<< <i>Stellar play with squeaky clean longevity.....what a novel concept. >>
>>
I thought this was the baseball hall of fame not the boy scouts. Biggio is right up there with ozzie Smith as most undeserving HOF member of all time. >>
>>>I thought this was the baseball hall of fame not the boy scouts. Biggio is right up there with ozzie Smith as most undeserving HOF member of all time. <<<
You have got to be kidding about Ozzie Smith! He is only the best SS EVER!!! And I'm not even a STL fan.
He saved the team a couple of runs a game with his defense.
<< <i>>>>I thought this was the baseball hall of fame not the boy scouts. <<< >>
5. Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.
Three of the six qualifications could be regarded as "Boy Scout". Many of you simply don't know what the Hall of Fame is or stands for. I realize you don't agree with it, but I for one am tired of your idea that statistical accomplishments are the ONLY qualification to get in.
Bonds should NEVER get in! He fails MISERABLY in three of the six requirements.
Rose, the "black sox" and the steroid boys are OUT! Their managers/superiors are OK to be in.
Miller should be IN!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
<< <i>I absolutely agree with your thoughts here on Biggio, but calling any steroid user a 'complete disgrace to the game' seems, at least to me, to verge on hyperbole. >>
I'm a zero tolerance kinda guy, so in my case, no, that statement doesn't border on hyperbolic. McGwire did his part in irreparably damaging the integrity and sanctity of baseball, and for that I consider him a complete disgrace. He should never sniff the Hall, and I make no allowances whatsoever for him. Once you start to do that, Pandora's box flies wide open and here comes the cavalcade.
Baseball should take a page from golf. The rules are the rules are the rules, and no player ever stands a chance of being bigger than the sport itself. It's a gentleman's game. Self-imposed penalties are not out of the norm. Hell, Tiger Woods was saved by an obscure rule at last year's Masters, otherwise the biggest name the sport has ever seen would have been disqualified in a nanosecond from the most important tournament on tour. And that's talking about a completely innocuous, inadvertent mistake. Can you only imagine a blatant cheater? Think the sport of golf would ever make a concession and nudge a McGwire-type into the Hall after the fact? If you're familiar with the rigidity of the PGA tour, that's rather humorous to even think about.
As far as Biggio is concerned, naturally I'm not 1,000%. But having lived in Houston since the turn of the century, I've had an opportunity more than once to ask the tough questions to someone in the know. One man I spoke to directly not only knows CB intimately, but he has a vote as well. To paraphrase him, "Deep down I have concerns about Bagwell, but if it comes to light that Craig juiced, consider the entire era tainted." In other words, CB is as close to a "sure thing" as you're going to get.
<< <i>I absolutely agree with your thoughts here on Biggio, but calling any steroid user a 'complete disgrace to the game' seems, at least to me, to verge on hyperbole. >>
I'm a zero tolerance kinda guy, so in my case, no, that statement doesn't border on hyperbolic. McGwire did his part in irreparably damaging the integrity and sanctity of baseball, and for that I consider him a complete disgrace. He should never sniff the Hall, and I make no allowances whatsoever for him. Once you start to do that, Pandora's box flies wide open and here comes the cavalcade. >>
But the use of greenies/amphetamines is alright? Those are most certainly performance enhancing drugs, were illegal at the time, and there's no shortage of players who have admitted to using them. Should they be booted out of the hall, under your 'zero tolerance' policy? Or are we going to give them a pass because they were the heroes of years past?
<< <i>Baseball should take a page from golf. The rules are the rules are the rules, and no player ever stands a chance of being bigger than the sport itself. It's a gentleman's game. Self-imposed penalties are not out of the norm. Hell, Tiger Woods was saved by an obscure rule at last year's Masters, otherwise the biggest name the sport has ever seen would have been disqualified in a nanosecond from the most important tournament on tour. And that's talking about a completely innocuous, inadvertent mistake. Can you only imagine a blatant cheater? Think the sport of golf would ever make a concession and nudge a McGwire-type into the Hall after the fact? If you're familiar with the rigidity of the PGA tour, that's rather humorous to even think about. >>
Golf is a joke, and trying to compare that game with a real sport like baseball is absurd.
<< <i>As far as Biggio is concerned, naturally I'm not 1,000%. But having lived in Houston since the turn of the century, I've had an opportunity more than once to ask the tough questions to someone in the know. One man I spoke to directly not only knows CB intimately, but he has a vote as well. To paraphrase him, "Deep down I have concerns about Bagwell, but if it comes to light that Craig juiced, consider the entire era tainted." In other words, CB is as close to a "sure thing" as you're going to get. >>
A sure thing what? A guy who never dominated, but because he was a swell guy who played his career in one city, we put him in, because the other guys who DID dominate the era juiced? Pathetic. If he gets in (and I am sure the self-proclaimed hall of fame guardians of integrity will), consider the hall even more watered down than ever.
I love the idea that electing LaRussa, who won titles on the backs of admitted and known steroid users, who are being kept out of the hall, is somehow ok. That we're supposed to believe he had no idea what was going on in his locker rooms, and that he didn't directly benefit from the same steroid users you all want to keep out of the hall. It's a joke, no, actually, it's sad. It's sad how delusional you all are in believing you have some moral obligation to rail against PED users 'defiling' the hall, yet have no problem with a guy like LaRussa who wouldn't have been as successful a manager without those same PED users.
But go on, go on believing you're somehow fighting a good fight in raising your pitchforks and torches and keeping the most deserving players from the last generation out of the hall, for daring to best the numbers of the heroes of your youths. The same heroes who have admitted to taking substances of their own which were illegal and definitely boosted their performance. Keep on believing that a guy like McGwire, if he were to be admitted, would somehow bring the hall to its knees but a racist like Cobb or a self-admitted greenie user like Schmidt somehow don't affect it.
Keep on believing that LaRussa was completely ignorant of the rampant PED use occurring in his locker room, that he was blind to the radical changes in body types happening all around him. Blindly and ignorantly follow LaRussa and the old, decrepit writers who have you hoodwinked into thinking that PED users were somehow bad for the game, when, in fact, quite the opposite is true and the game is only as popular as it is today BECAUSE of those very same players.
<< <i>>>>I thought this was the baseball hall of fame not the boy scouts. Biggio is right up there with ozzie Smith as most undeserving HOF member of all time. <<<
You have got to be kidding about Ozzie Smith! He is only the best SS EVER!!! And I'm not even a STL fan.
He saved the team a couple of runs a game with his defense.
What a laugh you are 1985fan!! >>
A couple runs a game? Best SS of all time? Good gravy are you in need of some hard core baseball homework. But then, given your endless, mindless football rants in which you can't get dates, games, or players of your favorite team right, I won't hold my breath.
<< <i>I'm starting to a get a "softball guy" vibe.... >>
Waterboy for the softball team.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
We certainly have the right to our opinions and we do have differing opinions. Some feel the facts prove their argument, some are just "homers." I feel I am very tolerant of others and their beliefs however to say Ozzie Smith doesn't deserve to be in the HOF is about the dumbest thing I have seen here. And believe me I've seen some dumb stuff here. I'm sure I've contributed some of it.
Based on the typical middle infielder elected to the Hall, Biggio belongs.
As Banzi pointed out, using illegal drugs is indeed a reason not to elect a player to the Hall(based on the Hall's own criteria).
That character criteria knocks Rose out too. In fact, he broke the cardinal rule in baseball. His actions are about as black and white as it gets. Signs are posted all over telling them not to bet on games. I understand he bet on his team, and logically it doesn't sound too bad...but again, it is spelled out so clearly to the players to NOT do that, so now he has to pay the piper.
As for Larussa, he is kind of a douche, and he looks foolish for saying McGwire was clean etc, but in the end, unless Larussa held a team meeting and created a mandate for players to use steroids, then it just isn't the same as McGwire actually using them.
Pete Rose sealed his own fate by voluntarily agreeing to a lifetime ban from baseball. Had he come clean soon after that, he'd likely have been reinstated by now, but his refusal to admit his wrongdoing when baseball knew that he was guilty all along, kept him from even being considered to be reinstated. Then, when it finally seemed that Selig was going to possibly relent on the lifetime ban, Rose made his admission that he bet on baseball via his book instead going through the league office, upstaging the actual HOF ceremony for Molitor and Eck's inductions. Even his staunchest advocates like Mike Schmidt were disgusted by his actions. He has been and always will be, his own worst enemy.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>Based on the typical middle infielder elected to the Hall, Biggio belongs.
As Banzi pointed out, using illegal drugs is indeed a reason not to elect a player to the Hall(based on the Hall's own criteria).
That character criteria knocks Rose out too. In fact, he broke the cardinal rule in baseball. His actions are about as black and white as it gets. Signs are posted all over telling them not to bet on games. I understand he bet on his team, and logically it doesn't sound too bad...but again, it is spelled out so clearly to the players to NOT do that, so now he has to pay the piper.
As for Larussa, he is kind of a douche, and he looks foolish for saying McGwire was clean etc, but in the end, unless Larussa held a team meeting and created a mandate for players to use steroids, then it just isn't the same as McGwire actually using them. >>
Right on brother!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
<< <i>So how many players do you think will be elected in the next 10 years? >>
Guys with a strong chance from the era for the Hall that don't seem to have the steroid cloud over them:
Biggio Frank Thomas Schilling Mussina Smoltz Maddux Glavine Unit Pedro Smoltz Griffey Vlad Chipper Thome Rivera Kent Larry Walker(Banzi, you make a good case for him, even though he prolly won't make it ). Helton
Really, the only ones with a strong case to be HOFers that are/will be being held out due to roids are Clemens, Bonds, Arod, Manny, Sheffield, McGwire, Giambi, Irod.
I may have missed some on both lists(I just did it off the top of my head).
Is it hypocritical that some of the guys on the top list may have used too? Maybe. But the guys on the bottom list got caught red handed, so there is no doubt. As a result, they fail the Hall's criteria.
Bagwell is interesting, as he should be in the Hall. I just think the voters have enough suspicion that they believe some stronger evidence may come along in the future, and they don't want to risk voting him in now as a result.
But the era certainly won't go unrepresented. Ironically, in the era of the hitter, it will be most represented by the pitchers . Some darn good ones too.
I really like that list...the only one I don't think gets in is Mussina. I don't have the stats to back that opinion up, but he's the only one on your list that gave me pause.
The idea of people tsk tsking and wagging the fingers as if they are some sort of moral arbiters always makes me laugh. These self proclaimed defenders of the good old days are the same people who cheered as these PED users made baseball relevant again and now want to turn their backs on those same guys.
Believe what you want and bring up morality clauses but the numbers don't lie. Clemens, McGwire Bonds and the others all deserve induction. Even if you folks want to keep wagging your fingers it doesn't take away what they did on the field.
Let's look at the hitters you mentioned. I am including Bagwell as he was never (to my knowledge) mentioned in any of the reports or failed any tests. He has been tried and convicted without this evidence.
I'll use our newest favorite (?) statistic OPS+ and list the players Plate appearances as well. I am assuming MOST of you will agree that the longer you play the harder it is to maintain a high OPS+.
.............................OPS+/ PA
Frank Thomas .... 156/ 10,075 Jeff Bagwell .... ... 149 / 9431 Jim Thome .......... 147 / 10,313 "Chipper" Jones . 141 / 10,614 Larry Walker ...... 141 / 8,030 Vlad Guerrero .... 140 / 9,059 Ken Griffey Jr ..... 136 / 11,304 Todd Helton ........133 / 9,453 Jeff Kent ............ 123 / 9,537 Craig Biggio ....... 112 12,504
Thomas was a phenomenal hitter, almost 10 points above (my other guy) the seldom mentioned Jim Thome.
Thomas appears to be a first ballot guy, Bagwell has a lot of doubters. What do you guys think about Thome?
My guy Larry is, as others have mentioned, is at the bottom in plate appearances........by a lot. He's still my guy, but I see the point.
Biggio is at the top, by a lot. Biggio didn't miss many games. 16 times over 141 games!
Of the three Outfielders, Griffey had the lousiest end of the career numbers, he quits at 9,000 PA and his OPS+ is as good as the other two. Of course he then drops below 600 HR.
Griffey also would appear to be a lock, first ballot.
Hate discussing pitchers
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
<< <i> Guys with a strong chance from the era for the Hall that don't seem to have the steroid cloud over them: >>
Raines and Piazza are two others who should be on that list, along with Schilling and Biggio who still haven't made it. And whether Bonds and Clemens ever make the Hall-of-Fame, they'll continue earn a fair amount of votes. And five of those players listed go on the ballot this year. That's well more than 10 viable candidates, each trying to earn 75% of votes.
Can't see anyone other than Maddux as a sure thing this year. Then Johnson, Smoltz and Martinez go on the ballot next year. I wonder how big of a logjam this can become
-----
When the process for players and managers is so strikingly different, it is very clear that it is something other than hypocrisy that allows LaRussa to go into the Hall-of-Fame while others who are more deserving stay out
<< <i>Raines and Piazza are two others who should be on that list. >>
Piazza comes in FOURTH in OPS+ at 143 however he had even less PA than Walker at 7,745. Don't know if this hurts him as catchers generally have shorter careers.
Raines is another guy I can't understand not being in 123OPS+ and 10,359AB GREAT ballplayer and a long career.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
I forgot about Piazza on my list. He should be a no brainer first ballot HOF. He only got 58% of the vote last year. I think the writers may be treating him like Bagwell, where suspicion is high enough that they are waiting for 'proof' to come out or not come out.
Ozzie very well might have been the greatest SS of all-time. Even if he was, he still wasn't saving "a couple runs a game". That notion is just laughable. The reality would be that his presence saved waaaaaaaay less than a run per game.
I agree that Piazza was kept out because of steroid suspicions.
As for Bagwell, yeah, his name has never turned up in any reports but I would be stunned if he wasn't a steroid user. He played on a roid-infested team (the Astros), added a ton of mass to his frame and had the sudden jump in power associated with a lot of 'roid users (20 HRs in 142 games in 1993, 39 HRs in 110 games in 1994).
Dimeman has some difficulty understanding the difference between hyperbole and reality. Don't ask him to spell the former though.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
>>>Ozzie very well might have been the greatest SS of all-time. Even if he was, he still wasn't saving "a couple runs a game". That notion is just laughable. The reality would be that his presence saved waaaaaaaay less than a run per game. <<<
Runners on 2nd and 3rd 2 out.
Ball hit in gap or up the middle that other SS's don't get to.
Ozzie dives fields the ball throws the runner out.
End of inning......2 runs saved! Was that so hard?
How many times do you think that or similiar plays happened?
1985fan - Honus Wagner - You got to be kidding. I was talking defense. Wagner wouldn't have half the range of Ozzie.
If you want to go offense ..... I would take Ernie Banks or Cal.
I can see where some would feel Ozzie is overrated. If you go back 100 years there was a SS who perhaps could have been just a tad bit better. But could Honus do a flip?
<< <i>>>>Ozzie very well might have been the greatest SS of all-time. Even if he was, he still wasn't saving "a couple runs a game". That notion is just laughable. The reality would be that his presence saved waaaaaaaay less than a run per game. <<<
Runners on 2nd and 3rd 2 out.
Ball hit in gap or up the middle that other SS's don't get to.
Ozzie dives fields the ball throws the runner out.
End of inning......2 runs saved! Was that so hard?
How many times do you think that or similiar plays happened? >>
Best estimate? Once every few weeks, tops, probably far less than that.
It certainly doesn't happen every single game. Think about what you're asking for - a ball in that very small area that Ozzie could get to but nobody else could AND that wouldn't be a single anyway. That's an incredibly small cross-section of balls in-play.
In his absolutely best season, Smith's defense was worth an average of 0.20 runs per game above the average guy. Over the course of his career, he saved about 13 runs every 140 games - or...wait for it... "waaaaaaaaay less than a run per game".
<< <i>If you want to go offense ..... I would take Ernie Banks or Cal. >>
Cal? The guy with *10* seasons of OPS+ of 105 or lower? Career 112? Cal's offense (and his defense, quite frankly) is vastly overrated. For a lot of his career, he was an average, or barely above average, hitter.
Honus Wagner put up a career 151. Ernie Banks was a career 122.
I'll take my chances with those two over Cal or Ozzie.
While fielding is generally an overrated stat, you should not underestimate the historical significance of a fielder as good as Ozzie Smith. Remember, players do not get inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame solely based on stats.
[q1985fan - Honus Wagner - You got to be kidding. I was talking defense. Wagner wouldn't have half the range of Ozzie.
If you want to go offense ..... I would take Ernie Banks or Cal. >>
You didn't specify defense only, and the fact you'd take Banks or Cal over Wagner is serious proof you don't know anything, and I mean ANYTHING, about sports. Wagner is the best shortstop of all time - hands down. The idea that Ozzie saved 2 runs a game is so mind-numbingly, off the charts foolish that I can't even respond to it without breaking into hysterics. The truth, the facts is he prevented about 1/10th of that, and his offense was historically bad for a HoFer.
His defense was superb, but the only reason he made the hall is because he was on the first highlight reel players in baseball, and his backflips garnered him additional attention.
<< <i>OK 1985fan - I still will go with Ozzie as the best defensive SS.
But decided to go your way and use stats to compare Wagner and Banks over-all career wise:
Wagner Banks
HR 101 512 Banks over 5X
BA .328 .274 Wagner by 54 points
RBI 1733 1636 Wagner by 97
Fld% .947 .981 Banks by 34 points
OPS .858 .830 Wagner by 28 points
Slg% .468 .500 Banks by 32 points
Pretty close 3 to 3 ......everything being fairly close......But the HR count would make me take Banks over Wagner.
Banks has the extra 412 HR better Slg and Fld %
It's a matter or preference.....they are both outstanding players. >>
Not going to bother going over the horrid analysis, as I think every point will be lost on you. However, you do realize that Banks played close to 11,000 innings at 1B, compared to close to 10,000 at SS?
That cuts the fielding percentage lead down(granted Banks is still higher at SS, but that has more to do with the era/equipment than being better). Also, Wagner played in the dead ball era...but those points will be too hard for you to understand, so I will just stick with making you aware of the fact that Banks played more 1B than SS.
As for Wagner, he has legitimate claims to be among the all-time best players, not just SS(where he is clearly the best).
Skin - I really like the way you talk down to me. For your information both Banks and Wagner played other positions. I wasn't going to make the comparison that complicated. If you want to go there. I don't think Wagner would have been as good in the modern ara.
And as for overall best player Wagner wouldn't even be on the same page with players like Willie Mays or Babe Ruth!
<< <i>Skin - I really like the way you talk down to me. For your information both Banks and Wagner played other positions. I wasn't going to make the comparison that complicated. If you want to go there. I don't think Wagner would have been as good in the modern ara.
And as for overall best player Wagner wouldn't even be on the same page with players like Willie Mays or Babe Ruth! >>
You know what, you are correct...I shouldn't talk like that. My apologies.
Wagner did play other positions, but the predominant amount of innings came at SS...and far different to Banks' percentage of innings at each spot.
Wagner is probably closer to the all time greats than most think.
With regards to the era, that is a valid point....and an area of study I like to delve into(though time constraints makes it hard to dig as deep as I need to). Keep in mind though, that whatever era penalty goes to Wagner would be applied to Ruth too.
Even considering everything like that, Wagner's lead is probably just too big(when using the best comprehensive methods) for Banks to close the gap where an era adjustment would come into play.
It's really hard to compare player's like that from different era's. It would be like taking those great Green Bay Packers teams from the 50's and 60's to today's teams. Due to size, speed and strength most any team now could beat those Packer teams. Yet that does not take anything away from those Packer teams.
Back to Baseball....if I were building a team I would take Banks over Wagner.
And I consider Willie Mays the best overall player followed closely by Mickey Mantle. Mick would have put up some huge if not for his knee injuries.
And before I catch flack.....there are many many more great players like Williams, Joe D. and Lou G. to name a few.
But in my opinion Mays would be # 1 out of all of those.
Gotta love the selective ways in which dimeman chooses to compare Banks and Wagner, but one number takes into account all of that, and gives a relatively complete assessment of each:
WAR.
By no means is it perfect, but it does a fair job of taking a huge number of variables and putting them into context. Banks, for his career, was worth about 67 wins above an average replacement, Wagner was worth 130. To make it even simpler, Wagner was worth nearly TWICE as many wins over an average replacement than Banks was.
Banks of course kills him in the power numbers, but even given that, Wagners OPS is still higher, and Banks' SLG is really not that much higher (.500 vs. .467). OPS+ Wagner a runaway winner, too, with 155 vs. 122 for Banks.
No, sorry dimeman, but Banks pales in comparison to Wagner.
<< <i>It's really hard to compare player's like that from different era's. It would be like taking those great Green Bay Packers teams from the 50's and 60's to today's teams. Due to size, speed and strength most any team now could beat those Packer teams. Yet that does not take anything away from those Packer teams.
Back to Baseball....if I were building a team I would take Banks over Wagner.
And I consider Willie Mays the best overall player followed closely by Mickey Mantle. Mick would have put up some huge if not for his knee injuries.
And before I catch flack.....there are many many more great players like Williams, Joe D. and Lou G. to name a few.
But in my opinion Mays would be # 1 out of all of those.
JMHO >>
It is very difficult to compare guys from different eras. One can only speculate how each would do in the different eras, and that is a fun exercise. What can be done is examining how each dominated their peers...but even that has its problems as each set of peers aren't necessarily the same, and in fact, some guys may have had advantages in one era that would be impossible for a guy from another era to take advantage of.
For example, Babe Ruth. It is well known that he outhomered every team in the league one year. THat is great, however, since he played against a lower level of population(which means less elite players to compete against), and considering that african american players were not allowed(taking away more elite players)...and considering that most of the league still had the dead ball style of hitters/hitting thus giving him a league of players who simply weren't equipped to take advantage of the livlier ball and hit home runs, it gave him unique circumstances to out homer every team.
There is no way he would be able to do that in 1990, as those circumstances didn't exist. So it is automatically an unfair comparison, even when measuring against their own peers, when Ruth is compared to a modern hitter like Mike Schmidt.
"LaRussa and Torre might not have used steroids themselves, but they benefitted from players who did. Why should those players be penalized but the managers they helped are rewarded?
A manager is responsible for knowing what goes on in his clubhouse and not bury [sic] himself in his office so he doesn't know."
Chass points out that LaRussa has joked around about knowing what Canseco was up to, although he staunchly defended McGwire against his accusers until the morning of Big Mac's public admission of guilt. If you believe that the managers knew what was going on in their clubhouses and locker rooms, then their records should be suspect and held to the same exacting standards of the players whose performances are considered tainted. After all, the strongest piece of PED evidence I've heard against Bagwell has been that he was teammates with Ken Caminiti and didn't, I don't know, publicly hang him from the Astrodome roof or something.
I've always been of the opinion that the HOF is a joke until Rose gets in...but I also agree that Pete's own big mouth is a major part of the reason he's not in yet.
I also think Shoeless Joe got shafted. Both contemporary and later accounts of the whole Black Sox scandal showed that he knew nothing of the plot. I'm convinced he was innocent in the whole affair and his WS numbers tend to bear that out.
That said, it's the Hall of FAME, not the "Hall of Statistics Only" or the "Hall of Guys I Think Should Be There".
I don't think that known PED users should be rewarded for taking shortcuts (Bonds is a prime example imo). If they do get in somehow, at a maximum there should be a special *asterisk* section with a couple of plaques worth of names mentioning these individuals, noting significant accomplishments and leaving the viewer to decide for him/herself. Definitely no individual plaques though, because I would view that as disrespecting the guys who got in the right way.
As to LaRussa... I think he should get in for his managerial success unless someone can prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew about and ignored all PED use during his tenure...
<< <i> As to LaRussa... I think he should get in for his managerial success unless someone can prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew about and ignored all PED use during his tenure... >>
Either he was complicit in the steroid use, or he was completely oblivious as to what was going on in multiple locker rooms under his watch. Which would you presume to be the case here?
Comments
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Stellar play with squeaky clean longevity.....what a novel concept. >>
I thought this was the baseball hall of fame not the boy scouts. Biggio is right up there with ozzie Smith as most undeserving HOF member of all time. >>
What about Ray Schalk. .253 BA and 11 home runs.
- steroids were made illegal in the early 90s to whoever said they weren't. That's illegal as in against the law.
- I don't think Biggio belongs in the HOF but he'd hardly be the worst or even close to it - Schalk, Cummings, Rizzuto, Maz were all a lot worse
- I don't understand why people are so sure Biggio was "squeaky clean". He played on a steroid-infested roster - why would he be such a great shock?
You have got to be kidding about Ozzie Smith! He is only the best SS EVER!!! And I'm not even a STL fan.
He saved the team a couple of runs a game with his defense.
What a laugh you are 1985fan!!
<< <i>>>>I thought this was the baseball hall of fame not the boy scouts. <<< >>
5. Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.
Three of the six qualifications could be regarded as "Boy Scout". Many of you simply don't know what the Hall of Fame is or stands for. I realize you don't agree with it, but I for one am tired of your idea that statistical accomplishments are the ONLY qualification to get in.
Bonds should NEVER get in! He fails MISERABLY in three of the six requirements.
Rose, the "black sox" and the steroid boys are OUT! Their managers/superiors are OK to be in.
Miller should be IN!
<< <i>I absolutely agree with your thoughts here on Biggio, but calling any steroid user a 'complete disgrace to the game' seems, at least to me, to verge on hyperbole. >>
I'm a zero tolerance kinda guy, so in my case, no, that statement doesn't border on hyperbolic. McGwire did his part in irreparably damaging the integrity and sanctity of baseball, and for that I consider him a complete disgrace. He should never sniff the Hall, and I make no allowances whatsoever for him. Once you start to do that, Pandora's box flies wide open and here comes the cavalcade.
Baseball should take a page from golf. The rules are the rules are the rules, and no player ever stands a chance of being bigger than the sport itself. It's a gentleman's game. Self-imposed penalties are not out of the norm. Hell, Tiger Woods was saved by an obscure rule at last year's Masters, otherwise the biggest name the sport has ever seen would have been disqualified in a nanosecond from the most important tournament on tour. And that's talking about a completely innocuous, inadvertent mistake. Can you only imagine a blatant cheater? Think the sport of golf would ever make a concession and nudge a McGwire-type into the Hall after the fact? If you're familiar with the rigidity of the PGA tour, that's rather humorous to even think about.
As far as Biggio is concerned, naturally I'm not 1,000%. But having lived in Houston since the turn of the century, I've had an opportunity more than once to ask the tough questions to someone in the know. One man I spoke to directly not only knows CB intimately, but he has a vote as well. To paraphrase him, "Deep down I have concerns about Bagwell, but if it comes to light that Craig juiced, consider the entire era tainted." In other words, CB is as close to a "sure thing" as you're going to get.
<< <i>
<< <i>I absolutely agree with your thoughts here on Biggio, but calling any steroid user a 'complete disgrace to the game' seems, at least to me, to verge on hyperbole. >>
I'm a zero tolerance kinda guy, so in my case, no, that statement doesn't border on hyperbolic. McGwire did his part in irreparably damaging the integrity and sanctity of baseball, and for that I consider him a complete disgrace. He should never sniff the Hall, and I make no allowances whatsoever for him. Once you start to do that, Pandora's box flies wide open and here comes the cavalcade. >>
But the use of greenies/amphetamines is alright? Those are most certainly performance enhancing drugs, were illegal at the time, and there's no shortage of players who have admitted to using them. Should they be booted out of the hall, under your 'zero tolerance' policy? Or are we going to give them a pass because they were the heroes of years past?
<< <i>Baseball should take a page from golf. The rules are the rules are the rules, and no player ever stands a chance of being bigger than the sport itself. It's a gentleman's game. Self-imposed penalties are not out of the norm. Hell, Tiger Woods was saved by an obscure rule at last year's Masters, otherwise the biggest name the sport has ever seen would have been disqualified in a nanosecond from the most important tournament on tour. And that's talking about a completely innocuous, inadvertent mistake. Can you only imagine a blatant cheater? Think the sport of golf would ever make a concession and nudge a McGwire-type into the Hall after the fact? If you're familiar with the rigidity of the PGA tour, that's rather humorous to even think about. >>
Golf is a joke, and trying to compare that game with a real sport like baseball is absurd.
<< <i>As far as Biggio is concerned, naturally I'm not 1,000%. But having lived in Houston since the turn of the century, I've had an opportunity more than once to ask the tough questions to someone in the know. One man I spoke to directly not only knows CB intimately, but he has a vote as well. To paraphrase him, "Deep down I have concerns about Bagwell, but if it comes to light that Craig juiced, consider the entire era tainted." In other words, CB is as close to a "sure thing" as you're going to get. >>
A sure thing what? A guy who never dominated, but because he was a swell guy who played his career in one city, we put him in, because the other guys who DID dominate the era juiced? Pathetic. If he gets in (and I am sure the self-proclaimed hall of fame guardians of integrity will), consider the hall even more watered down than ever.
<< <i>Golf is a joke, and trying to compare that game with a real sport like baseball is absurd. >>
What the hell are you talking about?
But go on, go on believing you're somehow fighting a good fight in raising your pitchforks and torches and keeping the most deserving players from the last generation out of the hall, for daring to best the numbers of the heroes of your youths. The same heroes who have admitted to taking substances of their own which were illegal and definitely boosted their performance. Keep on believing that a guy like McGwire, if he were to be admitted, would somehow bring the hall to its knees but a racist like Cobb or a self-admitted greenie user like Schmidt somehow don't affect it.
Keep on believing that LaRussa was completely ignorant of the rampant PED use occurring in his locker room, that he was blind to the radical changes in body types happening all around him. Blindly and ignorantly follow LaRussa and the old, decrepit writers who have you hoodwinked into thinking that PED users were somehow bad for the game, when, in fact, quite the opposite is true and the game is only as popular as it is today BECAUSE of those very same players.
<< <i>>>>I thought this was the baseball hall of fame not the boy scouts. Biggio is right up there with ozzie Smith as most undeserving HOF member of all time. <<<
You have got to be kidding about Ozzie Smith! He is only the best SS EVER!!! And I'm not even a STL fan.
He saved the team a couple of runs a game with his defense.
What a laugh you are 1985fan!! >>
A couple runs a game? Best SS of all time? Good gravy are you in need of some hard core baseball homework. But then, given your endless, mindless football rants in which you can't get dates, games, or players of your favorite team right, I won't hold my breath.
<< <i>I'm starting to a get a "softball guy" vibe.... >>
Waterboy for the softball team.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
As Banzi pointed out, using illegal drugs is indeed a reason not to elect a player to the Hall(based on the Hall's own criteria).
That character criteria knocks Rose out too. In fact, he broke the cardinal rule in baseball. His actions are about as black and white as it gets. Signs are posted all over telling them not to bet on games. I understand he bet on his team, and logically it doesn't sound too bad...but again, it is spelled out so clearly to the players to NOT do that, so now he has to pay the piper.
As for Larussa, he is kind of a douche, and he looks foolish for saying McGwire was clean etc, but in the end, unless Larussa held a team meeting and created a mandate for players to use steroids, then it just isn't the same as McGwire actually using them.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>Based on the typical middle infielder elected to the Hall, Biggio belongs.
As Banzi pointed out, using illegal drugs is indeed a reason not to elect a player to the Hall(based on the Hall's own criteria).
That character criteria knocks Rose out too. In fact, he broke the cardinal rule in baseball. His actions are about as black and white as it gets. Signs are posted all over telling them not to bet on games. I understand he bet on his team, and logically it doesn't sound too bad...but again, it is spelled out so clearly to the players to NOT do that, so now he has to pay the piper.
As for Larussa, he is kind of a douche, and he looks foolish for saying McGwire was clean etc, but in the end, unless Larussa held a team meeting and created a mandate for players to use steroids, then it just isn't the same as McGwire actually using them. >>
Right on brother!
<< <i>So how many players do you think will be elected in the next 10 years? >>
Guys with a strong chance from the era for the Hall that don't seem to have the steroid cloud over them:
Biggio
Frank Thomas
Schilling
Mussina
Smoltz
Maddux
Glavine
Unit
Pedro
Smoltz
Griffey
Vlad
Chipper
Thome
Rivera
Kent
Larry Walker(Banzi, you make a good case for him, even though he prolly won't make it
Helton
Really, the only ones with a strong case to be HOFers that are/will be being held out due to roids are Clemens, Bonds, Arod, Manny, Sheffield, McGwire, Giambi, Irod.
I may have missed some on both lists(I just did it off the top of my head).
Is it hypocritical that some of the guys on the top list may have used too? Maybe. But the guys on the bottom list got caught red handed, so there is no doubt. As a result, they fail the Hall's criteria.
Bagwell is interesting, as he should be in the Hall. I just think the voters have enough suspicion that they believe some stronger evidence may come along in the future, and they don't want to risk voting him in now as a result.
But the era certainly won't go unrepresented. Ironically, in the era of the hitter, it will be most represented by the pitchers
Believe what you want and bring up morality clauses but the numbers don't lie. Clemens, McGwire Bonds and the others all deserve induction. Even if you folks want to keep wagging your fingers it doesn't take away what they did on the field.
<< <i>The idea of people tsk tsking and wagging the fingers as if they are some sort of moral arbiters always makes me laugh. >>
Especially those that want to change 80 year old team names. You hit the nail on the head.
I'll use our newest favorite (?) statistic OPS+ and list the players Plate appearances as well. I am assuming MOST of you will agree that the longer you play the harder it is to maintain a high OPS+.
.............................OPS+/ PA
Frank Thomas .... 156/ 10,075
Jeff Bagwell .... ... 149 / 9431
Jim Thome .......... 147 / 10,313
"Chipper" Jones . 141 / 10,614
Larry Walker ...... 141 / 8,030
Vlad Guerrero .... 140 / 9,059
Ken Griffey Jr ..... 136 / 11,304
Todd Helton ........133 / 9,453
Jeff Kent ............ 123 / 9,537
Craig Biggio ....... 112 12,504
Thomas was a phenomenal hitter, almost 10 points above (my other guy) the seldom mentioned Jim Thome.
Thomas appears to be a first ballot guy, Bagwell has a lot of doubters. What do you guys think about Thome?
My guy Larry is, as others have mentioned, is at the bottom in plate appearances........by a lot. He's still my guy, but I see the point.
Biggio is at the top, by a lot. Biggio didn't miss many games. 16 times over 141 games!
Of the three Outfielders, Griffey had the lousiest end of the career numbers, he quits at 9,000 PA and his OPS+ is as good as the other two. Of course he then drops below 600 HR.
Griffey also would appear to be a lock, first ballot.
Hate discussing pitchers
<< <i>
Guys with a strong chance from the era for the Hall that don't seem to have the steroid cloud over them:
>>
Raines and Piazza are two others who should be on that list, along with Schilling and Biggio who still haven't made it. And whether Bonds and Clemens ever make the Hall-of-Fame, they'll continue earn a fair amount of votes. And five of those players listed go on the ballot this year. That's well more than 10 viable candidates, each trying to earn 75% of votes.
Can't see anyone other than Maddux as a sure thing this year. Then Johnson, Smoltz and Martinez go on the ballot next year. I wonder how big of a logjam this can become
-----
When the process for players and managers is so strikingly different, it is very clear that it is something other than hypocrisy that allows LaRussa to go into the Hall-of-Fame while others who are more deserving stay out
<< <i>Raines and Piazza are two others who should be on that list. >>
Piazza comes in FOURTH in OPS+ at 143 however he had even less PA than Walker at 7,745. Don't know if this hurts him as catchers generally have shorter careers.
Raines is another guy I can't understand not being in 123OPS+ and 10,359AB GREAT ballplayer and a long career.
Hey Dumb$hit (1985fan) It was Whitey himself that said that. I suppose you think Whitey needs your superior knowledge in Baseball!
So, this ought to be real good, who was a better SS than Ozzie?
I agree that Piazza was kept out because of steroid suspicions.
As for Bagwell, yeah, his name has never turned up in any reports but I would be stunned if he wasn't a steroid user. He played on a roid-infested team (the Astros), added a ton of mass to his frame and had the sudden jump in power associated with a lot of 'roid users (20 HRs in 142 games in 1993, 39 HRs in 110 games in 1994).
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Honus Wagner. Career .391 OBP, .858 OPS and 722 steals. Ozzie Smith? .337, .666, and 580 steals.
Wagner had a career WAR of over 130, Smith 75.
These two aren't even close.
Runners on 2nd and 3rd 2 out.
Ball hit in gap or up the middle that other SS's don't get to.
Ozzie dives fields the ball throws the runner out.
End of inning......2 runs saved! Was that so hard?
How many times do you think that or similiar plays happened?
1985fan - Honus Wagner - You got to be kidding. I was talking defense. Wagner wouldn't have half the range of Ozzie.
If you want to go offense ..... I would take Ernie Banks or Cal.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
<< <i>>>>Ozzie very well might have been the greatest SS of all-time. Even if he was, he still wasn't saving "a couple runs a game". That notion is just laughable. The reality would be that his presence saved waaaaaaaay less than a run per game. <<<
Runners on 2nd and 3rd 2 out.
Ball hit in gap or up the middle that other SS's don't get to.
Ozzie dives fields the ball throws the runner out.
End of inning......2 runs saved! Was that so hard?
How many times do you think that or similiar plays happened? >>
Best estimate? Once every few weeks, tops, probably far less than that.
It certainly doesn't happen every single game. Think about what you're asking for - a ball in that very small area that Ozzie could get to but nobody else could AND that wouldn't be a single anyway. That's an incredibly small cross-section of balls in-play.
In his absolutely best season, Smith's defense was worth an average of 0.20 runs per game above the average guy. Over the course of his career, he saved about 13 runs every 140 games - or...wait for it... "waaaaaaaaay less than a run per game".
<< <i>If you want to go offense ..... I would take Ernie Banks or Cal. >>
Cal? The guy with *10* seasons of OPS+ of 105 or lower? Career 112? Cal's offense (and his defense, quite frankly) is vastly overrated. For a lot of his career, he was an average, or barely above average, hitter.
Honus Wagner put up a career 151. Ernie Banks was a career 122.
I'll take my chances with those two over Cal or Ozzie.
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Dr. Seuss
<< <i>
So, this ought to be real good, who was a better SS than Ozzie? >>
Defensively? Not many but there were a few equals. Offensively? All of them.
If you want to go offense ..... I would take Ernie Banks or Cal. >>
You didn't specify defense only, and the fact you'd take Banks or Cal over Wagner is serious proof you don't know anything, and I mean ANYTHING, about sports. Wagner is the best shortstop of all time - hands down. The idea that Ozzie saved 2 runs a game is so mind-numbingly, off the charts foolish that I can't even respond to it without breaking into hysterics. The truth, the facts is he prevented about 1/10th of that, and his offense was historically bad for a HoFer.
His defense was superb, but the only reason he made the hall is because he was on the first highlight reel players in baseball, and his backflips garnered him additional attention.
But decided to go your way and use stats to compare Wagner and Banks over-all career wise:
Wagner Banks
HR 101 512 Banks over 5X
BA .328 .274 Wagner by 54 points
RBI 1733 1636 Wagner by 97
Fld% .947 .981 Banks by 34 points
OPS .858 .830 Wagner by 28 points
Slg% .468 .500 Banks by 32 points
Pretty close 3 to 3 ......everything being fairly close......But the HR count would make me take Banks over Wagner.
Banks has the extra 412 HR better Slg and Fld %
It's a matter or preference.....they are both outstanding players.
<< <i>OK 1985fan - I still will go with Ozzie as the best defensive SS.
But decided to go your way and use stats to compare Wagner and Banks over-all career wise:
Wagner Banks
HR 101 512 Banks over 5X
BA .328 .274 Wagner by 54 points
RBI 1733 1636 Wagner by 97
Fld% .947 .981 Banks by 34 points
OPS .858 .830 Wagner by 28 points
Slg% .468 .500 Banks by 32 points
Pretty close 3 to 3 ......everything being fairly close......But the HR count would make me take Banks over Wagner.
Banks has the extra 412 HR better Slg and Fld %
It's a matter or preference.....they are both outstanding players. >>
Not going to bother going over the horrid analysis, as I think every point will be lost on you. However, you do realize that Banks played close to 11,000 innings at 1B, compared to close to 10,000 at SS?
That cuts the fielding percentage lead down(granted Banks is still higher at SS, but that has more to do with the era/equipment than being better). Also, Wagner played in the dead ball era...but those points will be too hard for you to understand, so I will just stick with making you aware of the fact that Banks played more 1B than SS.
As for Wagner, he has legitimate claims to be among the all-time best players, not just SS(where he is clearly the best).
And as for overall best player Wagner wouldn't even be on the same page with players like Willie Mays or Babe Ruth!
<< <i>Skin - I really like the way you talk down to me. For your information both Banks and Wagner played other positions. I wasn't going to make the comparison that complicated. If you want to go there. I don't think Wagner would have been as good in the modern ara.
And as for overall best player Wagner wouldn't even be on the same page with players like Willie Mays or Babe Ruth! >>
You know what, you are correct...I shouldn't talk like that. My apologies.
Wagner did play other positions, but the predominant amount of innings came at SS...and far different to Banks' percentage of innings at each spot.
Wagner is probably closer to the all time greats than most think.
With regards to the era, that is a valid point....and an area of study I like to delve into(though time constraints makes it hard to dig as deep as I need to). Keep in mind though, that whatever era penalty goes to Wagner would be applied to Ruth too.
Even considering everything like that, Wagner's lead is probably just too big(when using the best comprehensive methods) for Banks to close the gap where an era adjustment would come into play.
Back to Baseball....if I were building a team I would take Banks over Wagner.
And I consider Willie Mays the best overall player followed closely by Mickey Mantle. Mick would have put up some huge if not for his knee injuries.
And before I catch flack.....there are many many more great players like Williams, Joe D. and Lou G. to name a few.
But in my opinion Mays would be # 1 out of all of those.
JMHO
WAR.
By no means is it perfect, but it does a fair job of taking a huge number of variables and putting them into context. Banks, for his career, was worth about 67 wins above an average replacement, Wagner was worth 130. To make it even simpler, Wagner was worth nearly TWICE as many wins over an average replacement than Banks was.
Banks of course kills him in the power numbers, but even given that, Wagners OPS is still higher, and Banks' SLG is really not that much higher (.500 vs. .467). OPS+ Wagner a runaway winner, too, with 155 vs. 122 for Banks.
No, sorry dimeman, but Banks pales in comparison to Wagner.
You can have Wagner on your team......I'll take Banks.
<< <i>That's your opinion, which you are entitled to.
You can have Wagner on your team......I'll take Banks. >>
And I'll win every game every day, except when we play 2! Then I'll win twice.
I like power, I'll go with Mr.Cub
Hey! lets be all rightous and save them Indians from the white man and then go put up a Statue of Big Mac
Maybe a Statue of Big Mac on a reservation, Yea thats it!
(I can see the vein sticking out of your forehead already LOL)
Calm down now and have a Happy holiday
<< <i>It's really hard to compare player's like that from different era's. It would be like taking those great Green Bay Packers teams from the 50's and 60's to today's teams. Due to size, speed and strength most any team now could beat those Packer teams. Yet that does not take anything away from those Packer teams.
Back to Baseball....if I were building a team I would take Banks over Wagner.
And I consider Willie Mays the best overall player followed closely by Mickey Mantle. Mick would have put up some huge if not for his knee injuries.
And before I catch flack.....there are many many more great players like Williams, Joe D. and Lou G. to name a few.
But in my opinion Mays would be # 1 out of all of those.
JMHO >>
It is very difficult to compare guys from different eras. One can only speculate how each would do in the different eras, and that is a fun exercise. What can be done is examining how each dominated their peers...but even that has its problems as each set of peers aren't necessarily the same, and in fact, some guys may have had advantages in one era that would be impossible for a guy from another era to take advantage of.
For example, Babe Ruth. It is well known that he outhomered every team in the league one year. THat is great, however, since he played against a lower level of population(which means less elite players to compete against), and considering that african american players were not allowed(taking away more elite players)...and considering that most of the league still had the dead ball style of hitters/hitting thus giving him a league of players who simply weren't equipped to take advantage of the livlier ball and hit home runs, it gave him unique circumstances to out homer every team.
There is no way he would be able to do that in 1990, as those circumstances didn't exist. So it is automatically an unfair comparison, even when measuring against their own peers, when Ruth is compared to a modern hitter like Mike Schmidt.
Story
"LaRussa and Torre might not have used steroids themselves, but they benefitted from players who did. Why should those players be penalized but the managers they helped are rewarded?
A manager is responsible for knowing what goes on in his clubhouse and not bury [sic] himself in his office so he doesn't know."
Chass points out that LaRussa has joked around about knowing what Canseco was up to, although he staunchly defended McGwire against his accusers until the morning of Big Mac's public admission of guilt. If you believe that the managers knew what was going on in their clubhouses and locker rooms, then their records should be suspect and held to the same exacting standards of the players whose performances are considered tainted. After all, the strongest piece of PED evidence I've heard against Bagwell has been that he was teammates with Ken Caminiti and didn't, I don't know, publicly hang him from the Astrodome roof or something.
I also think Shoeless Joe got shafted. Both contemporary and later accounts of the whole Black Sox scandal showed that he knew nothing of the plot. I'm convinced he was innocent in the whole affair and his WS numbers tend to bear that out.
That said, it's the Hall of FAME, not the "Hall of Statistics Only" or the "Hall of Guys I Think Should Be There".
I don't think that known PED users should be rewarded for taking shortcuts (Bonds is a prime example imo). If they do get in somehow, at a maximum there should be a special *asterisk* section with a couple of plaques worth of names mentioning these individuals, noting significant accomplishments and leaving the viewer to decide for him/herself. Definitely no individual plaques though, because I would view that as disrespecting the guys who got in the right way.
As to LaRussa... I think he should get in for his managerial success unless someone can prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew about and ignored all PED use during his tenure...
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
<< <i>One of the biggest opponents to voting in any PED user for the hall is in agreement with me:
>>
Murray Chass has been wrong on virtually every other issue for the Hall-of-Fame selection, so why would this one be any different?
<< <i>
As to LaRussa... I think he should get in for his managerial success unless someone can prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew about and ignored all PED use during his tenure... >>
Either he was complicit in the steroid use, or he was completely oblivious as to what was going on in multiple locker rooms under his watch. Which would you presume to be the case here?