|
Post by hcpride on Jan 25, 2022 19:51:13 GMT -5
Red Sox legend David Ortiz was the sole player voted into the Hall of Fame by the Baseball Writers’ Association of America, making it in his first year on the ballot, with the announcement coming Tuesday on MLB Network. Ortiz was named on 307 of the 394 ballots (77.9%).[75% is required.] Ortiz joins the six men voted in by the Golden Days and Early Baseball Era committees back in December: Jim Kaat and Tony Oliva, and the late Bud Fowler, Gil Hodges, Minnie Miñoso and Buck O’Neil. David Ortiz: 307 votes, 77.9% Barry Bonds: 260 votes, 66% (final year on ballot) Roger Clemens: 257 votes, 65.2% (final year on ballot) Scott Rolen: 249 votes, 63.2% Curt Schilling: 231 votes, 58.6% (final year on ballot) Todd Helton: 205 votes, 52.0% Billy Wagner: 201 votes, 51.0% Andruw Jones: 163 votes, 41.1% Gary Sheffield: 160 votes, 40.6% Alex Rodriguez: 135 votes, 34.3% Jeff Kent: 129 votes, 32.7% Manny Ramirez: 114 votes, 28.9% …. www.mlb.com/amp/news/baseball-hall-of-fame-2022-voting.html
|
|
|
Post by timholycross on Jan 25, 2022 22:27:47 GMT -5
Glad Dan S.'s contrarian point of view didn't carry the day.
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Jan 25, 2022 22:45:59 GMT -5
Jim Kaat, Mudcat Grant and Catfish Hunter all deserve to be in the feline wing of the Hall. Are they all in?
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Jan 25, 2022 22:51:25 GMT -5
Glad Dan S.'s contrarian point of view didn't carry the day. Have enjoyed Dan S. since he wrote for the Crusader, but he was cruel to make a joke out of Big Papi's shooting. He kept asking if Former Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis had solved the case yet, long after Davis was off the case and everyone else was just thankful Ortiz survived.
|
|
|
Post by HC92 on Jan 26, 2022 7:50:28 GMT -5
Doesn’t seem consistent that Bonds and Clemens don’t get in because of steroids but Big Papi gets in on the first ballot.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Jan 26, 2022 9:13:04 GMT -5
Doesn’t seem consistent that Bonds and Clemens don’t get in because of steroids but Big Papi gets in on the first ballot. Weren't Bonds and Clemens both indicted for crimes stemming from their steroid use. I don't believe that happened to Ortiz
|
|
|
Post by alum on Jan 26, 2022 9:15:06 GMT -5
Doesn’t seem consistent that Bonds and Clemens don’t get in because of steroids but Big Papi gets in on the first ballot. Could it be that voters are stubborn and, having applied one test to Bonds and Clemens ten years ago can't bring themselves to change, but allow themselves to change as to Ortiz. Certainly, Ortiz is a much more beloved player than any of the other contenders. (I know that the proof as to Clemens and Bond seems stronger than it does as to Ortiz.) Bonds and Clemens have been talked about to death. There is no doubt their numbers put them in the Hall and voters have decided that steroids keep them out. Here are some thoughts about some other guys: 1. Sosa--He hit 600 home runs and had 1667 RBIs but had a career OPS+ of only 101. By my calculations, he was a susperstar for 5 seasons and a very good player for 9. He is supposedly on the same 2003 list at Ortiz. Is he out because his career numbers are only .252./.311/.468/.779 or because of steroids or because of a little of both? 2. Manny--555 home runs and 1831 RBIs. Career OPS+ of 154. .312/.411/.595/.996. I can say I enjoyed watching him hit more than any player in the more than 50 years I have been a baseball fan. I don't have a problem with a voter saying no to a guy with two suspensions from failed tests despite his extraordinary talent. 3. A Rod--696 home runs and more than 2000 RBIs. Career OPS + of 140. When called upon to steal bases, he did that, too. Stat line is .295/ .380/.550/.930. If two suspensions are too many, is one? He could have stonewalled the investigations, not talked to the feds, never admited it and claimed the test results were wrong. More people voted for Clemens and Bonds who were never suspended and never admitted knowingly using. Would A Rod be closer to their vote percentages if he had been dishonest? 4. Shilling--No PEDs. I think that as a regular season pitcher he is a borderline hall of famer. (3 time Cy Young runner up, 216 wins, 3 20 win seasons, 3.5 ERA, 129 for ERA+) I do think that the postseason should matter and he was 11-2 in 19 starts with a sub 1.00 WHIP. No matter how offensive and annoying I find him, I have come around to the idea that he belongs in the Hall. There are lots of jerks (and cheaters which he was not) in the Hall and he should be, too.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Jan 26, 2022 9:21:59 GMT -5
Is Hall of Famer Gaylord Perry that much different than Clemens or Bonds?
|
|
|
Post by mm67 on Jan 26, 2022 9:32:25 GMT -5
Big Papi belongs. One of the great clutch players in history in any American sport. Bonds & Clemens had HoF numbers before any hint of their using steroids. Bonds was on his way to the Hall until he lost it over Sosa & Mark McGuire getting all the publicity for their steroid fueled home run derby. I I guess he figured if them, why not me, I'm a far better player than they are. Of course Bonds' rationale was faulty. He is a cynical SOB. But, although I'm not and admirers of both Bonds & Clemens they belong in the Hall. Add Alex, Schilling to my list. Also, eventually Pete Rose will enter the Hall in memoriam. The Hall could add an asterisk to each describing their rules violations. As to Sosa & Manny I don't have enough info to form an opinion. Of note, there are plenty of questionable/bad characters , racists/pill poppers (some of which were illegal) and the like who are in the Hall because they were great ball players. ------ From a Disgruntled Yankees Fan.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Jan 26, 2022 9:37:23 GMT -5
I feel much the same way. Sosa and Maquire boosted interest in baseball an d brought in money for the league, so PED use was ignored, if not actually condoned. I do agree with the idea of putting them in with a note about their drug abuse...from another disgruntled Yankees fan.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Jan 26, 2022 9:44:06 GMT -5
Any Providence/Rhode Island writers (ProJo?) in the voting group? Clemmons wasn't likely getting his/their vote with nothing to do with baseball or steroids. He was perceived as stiffing the state. Of course, the blame should also go to state officials but they weren't being considered for the HOF. (Note my opening for rf1! )
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Jan 26, 2022 9:44:43 GMT -5
The rejection of of Clemens (7 Cy Young awards) and Bonds (7 MVP awards) MIGHT challenge Pete Rose’s status as the best retired player not in the Hall.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Jan 26, 2022 9:48:43 GMT -5
Personally, I'm glad "Charlie Hustle" isn't in. I'll defer to others with better memories but my recollection was that Rose made some kind of agreement that he agreed not to be considered for the HOF in some deal he made with MLB. Did I dream that? Edit from USA Today:
|
|
|
Post by WCHC Sports on Jan 26, 2022 10:59:07 GMT -5
Ortiz a first-ballot hall of famer? I mean, he was really good, but was he prolific? You can make the case for him, I can make the case against him, but I'm not so against him getting in...
If Bonds and Clemens are not in for drug suspicion or fugazy tests, then Ortiz should not be in for drug suspicion or fugazy tests... because Bonds and Clemens are 1.5 - 3x the player Ortiz was.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Jan 26, 2022 11:03:25 GMT -5
Also, eventually Pete Rose will enter the Hall in memoriam. Boy, I hope not. Bonds and Clemens broke the rules to gain a competitive advantage in the game. Pete Rose brought into question whether there was an actual competition happening. His offense was the most serious within the game of baseball. That is why it carries the harshest penalty. He knew what he was doing. He knew the consequences of his actions because the rule is so important it's posted in every MLB dugout. When you're a star athlete, you've probably been taught that the rules don't apply to you - from the Tar Heel taking fake classes to all time hit leader betting on games. I'm just old fashioned, but I don't think being an exceptional athlete means you get a pass on following the rules
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Jan 26, 2022 11:16:06 GMT -5
Especially when you bet on your own team’s games. Presumably because he bet ON his team, that showed loyalty or confidence but still against the rules and he knew it.
He gets no sympathy from me.
Nor does Bonds nor Clemons. And while they find Papi lovable in Boston, I don’t think he should be in for the same reason.
More than I should write for a sport (MLB anyway) I no longer care about. More about breaking rules than baseball for me.
|
|
|
Post by nycrusader2010 on Jan 26, 2022 12:09:00 GMT -5
Doesn’t seem consistent that Bonds and Clemens don’t get in because of steroids but Big Papi gets in on the first ballot. Weren't Bonds and Clemens both indicted for crimes stemming from their steroid use. I don't believe that happened to Ortiz Does indicted mean guilty?
|
|
|
Post by nycrusader2010 on Jan 26, 2022 12:14:38 GMT -5
Doesn’t seem consistent that Bonds and Clemens don’t get in because of steroids but Big Papi gets in on the first ballot. I thought same thing but I did notice that the presence of Papi on ballot did seem to "drag up" the overall % of the other two. Meaning a large portion of the writers did realize the hypocrisy. I called this years ago, that Papi would somehow manage to crash through the "DH" and "steroid" glass ceilings. Edgar finally getting in was a function of the writers "greasing the skids" for Ortiz IMO. Pedro Martinez was also a steroid guy and is already in. But pitchers seem to get more of a pass than power hitters when it comes to roids. But overall I absolutely believe Papi deserves it. Wish Bonds and Rocket could've gotten over the hump too.
|
|
|
Post by hc1998 on Jan 26, 2022 13:17:16 GMT -5
I have suspicions on Papi too, but I don't like them to rule the day. There are also 2 distinctions between him and Bonds/Clemens. 1. All we have is that his name was on that 2003 list...Rob Manfred even came out and said you could not rely on that to mean any one (namely Papi) player was positive as there were more than 10 scientifically unreliable test results in that batch...those names have never been released (and they did not retest because even throwing out the unreliable ones, they were over the 5% threshold they were looking for). 2. Ortiz played the better part of his career subject to testing, while Bonds and Clemens only played the tail end
I like to ask people a question on this debate slightly differently though...aren't Bonds and Clemens' accomplishments roughly equivalent to each other? (Biggest case in point 7MVP v. 7 Cy's)...no matter where you fall in the PED conversation (let them in, never let them in, its grey, etc) is there anybody here that would treat those two different from each other? Yet their vote totals have never matched...early on Clemens got more than Bonds and the last few years Bonds has received a couple more than Clemens. I do not see how you choose to vote for one (or not vote for one) and treat the other different.
|
|
|
Post by mm67 on Jan 26, 2022 13:44:01 GMT -5
Baseball - the game is greater than any individual player.
|
|
|
Post by alum on Jan 26, 2022 13:44:43 GMT -5
Ortiz a first-ballot hall of famer? I mean, he was really good, but was he prolific? You can make the case for him, I can make the case against him, but I'm not so against him getting in... If Bonds and Clemens are not in for drug suspicion or fugazy tests, then Ortiz should not be in for drug suspicion or fugazy tests... because Bonds and Clemens are 1.5 - 3x the player Ortiz was. I'll go along with you on all of this but wouldn't you agree that a guy who never won an MVP ought not have been named on every ballot but one in his first year of eligibility. (And I don't have a problem with that guy being in the Hall either.)
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Jan 26, 2022 14:03:47 GMT -5
Especially when you bet on your own team’s games. Presumably because he bet ON his team, that showed loyalty or confidence but still against the rules and he knew it. He gets no sympathy from me. Nor does Bonds nor Clemons. And while they find Papi lovable in Boston, I don’t think he should be in for the same reason. More than I should write for a sport (MLB anyway) I no longer care about. More about breaking rules than baseball for me. The rule isn't you can't bet against your team, the rule is you can't bet on baseball. Random hypothetical - If the manager never bets against his own team, but bets for them every game for a week and isn't doing too well. Then on day 7, he doesn't bet at all. On top of that, on that 7th day at the last minute he announces he's pushing Cy Young back a day in the rotation because he thinks he needs a little extra rest and is bringing kid up from AAA. Might someone wonder if the manager was throwing a game because he was in too deep to the bookies? Even if he's not, the perception is enough to do the damage. The fact that he says he never bet against his team does not absolve him of guilt
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Jan 26, 2022 14:11:46 GMT -5
Tom, I first thought you were going with the God's seven day creation story but I think you and I are in agreement on Rose.
Guess this is the "real" reason I'm against Rose:
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Jan 26, 2022 14:14:21 GMT -5
Weren't Bonds and Clemens both indicted for crimes stemming from their steroid use. I don't believe that happened to Ortiz Does indicted mean guilty? No In this context it does suggest that there was evidence other than the Mitchell report. In Clemens case, his trainer saying that he injected Clemens
|
|
|
Post by hc1998 on Jan 26, 2022 14:54:20 GMT -5
Especially when you bet on your own team’s games. Presumably because he bet ON his team, that showed loyalty or confidence but still against the rules and he knew it. He gets no sympathy from me. Nor does Bonds nor Clemons. And while they find Papi lovable in Boston, I don’t think he should be in for the same reason. More than I should write for a sport (MLB anyway) I no longer care about. More about breaking rules than baseball for me. The rule isn't you can't bet against your team, the rule is you can't bet on baseball. Random hypothetical - If the manager never bets against his own team, but bets for them every game for a week and isn't doing too well. Then on day 7, he doesn't bet at all. On top of that, on that 7th day at the last minute he announces he's pushing Cy Young back a day in the rotation because he thinks he needs a little extra rest and is bringing kid up from AAA. Might someone wonder if the manager was throwing a game because he was in too deep to the bookies? Even if he's not, the perception is enough to do the damage. The fact that he says he never bet against his team does not absolve him of guilt Betting for your team could also be detrimental to your team, and, ultimately, the product MLB puts on the field. I don't know who we'd say his "ace" was in the day, maybe Tom Browning...but Tom Browning comes in right after Pete laid a big bet and says his arm is a little sore...he may force the pitcher to soldier on, knowing its his best chance to win the bet although it could injure the player. Similarly, maybe he empties the bench/bullpen in an attempt to win, knowing he won't bet the next day...so effectively having an impact on how 2 games are played just because he placed the one bet.
|
|