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

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!

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!

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.  

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. 

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.

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?

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.

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...

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....