just like my Yankees thread last week.

I would have voted Biggio in for all the reasons stated.  Someone correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't Biggio hold the all time record for being hit by the pitch (HBP)!  The fact that he was also captain of the team that brought them respectability in addition to his versatility and intangibles puts him over the hump in his first year on my ballot.

Alot of old players including Hank Aaron and other took amphetamines during the game called "greenies". They said there use to be a bucket of them that use to sit next to the sunflower seeds. They were taken all the time. To me, a drug that helps you concetrate and speed up your body would do more for you than a drug that increases strength. You ban the roids guys then you have to ban the guys who took "greenies".

Silence, that is what Piazza took and can be used with steroids.  Personally, I consider it to be a steroid to.  It basically helps you create testerone that turns you into a race horse and speeds up muscle healing time allowing you to workout quicker (i.e. upper body workouts daily, possible multiple times a day).  If other players were allowed to take that its BS too.  I was unaware of that information though.

This is just one article, I know there were more saying Hank and others took them more then once.

http://mobile.newsday.com/inf/infom
o;JSESSIONID=AC41B08F9B6755051D00.3
203?site=newsday&view=sports_blogs_item&feed:a=newsday_5min&feed:c=sports_blogs&feed:i=1.3414088&nopaging=1

Players will always try to find a competitive edge. It can be the difference between millions of dollars and unemployment. I am an advocate that most players in the 90's took it so the playing field wasnt drastically unfair. I still find it so odd how people ignore football but bash baseball on steroids. Also, I am sorry but baseball was a lot better to watch when "Chicks dig the long ball."

Football usually has a smaller amount of educated fans.

Absolutely ridiculous that Biggio did not get in.

Biggio was not a first ballot HOF guy.

That is generally reseved for the "elite" HOF players.  Joe DImaggio was not a first ballot HOF, so that bar is set pretty high.  The reality is that there was never a time that Biggio was considered "the best player in the game", he was the best at his position, but not an MVP, which is the general bar for first ballot.  I'm not saying that's the way it should be, but that's the way it is.  I saw several shows where they predicted Biggio would not get in this year, but get in next, and that was before the voting even took place. 

As far as the PED players not getting in, I see the writers point.  The reality is that they used PED's to enhance their numbers.  We don't know what their true performance was, we don't know the true extent of the PED use.  Was it 10% of the league? was it 90%? that makes a difference.  The reason it makes a difference is because the HOF is supposed to be transcendental.  It's a mark not just of your "era", but also a measure against all time, and if you don't know how much of the performance was from the PEDs, then how can you compare.  It's also the case that several of them(bonds in particular) took them explicetly to break all time records and get into  the HOF.  They knew they were cheating, we know they cheated, do we reward it??  That's the ethical quandry.  So I don't blame the writers for what they are doing.  If Rose is not in, and his transgression was all post career(playing career), then what's the argument for letting guys who put up their HOF numbers as a direct result of their cheating??

To me the HOF is going to have to find a new solution.  Maybe they put them in with and asterisk,  Or label them the steroid ERA etc.  But until that is figured out, I'm OK with their doing.

I would have put Morris in, but he's on the border in my book(IMHO)