|
|
Post by nycrusader2010 on Jan 29, 2023 8:49:46 GMT -5
This makes sense -- but why "only a year or two of punishment" for the blatant cheating scandal versus "not voting for steroid users (unless their name is David Ortiz or Pedro Martinez) ever"? No logic. And the whole "not first ballot" thing has been going on for decades. I would be willing to bet Jeff Kent jumps next year. Can't remember if he was on the 'roids list or not, though. I think the distinction is that players and teams have looked for loopholes and advantages to take within the course of the game for years...the Astros just took it way too far. Similarly, while the cheating likely helped the players and their stats, it did nothing to prolong a career...getting a likely 400 hr hitter to 500 homers, etc. As someone else has since pointed out, Kent wasn't a first ballot candidate, in fact it was his last. I've always argued he should get more support than he has, but I've come short of claiming he should make the hall...he's one of those players that I'd be ok with him in or out, so I am not necessarily upset he didn't make it, just upset more writers didn't recognize his career. His "positional home run leader" title gets a bit watered down though when one considers his defense...he was a below average second basemen, and if he played ANY other position (except maybe SS) he probably would get even less support than he does now. I also noted an interesting comment on Hernandez following Rolen's election. I think today's voters would certainly give Hernandez the requisite support (but also remember, at least part of his lack of support is due to his involvement in the Pittsburgh drug trials...granted I think we'd forgive quicker today). I also saw a similar post arguing for Mark Grace in light of Rolen's election...if you look at the numbers, its not a ridiculous argument..granted part of Rolen's cache was his otherworldly defense...but Grace was still very good in the field, having won a few gold gloves, but he was not a once in a generation fielder like Rolen. These are all great takes. And I have no idea why I would've thought Kent was newly on the ballot -- that would've meant he'd played into his mid-40's. Playing a historically weak offensive position and having had the exposure of hitting back-to-back in a lineup with Bonds were both factors in his favor and he still couldn't get in. Good shot he gets in on the veterans' committee vote whenever he's eligible. That seems to be the backdoor now for guys who really belong in what SOV would accurately describe as the "Hall of Very Good". |
|
|
|
Post by alum on Jan 29, 2023 10:48:33 GMT -5
To address the two players this thread primarily focused on: 1. Beltran-there is a large segment of voters that believe in it being a special honor to be voted in your first year of eligibility and accordingly withold votes based on not being "first ballot worthy" but being "hall worthy"...I think even without the cheating scandal, Beltran would have fallen victim to this. Other writers have publicly said that they would withhold a vote on him a year or two as "punishment" for the scandal, but would ultimately vote for him. I think getting 44% in his first year on the ballot, when he is not "first ballot worthy" and the cheating scandal is fresher in writer's heads is a strong indication that he will ultimately get in before his 10 years are up;2. Rolen-I don't think he is a hall of famer, and I would not have voted for him...but at the same rate I do not think his election is that egregious that it upsets me. This makes sense -- but why "only a year or two of punishment" for the blatant cheating scandal versus "not voting for steroid users (unless their name is David Ortiz or Pedro Martinez) ever"? No logic. And the whole "not first ballot" thing has been going on for decades. I would be willing to bet Jeff Kent jumps next year. Can't remember if he was on the 'roids list or not, though. Pedro? I’m not shocked to hear that any player of that era used steroids but I don’t recall any substantive allegation that Pedro did. |
|
|
|
Post by nycrusader2010 on Jan 29, 2023 11:13:29 GMT -5
This makes sense -- but why "only a year or two of punishment" for the blatant cheating scandal versus "not voting for steroid users (unless their name is David Ortiz or Pedro Martinez) ever"? No logic. And the whole "not first ballot" thing has been going on for decades. I would be willing to bet Jeff Kent jumps next year. Can't remember if he was on the 'roids list or not, though. Pedro? I’m not shocked to hear that any player of that era used steroids but I don’t recall any substantive allegation that Pedro did. Pedro tested positive for PEDs in 2003, when trial testing was supposed to be anonymous, but the list was leaked in 2009. Official MLB drug policy began in 2004 with positive tests resulting in suspension. |
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Jan 30, 2023 15:16:30 GMT -5
I did not know that. KInd of reminds me of Palmiero and his jump about the time he teamed up with Canseco. I look at those guys worse. Bonds and Clemens could have been a HoF'ers without the juice. The juice brought it to an unprecedented levels of things like 700 HR or 7 Cy Youngs, but they were superstars. Palmiero was a good player by no 3000/500 guy without the juice. No I'm lumping Kent in with him There were never any substantiated rumors surrounding Kent. Nor was he on the leaked list of 103 players who tested positive in 2003. So presumably, he was not juicing even a year ahead of the MLB drug testing program. Anyone not voting for Kent because of suspicion of steroid use would be treating him completely unfairly. I think the fact that he played in a ridiculously offensive era makes his numbers seem slightly less impressive, his glove was below average and he had the whole "first ballot" stigma going against him. I think he gets in soon. Agreed, Kent should not be assumed to be a juicer just because of a jump in production in the middle of his career. |
|
|
|
Post by alum on Jan 30, 2023 15:40:10 GMT -5
Pedro? I’m not shocked to hear that any player of that era used steroids but I don’t recall any substantive allegation that Pedro did. Pedro tested positive for PEDs in 2003, when trial testing was supposed to be anonymous, but the list was leaked in 2009. Official MLB drug policy began in 2004 with positive tests resulting in suspension. I am going to push back, ever so gently, on Pedro as steroid user. I know he is on "the list" but if you poke around the internet (as I did over the weekend) there are not a lot of people willing to consider him a steroid user. All of the articles about Ortiz discuss his presence on the list, but Pedro isn't treated the same way. I have always assumed that the list was mostly correct, but have wondered if a few people were wrongfully named. |
|
|
|
Post by nycrusader2010 on Jan 30, 2023 16:22:54 GMT -5
Pedro tested positive for PEDs in 2003, when trial testing was supposed to be anonymous, but the list was leaked in 2009. Official MLB drug policy began in 2004 with positive tests resulting in suspension. I am going to push back, ever so gently, on Pedro as steroid user. I know he is on "the list" but if you poke around the internet (as I did over the weekend) there are not a lot of people willing to consider him a steroid user. All of the articles about Ortiz discuss his presence on the list, but Pedro isn't treated the same way. I have always assumed that the list was mostly correct, but have wondered if a few people were wrongfully named. The list of 103 players who tested positive in 2003 (when results were supposed to be anonymous) came to light because in 2009 an MLB staffer or vendor somehow leaked the fact that Alex Rodriguez was among those that tested positive that year. Of course, Alex went on air and admitted to having taken PEDs. Of course, the world then wanted to know who else tested positive that year? And the list was released. It has never been considered official, not because of alleged inaccuracy of information but because of the legality of officially releasing the information since we're dealing with a major labor union that agreed to testing on specific terms (i.e. an anonymous trial year to start). So any article you see on the internet will reference the list as "the rumored list of players" because it likely will never be officially released. It also appears that the union has over the years made some efforts to have the internet scrubbed of "the list", which will become less and less of a priority since everyone on it has by now retired. If I were a sportswriter with a HOF ballot, I would handle the steroid issue like this -- if you were suspended for violating MLB drug policy once testing officially began in 2004, you're not getting my vote. So that rules out Palmeiro, Manny Ramirez, Alex Rodriguez and Robinson Cano (Cano not HOF material anyway IMO). I'm voting for all the others that haven't gotten in already -- Sosa, McGwire, Bonds, Clemens. I'd have voted for both Pedro and Ortiz if they weren't in already. While I don't view Beltran as a Hall of Famer regardless (he belongs in the Hall of Very Good), I actually think I would forgive the 2019 Astros. I'd vote for Altuve if he indeed puts up the 2nd half of a HOF career. |
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Jan 30, 2023 16:45:07 GMT -5
There were never any substantiated rumors surrounding Kent. Nor was he on the leaked list of 103 players who tested positive in 2003. So presumably, he was not juicing even a year ahead of the MLB drug testing program. Anyone not voting for Kent because of suspicion of steroid use would be treating him completely unfairly. I think the fact that he played in a ridiculously offensive era makes his numbers seem slightly less impressive, his glove was below average and he had the whole "first ballot" stigma going against him. I think he gets in soon. Agreed, Kent should not be assumed to be a juicer just because of a jump in production in the middle of his career. It might not be fair to draw conclusions, but the sudden jump in production happening at the same time he moved to the bay area, which was basically the hot bed of the whole steroid thing, could make a reasonable person ask questions. |
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Jan 31, 2023 11:40:32 GMT -5
I am going to push back, ever so gently, on Pedro as steroid user. I know he is on "the list" but if you poke around the internet (as I did over the weekend) there are not a lot of people willing to consider him a steroid user. All of the articles about Ortiz discuss his presence on the list, but Pedro isn't treated the same way. I have always assumed that the list was mostly correct, but have wondered if a few people were wrongfully named. The list of 103 players who tested positive in 2003 (when results were supposed to be anonymous) came to light because in 2009 an MLB staffer or vendor somehow leaked the fact that Alex Rodriguez was among those that tested positive that year. Of course, Alex went on air and admitted to having taken PEDs. Of course, the world then wanted to know who else tested positive that year? And the list was released. It has never been considered official, not because of alleged inaccuracy of information but because of the legality of officially releasing the information since we're dealing with a major labor union that agreed to testing on specific terms (i.e. an anonymous trial year to start). So any article you see on the internet will reference the list as "the rumored list of players" because it likely will never be officially released. It also appears that the union has over the years made some efforts to have the internet scrubbed of "the list", which will become less and less of a priority since everyone on it has by now retired. If I were a sportswriter with a HOF ballot, I would handle the steroid issue like this -- if you were suspended for violating MLB drug policy once testing officially began in 2004, you're not getting my vote. So that rules out Palmeiro, Manny Ramirez, Alex Rodriguez and Robinson Cano (Cano not HOF material anyway IMO). I'm voting for all the others that haven't gotten in already -- Sosa, McGwire, Bonds, Clemens. I'd have voted for both Pedro and Ortiz if they weren't in already. While I don't view Beltran as a Hall of Famer regardless (he belongs in the Hall of Very Good), I actually think I would forgive the 2019 Astros. I'd vote for Altuve if he indeed puts up the 2nd half of a HOF career. I liked your analysis (I wouldn't vote for Sosa or McGwire, but your logic is sound) until you got to the Beltran part at the end. I see him as pretty close to a slam dunk HOFer. Jayson Stark summed it up very well (the third bullet point is the most compelling argument if you ask me): |
|
|
|
Post by nycrusader2010 on Jan 31, 2023 12:28:33 GMT -5
You have changed my mind on Beltran.
|
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Jan 31, 2023 13:00:52 GMT -5
You have changed my mind on Beltran. Huzzah! But credit goes to Jayson Stark  |
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Jan 31, 2023 15:47:28 GMT -5
I am going to push back, ever so gently, on Pedro as steroid user. I know he is on "the list" but if you poke around the internet (as I did over the weekend) there are not a lot of people willing to consider him a steroid user. All of the articles about Ortiz discuss his presence on the list, but Pedro isn't treated the same way. I have always assumed that the list was mostly correct, but have wondered if a few people were wrongfully named. The list of 103 players who tested positive in 2003 (when results were supposed to be anonymous) came to light because in 2009 an MLB staffer or vendor somehow leaked the fact that Alex Rodriguez was among those that tested positive that year. Of course, Alex went on air and admitted to having taken PEDs. Of course, the world then wanted to know who else tested positive that year? And the list was released. It has never been considered official, not because of alleged inaccuracy of information but because of the legality of officially releasing the information since we're dealing with a major labor union that agreed to testing on specific terms (i.e. an anonymous trial year to start). So any article you see on the internet will reference the list as "the rumored list of players" because it likely will never be officially released. It also appears that the union has over the years made some efforts to have the internet scrubbed of "the list", which will become less and less of a priority since everyone on it has by now retired. If I were a sportswriter with a HOF ballot, I would handle the steroid issue like this -- if you were suspended for violating MLB drug policy once testing officially began in 2004, you're not getting my vote. So that rules out Palmeiro, Manny Ramirez, Alex Rodriguez and Robinson Cano (Cano not HOF material anyway IMO). I'm voting for all the others that haven't gotten in already -- Sosa, McGwire, Bonds, Clemens. I'd have voted for both Pedro and Ortiz if they weren't in already. While I don't view Beltran as a Hall of Famer regardless (he belongs in the Hall of Very Good), I actually think I would forgive the 2019 Astros. I'd vote for Altuve if he indeed puts up the 2nd half of a HOF career. Forgive the Astros ? 1- Why ? the evidence is overwhelming.. They cheated up to and including the World Series.. 2- Have any even apologized, never mind asked for forgiveness ? |
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Jan 31, 2023 16:03:53 GMT -5
Metsfan-thanks for passing along that very compelling analysis of Beltran
|
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Jan 31, 2023 18:04:29 GMT -5
The list of 103 players who tested positive in 2003 (when results were supposed to be anonymous) came to light because in 2009 an MLB staffer or vendor somehow leaked the fact that Alex Rodriguez was among those that tested positive that year. Of course, Alex went on air and admitted to having taken PEDs. Of course, the world then wanted to know who else tested positive that year? And the list was released. It has never been considered official, not because of alleged inaccuracy of information but because of the legality of officially releasing the information since we're dealing with a major labor union that agreed to testing on specific terms (i.e. an anonymous trial year to start). So any article you see on the internet will reference the list as "the rumored list of players" because it likely will never be officially released. It also appears that the union has over the years made some efforts to have the internet scrubbed of "the list", which will become less and less of a priority since everyone on it has by now retired. If I were a sportswriter with a HOF ballot, I would handle the steroid issue like this -- if you were suspended for violating MLB drug policy once testing officially began in 2004, you're not getting my vote. So that rules out Palmeiro, Manny Ramirez, Alex Rodriguez and Robinson Cano (Cano not HOF material anyway IMO). I'm voting for all the others that haven't gotten in already -- Sosa, McGwire, Bonds, Clemens. I'd have voted for both Pedro and Ortiz if they weren't in already. While I don't view Beltran as a Hall of Famer regardless (he belongs in the Hall of Very Good), I actually think I would forgive the 2019 Astros. I'd vote for Altuve if he indeed puts up the 2nd half of a HOF career. Forgive the Astros ? 1- Why ? the evidence is overwhelming.. They cheated up to and including the World Series.. 2- Have any even apologized, never mind asked for forgiveness ? Of course the evidence is overwhelming, but I think the fact that other teams were and almost certainly still are doing it too -- because it's baseball and people are always trying to steal signs -- plays a big factor in how big of a deal it is. As for apologizing, I remember the owner saying something and Altuve and Bregman reading prepared statements. The only apology that I've seen that's worth a damn came from George Springer: "I feel horrible for our sport, our game, you know, our fans, our city, our organization — just fans in general. I regret everything." On the whole though, I see sign stealing as a much different animal than steroids on the cheating spectrum. Steroid usage creates a greater competitive imbalance because players are forced to choose between taking banned (sometimes completely illegal by US law as well) and potentially dangerous substances in order to keep up with the cheaters, and I don't think it's fair to make someone have to choose between their health and their job. Sign stealing not only has a long history in the game, but there are only some areas of it that are actually illegal, i.e. using camera equipment the way the Astros were. So you can't use a camera, but if it's a runner on second base seeing the pitch signs and signaling to the batter, that's ok. I don't have a problem with that distinction, but it's not a purely black and white issue, especially considering how many other teams do it. So while the Astros definitely cheated and definitely should have been punished more harshly than they were, is it really such a big deal that a worthy player who participated should be kept out of the Hall of Fame? I don't think so. But if you do, how do you feel about Gaylord Perry being in the Hall? or Whitey Ford, who wore his wedding ring when he pitched so that he could cut the ball with it? Don Sutton was once suspended for cutting the ball too. What about anyone who corks their bat? Here's a good one -- the 1951 Giants had an elaborate system with a telescope and buzzer in the bullpen to do exactly what the Astros did, which undoubtedly helped them erase the Dodgers' huge lead and led to Bobby Thompson's Shot Heard Round the World in the one-game playoff. Should that have affected Willie Mays's candidacy? |
|
|
|
Post by nycrusader2010 on Jan 31, 2023 19:58:58 GMT -5
If the Astros' need to be held accountable to the point where deserving players are banished from the HOF, then what about Belichick and Brady when it comes to Spygate and Deflategate?
|
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Jan 31, 2023 21:09:12 GMT -5
Forgive the Astros ? 1- Why ? the evidence is overwhelming.. They cheated up to and including the World Series.. 2- Have any even apologized, never mind asked for forgiveness ? Of course the evidence is overwhelming, but I think the fact that other teams were and almost certainly still are doing it too -- I don't think anyone is using electronic means to steal signs anymore. MLB is monitoring video rooms since the Astros. Nothing wrong with stealing signs if you don't use electronic equipment. Just be ready to take the penalty |
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Jan 31, 2023 21:10:54 GMT -5
If the Astros' need to be held accountable to the point where deserving players are banished from the HOF, then what about Belichick and Brady when it comes to Spygate and Deflategate? If you're going to bring up Deflategate, you should also consider the Duke Lacrosse kids |
|
|
|
Post by nycrusader2010 on Feb 1, 2023 5:57:16 GMT -5
Wasn't the Duke lax "scandal" ultimately revealed to be a complete and total fraud? IIRC one of the alleged perps was proven to be physically in bed with his significant other at the time the supposed sexual assault took place.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sons of Vaval on Feb 1, 2023 8:40:27 GMT -5
Forgive the Astros ? 1- Why ? the evidence is overwhelming.. They cheated up to and including the World Series.. 2- Have any even apologized, never mind asked for forgiveness ? I don't think it's fair to make someone have to choose between their health and their job. Wholeheartedly agree. |
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Feb 1, 2023 8:43:37 GMT -5
Wasn't the Duke lax "scandal" ultimately revealed to be a complete and total fraud? IIRC one of the alleged perps was proven to be physically in bed with his significant other at the time the supposed sexual assault took place. Yes it was. All in the imagination of an over zealous D.A. Kind of like deflategate only existed in the mind of an over zealous commissioner with no evidence that could withstand reasonable scrutiny. |
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Feb 1, 2023 10:31:39 GMT -5
Of course the evidence is overwhelming, but I think the fact that other teams were and almost certainly still are doing it too -- I don't think anyone is using electronic means to steal signs anymore. MLB is monitoring video rooms since the Astros. Nothing wrong with stealing signs if you don't use electronic equipment. Just be ready to take the penalty I mean, the Red Sox continued to do it in 2018 even after being caught the previous season. Assuming that everything is now on the up-and-up would require ignoring the fact that teams have been coming up with schemes like this for over a century. I see no reason to assume that's not still the case. |
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Feb 1, 2023 11:44:05 GMT -5
As a tangent, HUGE news!!!! Tom Brady is retiring from the NFL. Only THIS time, he MEANS it!!!  I hope he can now reconcile with his ex-wife. (you know, for the kids' sake) |
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Feb 1, 2023 12:23:59 GMT -5
You have changed my mind on Beltran. As I first posted on the thread, his stats are HOF stats. Very few players are truly 5-tool players (and excel at each) and he was one. |
|
|
|
Post by nycrusader2010 on Feb 1, 2023 14:14:54 GMT -5
As a tangent, HUGE news!!!! Tom Brady is retiring from the NFL. Only THIS time, he MEANS it!!! I hope he can now reconcile with his ex-wife. (you know, for the kids' sake) Man, Brady really should've gone out after the NFC title game loss last year. Despite the way the game ended in OT, that would've been a legendary final game coming back from down 27-3. And he'd still be married to Michele Bundgden. And he wouldn't have gone out with the whimper of a losing season and his final game having his team get absolutely boat raced by the Cowboys. |
|
|
|
Post by nycrusader2010 on Feb 1, 2023 14:22:21 GMT -5
I don't think anyone is using electronic means to steal signs anymore. MLB is monitoring video rooms since the Astros. Nothing wrong with stealing signs if you don't use electronic equipment. Just be ready to take the penalty I mean, the Red Sox continued to do it in 2018 even after being caught the previous season. Assuming that everything is now on the up-and-up would require ignoring the fact that teams have been coming up with schemes like this for over a century. I see no reason to assume that's not still the case. Right, should we take Mays out of the HOF because the 1951 Giants were stealing signs via telescope, possibly including Ralph Branca's ill fated pitch to Bobby Thomson. |
|
|
|
Post by nycrusader2010 on Feb 1, 2023 18:02:35 GMT -5
Fact check: Willie Mays is still alive and well. They named the WS MVP trophy after him a couple years back. Somehow remembering that made me think he'd passed away for some reason.
|
|
I hope he can now reconcile with his ex-wife. (you know, for the kids' sake)