Options
Hypocrisy of Electing LaRussa to the HoF
1985fan
Posts: 1,952 ✭✭
in Sports Talk
Just heard a great bit on Olbermann's show tonight, and it's compelling I had to share. He was blasting the induction of LaRussa to the hall, not necessarily for anything he did but for everything he *didn't* do. He managed McGwire and Canseco for many years, yet to this day continues to defend them and their PED use, meanwhile the HoF and its pathetic voters choose not to elect any PED users. He mentioned how Pete Rose gambled on baseball games which may or may not have affected the outcome of games, but LaRussa managed PED users and that use definitely affected the outcome of games. He blasted the hypocrisy of a voting committee that would elect a manager whose defense of McGwire not taking PEDs was 'he works out all the time!'
He made another great point - the HoF is a joke. It's meaningless. There are so many players in there who are only there as a favor to a voter. It's so watered down and so blatantly missing key pieces of baseball history that its worthless. His last point was the continued refusal to elect Marvin Miller to the hall. Ignoring your personal feelings about him, he's one of the most important figures in baseball history, and his continued absence from the hall is a tragedy.
I would love to see a group of prominent baseball folks get together, and do a new Hall of Fame. Start over completely, and really have in depth discussions. Start from the very beginning, and elect no more than 5 a year. It will never happen, however, and that's sad, because the HoF now as it is is an utter and complete joke.
He made another great point - the HoF is a joke. It's meaningless. There are so many players in there who are only there as a favor to a voter. It's so watered down and so blatantly missing key pieces of baseball history that its worthless. His last point was the continued refusal to elect Marvin Miller to the hall. Ignoring your personal feelings about him, he's one of the most important figures in baseball history, and his continued absence from the hall is a tragedy.
I would love to see a group of prominent baseball folks get together, and do a new Hall of Fame. Start over completely, and really have in depth discussions. Start from the very beginning, and elect no more than 5 a year. It will never happen, however, and that's sad, because the HoF now as it is is an utter and complete joke.
0
Comments
<< <i>Just heard a great bit on Olbermann's show tonight, and it's compelling I had to share. He was blasting the induction of LaRussa to the hall, not necessarily for anything he did but for everything he *didn't* do. He managed McGwire and Canseco for many years, yet to this day continues to defend them and their PED use, meanwhile the HoF and its pathetic voters choose not to elect any PED users. He mentioned how Pete Rose gambled on baseball games which may or may not have affected the outcome of games, but LaRussa managed PED users and that use definitely affected the outcome of games. He blasted the hypocrisy of a voting committee that would elect a manager whose defense of McGwire not taking PEDs was 'he works out all the time!'
He made another great point - the HoF is a joke. It's meaningless. There are so many players in there who are only there as a favor to a voter. It's so watered down and so blatantly missing key pieces of baseball history that its worthless. His last point was the continued refusal to elect Marvin Miller to the hall. Ignoring your personal feelings about him, he's one of the most important figures in baseball history, and his continued absence from the hall is a tragedy.
I would love to see a group of prominent baseball folks get together, and do a new Hall of Fame. Start over completely, and really have in depth discussions. Start from the very beginning, and elect no more than 5 a year. It will never happen, however, and that's sad, because the HoF now as it is is an utter and complete joke. >>
Are there people out there who don't think Marvin Miller should be in the Hall? If so, what's their rationale?
Kind of get why you would be a fan though, 1985fan.
<< <i>Olbermann carries zero credibility to me. I would listen to my Rottweiler before that talking head. >>
So you disagree with his politics, like that's a shock. But since he's talking sports, that should be irrelevant.
<< <i>Put Rose and some of those others in.. I don't give two hoots about managers. >>
What John Q. Public thinks about Miller is irrelevant. What is the rationale of the voters? Who are the voters that don't appreciate Miller? Former players? Writers? Why are they so opposed to his induction into the Hall? You would think he would have immense support of former players.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
<< <i>Olbermann carries zero credibility to me. I would listen to my Rottweiler before that talking head.
Kind of get why you would be a fan though, 1985fan. >>
Not sure if he needs to carry credibility to make an argument. Can you not listen to someone's point of view if you don't agree with them generally? It seems like it would be hard to ever broaden your mind with that mentality!?
I personally think his correct about the hypocrisy in baseball and how much the baseball HOF sucks. The simple fact that guys like Rice (just an example, don't give me the numbers again) were not considered HOFers 5 years after they retired but suddenly are HOFers 15-20 years after they retired is a joke. The fact that 3000 hits has always been an automatic entry to the hall but suddenly it wasn't last year is another joke. Going to aggravate me more when Halladay doesn't get in after being dominant for a decade when Koufax is revered as one of the greatest ever after being dominant for half a decade.
I do not believe Marvin Miller should be inducted into the Hall of Fame. He positively affected the player’s pockets, but is that Hall of Fame worthy? Should we now make team accountants eligible? How about Scott Boras? I see Marvin on the same level as those men. He gave his life to the players and represented them well, but I honestly don't think that is worthy of induction. Give him some sort of honor or shrine in the museum.
This is all a moot point, Marvin Miller asked to never be inducted. He actually made that his dying wish. You could actually say the men who didn't vote for him were doing it out of respect.
Jason
"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
Personally I think it's a joke that the all-time hit leader is not in! Sure he broke a rule and paid dearly for it, but that doesn't change how he played the game and he should be in....PERIOD!
These same power brokers within baseball are the same idiots who denied Mark Cuban from owning a team but let Frank McCourt own one.
The HOF is a joke. To have a museum of baseball without the all times hits leader, home run leader or man who won the most Cy Young awards is a joke and is one of many reason baseball is now third in popularity. The hall needs to be burned to the ground and started over.
<< <i>If you're going to induct LaRussa you have to induct McGwire. >>
I don't remember seeing that anywhere.
<< <i>The HOF is a joke. To have a museum of baseball without a cronic gambler and two cheaters is a joke and is one of many reason baseball is now third in popularity. The hall needs to be burned to the ground and started over. >>
I fixed it for you.
"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>Rose should be in.....Bonds not. Gambling didn't affect Rose's hits, but drugs certainly helped Bonds. >>
I agree on Rose.
Bonds was headed to the Hall before he got jealous and decided to juice.
Clemens was done until he supposedly started juicing.
<< <i>He made another great point - the HoF is a joke. It's meaningless. There are so many players in there who are only there as a favor to a voter. >>
Why do you choose to look at those choices the same way as others? I think it's truly great how consistent the Writers have been able to be over so long. That's a big reason why I devote so much time and effort into looking into the players who go in and the ones who are left out. Just because the Veteran's Committee uses far different standards doesn't mean we must look at them the same way, yet for some reason, that's what some people choose to do
Yet in recent years these standards are crumbling. Perez but not Bagwell. Rice but not Raines. Sutter and Gossage. Now if Morris somehow makes it while Schilling does not, that would do so much to destroy the remaining value. . .
-----
Writers only vote for players, not managers. If managers are going to be in the Hall-of-Fame, La Russa belongs. We all take a different position on how we view drugs in sports. Some people like them, some people don't. Most fall into some sort of indifference and it seems that's where the Veteran's Committee falls, too
But no, the Hall is going to reward LaRussa, and continue to wag its fingers at the players who brought baseball back from irrelevance after the ill-fated work stoppage ownership was responsible for. The HoF is not a moral resting ground, it's a museum. Sitting there and ignoring an entire generation of players because of PED use is as idiotic as it is short sighted, and those who would sit back and say 'tsk tsk' or call them 'cheaters' (I'm looking at you JHS) then you aren't a real fan of the game. You all were cheering for these home runs, just like all of us were, and we owe it to future generations to induct these players and explain on their plaques how they were able to achieve these numbers.
But no, the hall and it's self-righteous voters will continue to shove their head in the sand, and try to ignore the last 30 years of baseball as if it didn't happen. They'll induct managers who rode the backs of PED users, induct manager who supposedly didn't know what was happening, while they smile and shake hands. Meanwhile, real fans are utterly disgusted.
<< <i>Keith, who has become nothing more than a carny barker, is mad he still doesn't have a HOF vote. He creates strawmen and fauxrage (flavor of the month is now Marvin Miller) as a petty attempt to get the attention that his ego desperately craves. >>
I love how your entire argument centers around the messenger and ignores the message. And you can drop the whole 'fauxrage' bit, stown, you throw it around all the time and it doesn't help your argument at all. If you think Miller isn't deserving, say so, but attacking the messenger just makes your entire argument pathetically weak and nonexistent.
<< <i>Are there people out there who don't think Marvin Miller should be in the Hall? If so, what's their rationale? >>
From nbcsports.com
"I thought Bill James made a great point: He pointed out that at the end of his life Miller was so embittered by the whole Hall of Fame experience that he said, on numerous occasions, he did not want to be elected. In a way, it would be disrespectful to vote him into the Hall of Fame against his wishes shortly after his death. Marvin Miller was the ultimate outsider — that’s what allowed him to change the game. Maybe it’s a more fitting tribute, in an odd way, for him to NOT be in the Hall of Fame."
<< <i>
Why do you choose to look at those choices the same way as others? I think it's truly great how consistent the Writers have been able to be over so long. That's a big reason why I devote so much time and effort into looking into the players who go in and the ones who are left out. Just because the Veteran's Committee uses far different standards doesn't mean we must look at them the same way, yet for some reason, that's what some people choose to do >>
We shouldn't have a veteran's committee, in my opinion. If it was up to me, players would have a one year eligibility window - that's it. Either you're a HoFer or you're not. Making a guy wait, year after year, for up to 15 years is torture. There's nothing a guy can do in year 10, for example, of his eligibility window that should affect his voting. Either you're a HoFer or you're not, this one year window fixes that.
<< <i>Yet in recent years these standards are crumbling. Perez but not Bagwell. Rice but not Raines. Sutter and Gossage. Now if Morris somehow makes it while Schilling does not, that would do so much to destroy the remaining value. . . >>
Recent years? The standards of HoF induction have been a joke for a long time. There's no shortage of players who are in who have no business being there.
<< <i>Writers only vote for players, not managers. If managers are going to be in the Hall-of-Fame, La Russa belongs. We all take a different position on how we view drugs in sports. Some people like them, some people don't. Most fall into some sort of indifference and it seems that's where the Veteran's Committee falls, too >>
My point (and Olbermann's too) is that if you're going to penalize players for taking PEDs, you have to extend the same penalty to managers who wouldn't have won games without those same PED users.
<< <i>
<< <i>Olbermann carries zero credibility to me. I would listen to my Rottweiler before that talking head. >>
So you disagree with his politics, like that's a shock. But since he's talking sports, that should be irrelevant. >>
Olbermann was suspended from his last gig (before getting fired) for making political contributions while pretending to be an unbiased employee of a news gathering organization. Who knows which parties are filling his pockets for his current "unbiased " opinions.
<< <i>In a way, it would be disrespectful to vote him into the Hall of Fame against his wishes >>
Wonder why Keith failed to mention that to his +/- 80,000 viewers, in addition to the fact Big Mac, regardless of PEDs, was never HOF worthy. Oh yeah, because it would completely contradict his fauxrage.
Heh.
<< <i>Recent years? The standards of HoF induction have been a joke for a long time. There's no shortage of players who are in who have no business being there. >>
Before this century the number of players clearly below the standard set by the Writers was very short. And most of them had already finished their careers by the time the Hall-of-Fame even came into existence (Maranville, Schalk, Keeler, etc.), among the rest, the very worst would be Catfish Hunter and Luis Aparicio. That is a high standard. Most importantly, it is a very consistent standard, only major misses being Vaughan, Mize and maybe Santo
-----
You say you want no Veteran's Committee, but you refuse to answer why you choose to hold VC choices in the same regard as Writers. You say you want only one year of eligibility, but you are allowed to hold players who make it on the first ballot in higher regard to those who take 10 years or more
You say it would be best if they just started over and ask why no one has. But plenty of people do. Go back to 1936 (or whenever you want) and start picking the best choices you can come up for each year and see what it looks like. Or even simpler, just list the best 243 players in history (or any number you think is best, but that's the current number of players) and call it your own personal Hall-of-Fame
<< <i>583 HRs isn't hall worthy? That's laughably ignorant. First all time in HR/AB. You're a fool if you don't think McGwires numbers are hall worthy. >>
Hall of Roids perhaps. As a kid growing up in Detroit and getting to as many games as I could, it seemed that the outfielder was always on the warning track snaring what I was certain was a sure home run. Occasionally of course, Boog Powell or Willie Horton launched one. Those were of course the rare exceptions. Fast forward to the late 90's when Sosa and McGwire were smacking balls off the rafters.
No thanks on the druggies being in the Hall.
<< <i>Stown said he wasn't hall worthy regardless of PED use. >>
In that context, I would agree that McGwire would be worthy if he had been drug free. A moot point though as his gaudy numbers would have been much more pedestrian.
"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>There are people in the hall that did worse things outside of Baseball than Pete Rose. >>
No doubt, but Rose did more to potentially damage the game than anyone else, except maybe the Shoeless Joe and his pals.
The moment that the outcome of a game is questioned, baseball or any other sport is doomed. Betting with or worse against the team he is playing on or managing is worthy of two lifetime bans.
<< <i>
<< <i>There are people in the hall that did worse things outside of Baseball than Pete Rose. >>
No doubt, but Rose did more to potentially damage the game than anyone else, except maybe the Shoeless Joe and his pals.
>>
Worse than racism?
<< <i>The Hall of Fame is about much more than numbers and that is why Mark McGwire will never see the inside of that building (unless he pays admission of course). >>
Really? Like what? The racism of Ty Cobb? The hall is a museum and denying McGwire, Clemens and the others is doing a disservice to the history of the game.
<< <i>
<< <i>The Hall of Fame is about much more than numbers and that is why Mark McGwire will never see the inside of that building (unless he pays admission of course). >>
Really? Like what? The racism of Ty Cobb? The hall is a museum and denying McGwire, Clemens and the others is doing a disservice to the history of the game. >>
What about the disservice that these schmucks did to Mays, Aaron and Ruth etc with their bloated PED enhanced numbers.
<< <i>Really? Like what? The racism of Ty Cobb? The hall is a museum and denying McGwire, Clemens and the others is doing a disservice to the history of the game. >>
The Baseball Hall of Fame isn't a museum, but it does have one attached (which McGwire, Bonds and Clemens are represented several times).
Unfortunately, Ty Cobb was inducted when racism was very much an acceptable practice (1936). Just because they let a racist guy in 80 years ago means they need to let in a bunch of cheaters today? That is a silly argument.
Most writers vote based on ones contribution to the game. Numbers are a big part, but Barry Bonds hurt the game much more than he helped it that's for sure.
"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
Simply put: he wasn't, still isn't, and never will be HOF worthy.
edited to add: I'll take back the "never will" part because you can't predict the future and would replace it with "there's a better chance of hades freezing over before he gets elected; it is remotely possible but extremely unlikely".
<< <i>The hall IS a museum. And if you want to excuse racism as a sign of the times then you have to make the same exception as PEDs were a sign of the times. PEDs were the norms of the era and trying to hide your head in the sand doesn't change that. Misrepresenting the past and ignoring what happened doesn't make it go away. Clemens, Bonds, McGwire all need to be in and their PED use noted on their plaques. >>
You could correctly argue that the racism in the first half of the century inflated the numbers of all of the White players as they did not have to face the likes of Satchel Paige. I do not believe that that is your argument though (I am sure that you will correct me if I'm wrong). You seem to be implying that a player like Ty Cobb was a mean and nasty fellow so that should put him on the same plain as the PED users. Unless you want to discount sharpening his spikes as an unfair advantage you are on the shakiest of ground.
<< <i>The hall IS a museum. And if you want to excuse racism as a sign of the times then you have to make the same exception as PEDs were a sign of the times. PEDs were the norms of the era and trying to hide your head in the sand doesn't change that. Misrepresenting the past and ignoring what happened doesn't make it go away. Clemens, Bonds, McGwire all need to be in and their PED use noted on their plaques. >>
Everything above is completely, indisputably wrong.
The Hall is a literal hall, there is also a museum attached (The Baseball Hall of Fame Museum), but this isn't relevant.
You want baseball writers to vote in cheaters because former baseball writers (who are all dead) voted in a racist man 80 years ago? I can't think of a more ridiculous reason to vote in Barry Bonds. No one is ignoring it, actually, by the millions of threads, articles, reports and stories about the subject I am fairly certain everyone is paying attention to it. No one wants to pretend it didn't happen (except for maybe Bud Selig), the writers are acknowledging it happened and are voting accordingly. If we were to just ignore it they would have been voted in (isn't that obvious?).
Clemens, Bonds and McGwire abused drugs to cheat. They lied about cheating, some have been indicted for lying about cheating and some should be in prison. Why in the world would they be inducted? What because a man cheated to get a really high score in a sport.. is that what we should honor now?
"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>
Everything above is completely, indisputably wrong.
? >>
Text
Be careful, he'll call you all kinds of bad names if you keep it up.
All that being said you're all deviating from the point which is inducting LaRussa who rode the backs of PED users to wins and World Series titles while ignoring those very players is the hypocrisy being described. You can't sit there in judgement of McGwire and applaud LaRussa.
<< <i>Bonds, Clemens, and even Shoeless Joe or Rose may get in one day but Big Mac will never even get a sniff since he was a one dimensional player. Chicks may dig the long ball and he was great from a marketing standpoint but when you're only getting 16.9% of the votes, only way he gets in is with an admission ticket.
Simply put: he wasn't, still isn't, and never will be HOF worthy.
edited to add: I'll take back the "never will" part because you can't predict the future and would replace it with "there's a better chance of hades freezing over before he gets elected; it is remotely possible but extremely unlikely". >>
May be one trick, but it was one heckuva trick!
However, with a career .394 OB%, McGwire eclipses Tony Gwynn(.388) in the main trick that got him into the HOF(getting on base). So McGwire really has two tricks, and they happen to be the two most important tricks a position player has(SLG and OB).
McGwire was also a good defensive first baseman.
McGlicker, you are correct that racism helped the elite players in the pre war era, as they got to compete against a lesser talent pool. Add in the fact that the overall population of available players was much smaller than too(even considering the amount of teams), it is no wonder why those elite players in the pre war era were able to distance themselves from their peers like no other era(except the current juice ball era where the same is also true).
As for steroids and guys who get lumped in with the rest. All I have to say to them is that they made their bed, and now they have to sleep in it. They did nothing but put roadblocks up for real testing. So it is ALL on them.
And yes, guys COULD have proven they were clean. In fact, Albert Pujols even said he would take ANY test to prove his innocence...however, we are still waiting for that Albert!
<< <i>Ignoring an entire era does disservice to the memory of the game. Oh, and stown, if you want to call McGwireva one trick pony who doesn't merit induction then I guess we better kick out the likes of Reggie Jackson or any other power hitter who didn't hit for average. Throw out Biggios possible induction as his power numbers were abysmal.
All that being said you're all deviating from the point which is inducting LaRussa who rode the backs of PED users to wins and World Series titles while ignoring those very players is the hypocrisy being described. You can't sit there in judgement of McGwire and applaud LaRussa. >>
LaRussa won the world series in 2006 and 2011 for the Cardinals and which of those players tested positive for PEDs?
Looking to BUY n332 1889 SF Hess cards and high grade cards from 19th century especially. "Once you have wrestled everything else in life is easy" Dan Gable
I agree that he certainly was covering up the whole McGwire steroid use debacle, and he looked like a fool when McGwire finally came clean.
And the Cardinals haven't missed a beat with him gone. His last two years managing them they won 86 and 90 games. The first two years without him they won 88 and 97 games(and that is with losing Pujols too).
35 years is pretty impressive though...as is long tenures with three different organizations.
<< <i>
<< <i>Ignoring an entire era does disservice to the memory of the game. Oh, and stown, if you want to call McGwireva one trick pony who doesn't merit induction then I guess we better kick out the likes of Reggie Jackson or any other power hitter who didn't hit for average. Throw out Biggios possible induction as his power numbers were abysmal.
All that being said you're all deviating from the point which is inducting LaRussa who rode the backs of PED users to wins and World Series titles while ignoring those very players is the hypocrisy being described. You can't sit there in judgement of McGwire and applaud LaRussa. >>
LaRussa won the world series in 2006 and 2011 for the Cardinals and which of those players tested positive for PEDs? >>
Pujols didn't test positive but he's as likely a user as there is.
<< <i>I'm not a fan of LaRussa...he is a douche.
I agree that he certainly was covering up the whole McGwire steroid use debacle, and he looked like a fool when McGwire finally came clean.
And the Cardinals haven't missed a beat with him gone. His last two years managing them they won 86 and 90 games. The first two years without him they won 88 and 97 games(and that is with losing Pujols too).
35 years is pretty impressive though...as is long tenures with three different organizations. >>
This pretty much sums up my feelings about LaRussa as well. You also can't deny his impact in the use of short relievers and the role of the closer in pitching.
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>
<< <i>Are there people out there who don't think Marvin Miller should be in the Hall? If so, what's their rationale? >>
From nbcsports.com
"I thought Bill James made a great point: He pointed out that at the end of his life Miller was so embittered by the whole Hall of Fame experience that he said, on numerous occasions, he did not want to be elected. In a way, it would be disrespectful to vote him into the Hall of Fame against his wishes shortly after his death. Marvin Miller was the ultimate outsider — that’s what allowed him to change the game. Maybe it’s a more fitting tribute, in an odd way, for him to NOT be in the Hall of Fame." >>
I suppose there might be something in that. As I recall (and I'm not sure on the specifics), induction into the HOF is based on either performance in, or influence on, the game of baseball. Is that correct? If so, I'd think the list of guys who have had a greater influence than Marvin Miller on post-war baseball is a very short list.
<< <i>May be one trick, but it was one heckuva trick!
However, with a career .394 OB%, McGwire eclipses Tony Gwynn(.388) in the main trick that got him into the HOF(getting on base). So McGwire really has two tricks, and they happen to be the two most important tricks a position player has(SLG and OB). >>
So on base percentage is now the standard to get into the HOF? Mac is equal to or greater than Gwynn, Carew, Morgan, or even Wagner? Come on, skin, you're better than that.