David Ortiz Elected to the Hall of Fame, Other Former Twins Fall Short

[rv78]

13 minutes ago, jmlease1 said:

Because then it becomes an old boys club where marginal players get in because a bunch of their pals are voting? There's a whole lotta marginal (at best) HoFers who are in because they were Friends of Frankie Frisch who basically stacked and ran the old veteran's committee. It's essentially how Harold Baines got in, and he's simply not deserving (a very good hitter, but never put up a truly great season, and for most of his long career was just a quality starter.

The PED is complicated for a lot of people, and I'm ok with pushing the main culprits off the ballot as we try to get a little better historical context on the whole thing. there are reasonable arguments to put in guys like Bonds & Clemens who were truly great players even before the cloud of PED descended, but the idea that anyone who thinks they cheated and should be excluded is just some moralizing hypocrite is going too far, especially by the people who go on to claim that well, we can't really prove anything. I really don't think  their exclusion has anything to do with whether Bonds was surly with media; it's people honestly trying to square how to handle the PED era, which really was a mess. And if you view it as cheating, which many not unreasonably do, then figuring out that context for something that is supposed to be one of the highest (and last) individual honor you can achieve in the sport isn't always easy.

manny ramirez was one of the most feared hitters of his day, but was also caught using PEDs after a clear rule had been established and testing protocols instituted. He was also a headcase and a pain in the ass who quit on his teams. Alex Rodriguez was the best SS of his generation, combining elite offensive production with excellent defense at a premium position to be one of the game's signature players. He was also caught violating the league's PED rules after they had been clearly delineated and testing was put into place and was suspended for an entire season. How much do you weight the fact that they knowingly and intentionally broke the rules, ones that were installed in part because of players like them? It's simple to say, "meh, who cares, all that matters is the numbers" but simple isn't always right. And if it's just about the numbers, then why have a vote at all? Why not just induct the top 4 players by WAR every year, or some other static metric, or combination of metrics?

Some subjectivity is part of what makes the game and the hall fun. It's part of what expands our minds on how we look at and think about the game as well. It drives innovation and experimentation, and that's good too. How much does leadership matter in a sport like baseball which is the least interactive of any of the "Big Four" sports (football, baseball, basketball, and hockey) but also has the longest season where interpersonal dynamics can have a major impact. we all know that a player who can play multiple positions has additional value because of that positional flexibility. But how much is that worth and how much impact on the team does it have?

I'm here for the arguments about the Hall. Let's never be afraid to have them. But let's be careful of ones where there's a "anyone who thinks that" clause in there...

I don't think it becomes a good ol boys club if you separate the players who are voting from who they played with and when. I never said it should just be a free-for-all. For instance, a group of players would be selected to do the voting, some from different era's. They can't vote for players that played at the same time they did or for the same teams they played for. Make the guys voting as unattachable to the players they are voting on as possible. The thing about going to the Hall is that it is subjective to who deserves it and everyone has a different opinion on what is deserving and what isn't. Who better to decide this than the guys that actually played the game. 

[Mark G]

I know I will be a minority of one here, but when you put a player (hitter?) who only hit, didn't play the field at all the vast majority of his career, against players who not only hit, but were gold glove fielders, or played multiple positions in their career, you diminish the value of the latter.  No matter how much we want to keep the good hitters in the game longer and longer, when we equate a hitter who only bats with a player who plays 9 innings a game and faces the risk of injury infinitely more often, which shortens careers (Tony Oliva?) far more often then DH's, we have gone too far.  If all Joe Mauer did was hit, never caught all those years, how long would he have stayed in the game and how many hits would he have accrued?  Not to mention (but I will) Buxton; how many at bats did he miss from injuries that occurred while fielding?  Those are just two of hundreds of examples throughout the history of the game.  Again, I know this is not going to go over well, but DH's who played their whole career as DH's, not the Molitors of the game who only finished as such, should be put in a separate category and maybe have a page of their own, but not be put along side the true players.  

Having said that, I love Big Papi as much as the next guy, and I wish he had stayed here.  Great hitter!

[Longdistancetwins]

For those of us Twins fans who resolved with delight to go the HOF induction of Tony-O and Kitty, this will change the dynamic:  Now we will be joined by plenty of Red Sox fans taunting us for letting Big Papi go.  Actually, I’m looking forward to it!

[Sousy]

4 hours ago, mikelink45 said:

The HOF is not officially MLB.  It is a museum and it is fun.  You remember the old saying the only bad publicity is no publicity.  All the angst and debate keeps the hall in the news and in our discussions.  In reality the hall does not matter. 

IMO, that's the right attitude to have.  The Hall of Fame is a tourist attraction first, something fun to talk about and debate about second. There's no fixed criteria for "this and that guy should be in against this and that other guy" - it's all going to be who the writers admire or abhor or who the players (through the veterans committee) respect or do not.

The problem with Bonds and Clemens is that many writers who are still personally involved in the careers of these two men just can't put a positive vote in place for either of them. Some writers can put a vote in place and justify it based on strict baseball production, another sizable group can't look away from the off-field disasters that they both carry around. (PEDs, abuse, underage girls.) I can argue either way with the various groups of writers, but I also can't say that any of them are wrong in their vote justification. (Just like there aren't enough that are going to write glowing things about Curt Schilling in 2022.)

Maybe in decades to come the veterans committee will look at things differently - but they also might not.  

 

[mikelink45]

1 hour ago, Sousy said:

IMO, that's the right attitude to have.  The Hall of Fame is a tourist attraction first, something fun to talk about and debate about second. There's no fixed criteria for "this and that guy should be in against this and that other guy" - it's all going to be who the writers admire or abhor or who the players (through the veterans committee) respect or do not.

The problem with Bonds and Clemens is that many writers who are still personally involved in the careers of these two men just can't put a positive vote in place for either of them. Some writers can put a vote in place and justify it based on strict baseball production, another sizable group can't look away from the off-field disasters that they both carry around. (PEDs, abuse, underage girls.) I can argue either way with the various groups of writers, but I also can't say that any of them are wrong in their vote justification. (Just like there aren't enough that are going to write glowing things about Curt Schilling in 2022.)

Maybe in decades to come the veterans committee will look at things differently - but they also might not.  

 

So we just sit back and enjoy all the ink and emotions which amount to nothing.  The Twins will still need starting pitchers and Bowie Kuhn and Bud Selig will still have their plaques even though neither deserves one. 

[h2oface]

9 hours ago, Sean.h said:

That is a hypothetical. No one knows what they would have accomplished had they not cheated. In any case, a student that is caught cheating on an exam typically gets an F (or worse expelled). They don't get commended on the hypothetical case where they might have gotten an A had they not cheaten. We should not treat statistics gained from cheaters as being comparable to non-cheaters. 

First of all, I am an advocate of these guys being in a noted Hall of Roid/Hall of Gambling in the Hall of Shame in the Hall of Fame, and have been for years. Of course my example is a hypothetical (as was yours, the one I responded to), as is anything that we cannot know exactly as what did or would have happened. But we are not talking about cheating on a test in school. The guys that are considered and nominated for the MLB Hall of Fame already were great before they did the roids and got caught, or gambled on baseball, figuratively or literally. The comparison to a C+ student (player) is not one that is really even part of the discussion - is it? - as the C+ player isn't even ever nomitated for a vote of admission, and were never as good as the A player that decided to take roids to heal faster or get even better, which is what happened to all the players considered. The C+ players that took roids and had a great year (50/50 Brady Anderson? - maybe a B player?) still were never even close to being nominated to the HOF to vote on (although the Baltimore Orioles didn't care and he is in their HOF). All of the ones that are denied, but are still worthy either before they took the roids, or bet on baseball etc......  are already famous players, and surrounded by FAME. The roids were a part of baseball, and these guys should be in the Hall of Shame room in the Hall of Fame in my opinion. It is part of the famous story of baseball, a more complete museum. I don't even know if it would be an honor to be in the Hall of Shame in the Hall of Fame, but it would be truthful, and tell a more complete story of greatness in baseball, and what did and can happen.

[Sousy]

2 hours ago, h2oface said:

First of all, I am an advocate of these guys being in a noted Hall of Roid/Hall of Gambling in the Hall of Shame in the Hall of Fame,

Sure… but wouldn’t the building need to be unnaturally large?

[RonCoomersOPS]

Congrats to Big Papi. He is about as automatic a HOFer as you can get, I think.

It's hard not to think what might have been in 2006 if we hadn't cut him. Mauer, Morneau, and Ortiz baack to back to back...woof.

[RonCoomersOPS]

On 1/25/2022 at 6:57 PM, Brock Beauchamp said:

No matter whether they cheated or not, I believe Clemens and Bonds should also be in. They were simply too good at baseball to not be enshrined, especially given some of the questionable morality of many others in the Hall.

*shrugs*

But hey, the upside in so many falling off the ballot this year is that it likely paves a smoother path for Mauer to gobble up votes when he's eligible in two years.

Bonds is on the short list for greatest player of all time even without the roids. It's sort of ridiculous that he's not in the hall of fame. However, he was obviously using PEDs near the end of his career and if we're going to ban Charlie Hustle for cheating...

[Brock Beauchamp]

9 hours ago, RonCoomersOPS said:

Bonds is on the short list for greatest player of all time even without the roids. It's sort of ridiculous that he's not in the hall of fame. However, he was obviously using PEDs near the end of his career and if we're going to ban Charlie Hustle for cheating...

Except Rose wasn't banned for cheating, he was banned for gambling on baseball, which is explicitly against baseball rules and is probably the number one NO-NO in the entire sport.

And even then, had he been able to keep his mouth shut for even a second, he'd still probably be in the hall.

[Brandon]

On 1/25/2022 at 7:20 PM, Squirrel said:

No way. then you'd have a Hall of all Yankees and Red Sox players and no one else. Let the players vote who should/shouldn't go in

I like your idea better.  I just think writers suck and have no business deciding anything.  That is not their lot in life.  They report on what others do....