@coolstanley said:
So it remains the all time hit king, and all time Home run king are left out.
The baseball HOF is nothing but a joke/farce.
HUH? Hit king was not eligible for this ballot!
The first ballot the hit king is eligible "CLASSIC BASEBALL ERA (PRIOR TO 1980)" is in 2027. Good news as it gives you 2 full years to manufacture more rage. If he fails to make it then, you'll have 3 more years to generate additional rage. It's more about the hunt than the catch anyhow -- right
@ElMagoStrikeZone said:
No different than any other organization which is controlled by people with strong opinions.
strong opinions? more like agenda's. kent and bonds played together. and no one thinks kent did ped's? lol.
i think kent belonged because he was a great player. they all do something..lots of $$
No one from the era is above suspicion however Kents name was never linked in any manner IIRC.
Bond/Clemens/AROD etc will likley not get in our lifetimes and probably not in our children's either. Deal with it if you are able or just become more old and bitter its your choice. Either way it wont change anything.
I'm happy for Kent !
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972) Not even a minute do I buy the whole buh buh buh I'm a man-child japery - Me (2025)
@olb31 said:
PRETTY SURE HE DIDN'T GET IN ORIGINALLY BECAUSE OF THE PED'S. sorry bout the caps.
He did not get in originally simply because the committee was blinded completely by WAR. People are now realizing that WAR is just one of a great many things you factor in. This was reinforced by multiple people who had a say in the votes.
Jeff Kent should have gotten in within the first couple of ballots. He's one of the worst cases of wrongful voting for the HoF. His HoF case is obvious.
amongst second basemen
Career HR - 1st
Career RBI - 3rd (closely behind Lajoie and Hornsby)
Career SLG - 2nd (behind Hornsby)
Career OPS - 4th (behind Hornsby, Jackie, Gehringer)
Games played second base - 9th all-time
7x his teams went to the playoffs
MVP
He's in the top three all-time offensively at his position. He's a very underrated fielder as well.
This is why the voting was so exciting as you never know what direction it's going to go. I thought for sure we would have multiple players get elected.
Mattingly, Murphy and Delgado live to fight another day. Nothing really lost there.
Bonds, Clemens, Venezuela and Sheffield still have a chance sometime in the future. However, I have to say that it's a pity that Venezuela is put into this group as there was never ever any hint of him being linked to PEDs. Sheffield's links have been contextualized, but I don't want to start a discussion on that.
I look forward to the next batch of 8. It may include Mattingly, Murphy, and Delgado, but I know it does not have to. I would say Schilling, Kevin Brown, Cone, Whitaker and some others could be considered.
It looks like Mattingly's cards have indeed gone up another notch as someone mentioned previously.
"So many of our DREAMS at first seem impossible, then they seem improbable, and then, when we SUMMON THE WILL they soon become INEVITABLE "- Christopher Reeve
I don't understand how they even came up with this list of nominations.
4 of the players received less than the required 5. There weren't 4 other players out there that could pull in more than that? This list was supposedly chosen by "experts". I think all of us can come up with 4 players that would have pulled in more than 5 votes.
Alan Trammel is on the committee and Lou Whitaker was left off the ballot? Who could talk more about Lou being a HOF'er more than Tram?
For as much as I love Mattingly and Murphy, it's clear they are not getting in, but yet the HOF keeps putting them up there to get their hopes (and Fans) crushed. Like I mentioned in another post, I predict the HOF will put them in after they pass.
What was the point of teasing the Dodger and Mexican fans by putting Fernando on the ballot? I live in LA and before this nomination, there wasn't a big outcry for Fernando to be in the HOF. Now he is one vote away from being banished from the ballot forever, he was better off before.
The new rule about being bounced FOREVER after 2 >5 vote total is just a weasal way out for the HOF. There is no need for it since they control who is on the ballot. They just don't want the responsibility for keeping out certian players.
@olb31 said:
Easy to see why BGR is so confrontational. Goes with the territory, huh?
I don't have a vote. I would have voted Bonds and Clemens in a long time ago, but there's a time when you have to accept reality. Kent's election doesn't look to me as a statement that Kent was better than Bonds. I don't see this as a useful remark at all as it appears to grossly, and hopefully intentionally, miss the point.
@coolstanley said:
So it remains the all time hit king, and all time Home run king are left out.
Ichiro and Gibson are both in already.
If you say so.
HOF does I guess.
A plaque in the National Baseball Hall of Fame credits the greatest slugger in Negro Leagues history, Josh Gibson, with “almost 800 home runs.”
In 2,653 MLB games, Ichiro batted .311 with a .355 on-base percentage. He had already totaled 1,278 hits before he ever played for the Mariners, leaving him with 4,367 total hits.
The new rule about being bounced FOREVER after 2 >5 vote total is just a weasal way out for the HOF. There is no need for it since they control who is on the ballot. They just don't want the responsibility for keeping out certian players.
I did not like that new rule because it prevents a player from being evaluated with a different set of eyes, in a different generation, and under a different context. So far, no one is completely bounced forever. The rule may even change again. Clemens, Sheffield and Bonds will have to wait for 2031 to get another chance, but that is still not a guarantee they will be part of the 8 candidates.
The steroid era players have not been handled consistently. Some are in the HOF now. That is a discussion for another place and time.
One thing is for sure, these elections have us at the edge of our seats and the results are so difficult to predict, which adds even more suspense and mystery.
"So many of our DREAMS at first seem impossible, then they seem improbable, and then, when we SUMMON THE WILL they soon become INEVITABLE "- Christopher Reeve
@balco758 said:
I watched Bonds play for 12 seasons. Barry was a HOF player well before his (likely) PED use.
He belongs in and the fact that he isn't, makes the HOF far less meaningful. To me, at least.
I think some of these voters are babies.
This is not directed at you specifically. However, I do think the actual child-like behavior comes from people well into their adulthood who can't seem to let go of their childhood heroes. They seem to put these people on a pedestal and treat them almost with blind worship.
For what it's worth, I do not blindly worship Barry. He was often sullen, angry, and in some ways his own worst enemy. But, he was a already HOF player by 1999.
IMHO some of these veterans voters may have an axe to grind, and these new rules are a bit ridiculous and random.
The new rule about being bounced FOREVER after 2 >5 vote total is just a weasal way out for the HOF. There is no need for it since they control who is on the ballot. They just don't want the responsibility for keeping out certian players.
I did not like that new rule because it prevents a player from being evaluated with a different set of eyes, in a different generation, and under a different context. So far, no one is completely bounced forever. The rule may even change again. Clemens, Sheffield and Bonds will have to wait for 2031 to get another chance, but that is still not a guarantee they will be part of the 8 candidates.
The steroid era players have not been handled consistently. Some are in the HOF now. That is a discussion for another place and time.
One thing is for sure, these elections have us at the edge of our seats and the results are so difficult to predict, which adds even more suspense and mystery.
You can see where the HOF is going. Bonds and Clemens pulled in less than 5 votes last time, yet the experts put them on again. I am so cynical of the HOF, I believe that they screwed other deserving candidates like Lou Whitaker this year so they could execute thier screw job plan for all of the roid guys.
There was no reason to put Bonds and Clemens on again this year. If they pulled 6+ votes, maybe you can think about it, but by thier own new rule, they should have been skipped this year. But the HOF couldn't wait to axe them. We will definetly see Bonds and Clemens on the 2032 ballot so their candidacy can put down for good.
For what it's worth, I do not blindly worship Barry. He was often sullen, angry, and in some ways his own worst enemy. But, he was a already HOF player by 1999.
IMHO some of these veterans voters may have an axe to grind, and these new rules are a bit ridiculous and random.
What about the writers ? They chose not to vote him in as well.
Thing is as much some including myself would like the Roid/PED era to be forgotten, it should not be! IMHO some type of "tarnished" HOF admittance is required for those players, not sure how to do that but they need to think of something.
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972) Not even a minute do I buy the whole buh buh buh I'm a man-child japery - Me (2025)
Folks - don't have this thread burned/closed due to Politics - hope you are smart enough to know who you are. You know the rules here and you pretty much have the rest of the internet to sling your feces at each other!
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972) Not even a minute do I buy the whole buh buh buh I'm a man-child japery - Me (2025)
The new rule about being bounced FOREVER after 2 >5 vote total is just a weasal way out for the HOF. There is no need for it since they control who is on the ballot. They just don't want the responsibility for keeping out certian players.
I did not like that new rule because it prevents a player from being evaluated with a different set of eyes, in a different generation, and under a different context. So far, no one is completely bounced forever. The rule may even change again. Clemens, Sheffield and Bonds will have to wait for 2031 to get another chance, but that is still not a guarantee they will be part of the 8 candidates.
The steroid era players have not been handled consistently. Some are in the HOF now. That is a discussion for another place and time.
One thing is for sure, these elections have us at the edge of our seats and the results are so difficult to predict, which adds even more suspense and mystery.
Correct. Very inconsistent.
Another inconsistency is that the perceived steroid players are being excluded based on the integrity and character criteria. If that clause really means anything, then players like Murphy and Mattingly should be considered for their high character, and that should be more than enough to put them over the top,..in conjunction with their on the field resume.
Of course, I know that judging character is something very hard to assign/prove and I myself find it hard to go around and act like judge/jury/executioner by pointing a finger at someone and saying "good character," when I cannot possibly know the person deep enough to make such judgement. Nobody truly has that capability to assign that.
That also applies to pointing at someone and saying "bad character because it looks like you could have done roids." For one, nobody really knows. Two, who is to say it is bad character doing PED during that time or at any time? That was the culture of the league. They were trying to win. There was also no concrete area to proclaim that is even cheating. The areas are so gray as to what is ok to ingest for it to be not cheating and what is not ok to ingest because it is cheating. We don't even know exactly how much it helps.
I would guess that many people can point to questionable acts of character to the players who are voting and to the writers who are voting. If those people have flaws, and they likely do, then who are they to judge the perceived flaws of others?
In the end, the Hall is looking pretty pointless when Bonds and Clemens aren't even close to getting in. Really what is the point.
It has gotten out of hand with this character witch hunt. These guys didn't kill anyone or hurt anyone or mug anyone or rob a store at gunpoint. It is a sport played by men. Nobody is a saint. In sports or anywhere else.
I'm not a fan of the "high character" aspect many were throwing out. It is completely subjective. Character should only impact a vote when a player did something that had a huge negative effect on the game/personal life. Pete Rose being a pedo and betting on baseball games to get himself banned. Steroid users who gained a significant advantage. These are things that should impact a vote.
The steroid thing can be a bit subjective as well, given that some were caught while others were not. However, one thing that is not subject is whether or not a player's career was greatly enhanced by the use of steroids. A guy like Mark McGwire is the perfect example. Without the steroids, he would be Dave Kingman (a non-Hall-of-Fame player). A guy like Palmeiro, who would never have had the career he had if not for steroids. This is the exact reason why nearly all major league Hall of Fame members do not want these guys in the building when they elect new members.
The "Character Clause" needs to be completely done away with.
If they continue to use it to exclude certain players (Rose, Bonds, Clemens, Rodriguez, Palmeiro, etc.....), then conversely, they should use it to include certain players, such as Dale Murphy.
Since they refuse to treat everyone by the same standard, the standard needs to change.
It's not an OR. You still have to be good enough, and of good character (as far as what the voters believe I suppose). So that would not mean that you're in if you're pretty good and you have excellent character (as far as what the voters believe again).
I suspect that someday these guys will get a fair shot at induction to the HOF. I'm just scared to death of another CU forums steroid debate.
@bgr said:
It's not an OR. You still have to be good enough, and of good character (as far as what the voters believe I suppose). So that would not mean that you're in if you're pretty good and you have excellent character (as far as what the voters believe again).
I suspect that someday these guys will get a fair shot at induction to the HOF. I'm just scared to death of another CU forums steroid debate.
@ElMagoStrikeZone said:
The steroid debate has had a longer career in this forum than any player being targeted for violations.
and any debate here matters not at all. Neither the writers nor Vets committee will ever know or care about what some old trading cards collectors and sellers on an internet forum (an outdated paradigm) think.
2222
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972) Not even a minute do I buy the whole buh buh buh I'm a man-child japery - Me (2025)
Comments
i have two jeff kent rookies i got this past summer. glad i got them this past summer instead of now.
PRETTY SURE HE DIDN'T GET IN ORIGINALLY BECAUSE OF THE PED'S. sorry bout the caps.
So it remains the all time hit king, and all time Home run king are left out.
The baseball HOF is nothing but a joke/farce.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ohio State Buckeyes - National Champions
No different than any other organization which is controlled by people with strong opinions.
strong opinions? more like agenda's. kent and bonds played together. and no one thinks kent did ped's? lol.
i think kent belonged because he was a great player. they all do something..lots of $$
HUH? Hit king was not eligible for this ballot!
The first ballot the hit king is eligible "CLASSIC BASEBALL ERA (PRIOR TO 1980)" is in 2027. Good news as it gives you 2 full years to manufacture more rage. If he fails to make it then, you'll have 3 more years to generate additional rage. It's more about the hunt than the catch anyhow -- right
https://baseballhall.org/hall-of-fame/election-rules/era-committees
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
Not even a minute do I buy the whole buh buh buh I'm a man-child japery - Me (2025)
Call it what you want. Same difference. People in control. That is the message.
No one from the era is above suspicion however Kents name was never linked in any manner IIRC.
Bond/Clemens/AROD etc will likley not get in our lifetimes and probably not in our children's either. Deal with it if you are able or just become more old and bitter its your choice. Either way it wont change anything.
I'm happy for Kent !
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
Not even a minute do I buy the whole buh buh buh I'm a man-child japery - Me (2025)
So Kent was better than Bonds?
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ohio State Buckeyes - National Champions
He did not get in originally simply because the committee was blinded completely by WAR. People are now realizing that WAR is just one of a great many things you factor in. This was reinforced by multiple people who had a say in the votes.
Jeff Kent should have gotten in within the first couple of ballots. He's one of the worst cases of wrongful voting for the HoF. His HoF case is obvious.
amongst second basemen
Career HR - 1st
Career RBI - 3rd (closely behind Lajoie and Hornsby)
Career SLG - 2nd (behind Hornsby)
Career OPS - 4th (behind Hornsby, Jackie, Gehringer)
Games played second base - 9th all-time
7x his teams went to the playoffs
MVP
He's in the top three all-time offensively at his position. He's a very underrated fielder as well.
^ agreed WAR should be factored in (a tool in the belt) but it should never be the primary or sole factor.
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
Not even a minute do I buy the whole buh buh buh I'm a man-child japery - Me (2025)
This is why the voting was so exciting as you never know what direction it's going to go. I thought for sure we would have multiple players get elected.
Mattingly, Murphy and Delgado live to fight another day. Nothing really lost there.
Bonds, Clemens, Venezuela and Sheffield still have a chance sometime in the future. However, I have to say that it's a pity that Venezuela is put into this group as there was never ever any hint of him being linked to PEDs. Sheffield's links have been contextualized, but I don't want to start a discussion on that.
I look forward to the next batch of 8. It may include Mattingly, Murphy, and Delgado, but I know it does not have to. I would say Schilling, Kevin Brown, Cone, Whitaker and some others could be considered.
It looks like Mattingly's cards have indeed gone up another notch as someone mentioned previously.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
I don't understand how they even came up with this list of nominations.
The new rule about being bounced FOREVER after 2 >5 vote total is just a weasal way out for the HOF. There is no need for it since they control who is on the ballot. They just don't want the responsibility for keeping out certian players.
Ichiro and Gibson are both in already.
They work in concert with Disney and the SEC. The Evil Triangle of… Evilness!
If you say so.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ohio State Buckeyes - National Champions
I wont post the tweet, but the POTUS is not happy about Clemens not getting in.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ohio State Buckeyes - National Champions
Thank you for not posting that idiocy.
Next time don’t even bring it up.
Easy to see why BGR is so confrontational. Goes with the territory, huh?
I don't have a vote. I would have voted Bonds and Clemens in a long time ago, but there's a time when you have to accept reality. Kent's election doesn't look to me as a statement that Kent was better than Bonds. I don't see this as a useful remark at all as it appears to grossly, and hopefully intentionally, miss the point.
HOF does I guess.
A plaque in the National Baseball Hall of Fame credits the greatest slugger in Negro Leagues history, Josh Gibson, with “almost 800 home runs.”
In 2,653 MLB games, Ichiro batted .311 with a .355 on-base percentage. He had already totaled 1,278 hits before he ever played for the Mariners, leaving him with 4,367 total hits.
Did someone say Kent was better than Bonds? I missed that one.
@olb31 ^^
we do agree more than we don't so let's focus on that.
I did not like that new rule because it prevents a player from being evaluated with a different set of eyes, in a different generation, and under a different context. So far, no one is completely bounced forever. The rule may even change again. Clemens, Sheffield and Bonds will have to wait for 2031 to get another chance, but that is still not a guarantee they will be part of the 8 candidates.
The steroid era players have not been handled consistently. Some are in the HOF now. That is a discussion for another place and time.
One thing is for sure, these elections have us at the edge of our seats and the results are so difficult to predict, which adds even more suspense and mystery.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
I watched Bonds play for 12 seasons. Barry was a HOF player well before his (likely) PED use.
He belongs in and the fact that he isn't, makes the HOF far less meaningful. To me, at least.
I think some of these voters are babies.
This is not directed at you specifically. However, I do think the actual child-like behavior comes from people well into their adulthood who can't seem to let go of their childhood heroes. They seem to put these people on a pedestal and treat them almost with blind worship.
I agree with that sentiment.
For what it's worth, I do not blindly worship Barry. He was often sullen, angry, and in some ways his own worst enemy. But, he was a already HOF player by 1999.
IMHO some of these veterans voters may have an axe to grind, and these new rules are a bit ridiculous and random.
You can see where the HOF is going. Bonds and Clemens pulled in less than 5 votes last time, yet the experts put them on again. I am so cynical of the HOF, I believe that they screwed other deserving candidates like Lou Whitaker this year so they could execute thier screw job plan for all of the roid guys.
There was no reason to put Bonds and Clemens on again this year. If they pulled 6+ votes, maybe you can think about it, but by thier own new rule, they should have been skipped this year. But the HOF couldn't wait to axe them. We will definetly see Bonds and Clemens on the 2032 ballot so their candidacy can put down for good.
What about the writers ? They chose not to vote him in as well.
Thing is as much some including myself would like the Roid/PED era to be forgotten, it should not be! IMHO some type of "tarnished" HOF admittance is required for those players, not sure how to do that but they need to think of something.
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
Not even a minute do I buy the whole buh buh buh I'm a man-child japery - Me (2025)
Folks - don't have this thread burned/closed due to Politics - hope you are smart enough to know who you are. You know the rules here and you pretty much have the rest of the internet to sling your feces at each other!
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
Not even a minute do I buy the whole buh buh buh I'm a man-child japery - Me (2025)
I've been respectfully participating on this Board for close to 20 years and I took this as friendly discourse, not politics.
Correct. Very inconsistent.
Another inconsistency is that the perceived steroid players are being excluded based on the integrity and character criteria. If that clause really means anything, then players like Murphy and Mattingly should be considered for their high character, and that should be more than enough to put them over the top,..in conjunction with their on the field resume.
Of course, I know that judging character is something very hard to assign/prove and I myself find it hard to go around and act like judge/jury/executioner by pointing a finger at someone and saying "good character," when I cannot possibly know the person deep enough to make such judgement. Nobody truly has that capability to assign that.
That also applies to pointing at someone and saying "bad character because it looks like you could have done roids." For one, nobody really knows. Two, who is to say it is bad character doing PED during that time or at any time? That was the culture of the league. They were trying to win. There was also no concrete area to proclaim that is even cheating. The areas are so gray as to what is ok to ingest for it to be not cheating and what is not ok to ingest because it is cheating. We don't even know exactly how much it helps.
I would guess that many people can point to questionable acts of character to the players who are voting and to the writers who are voting. If those people have flaws, and they likely do, then who are they to judge the perceived flaws of others?
In the end, the Hall is looking pretty pointless when Bonds and Clemens aren't even close to getting in. Really what is the point.
It has gotten out of hand with this character witch hunt. These guys didn't kill anyone or hurt anyone or mug anyone or rob a store at gunpoint. It is a sport played by men. Nobody is a saint. In sports or anywhere else.
I'm not a fan of the "high character" aspect many were throwing out. It is completely subjective. Character should only impact a vote when a player did something that had a huge negative effect on the game/personal life. Pete Rose being a pedo and betting on baseball games to get himself banned. Steroid users who gained a significant advantage. These are things that should impact a vote.
The steroid thing can be a bit subjective as well, given that some were caught while others were not. However, one thing that is not subject is whether or not a player's career was greatly enhanced by the use of steroids. A guy like Mark McGwire is the perfect example. Without the steroids, he would be Dave Kingman (a non-Hall-of-Fame player). A guy like Palmeiro, who would never have had the career he had if not for steroids. This is the exact reason why nearly all major league Hall of Fame members do not want these guys in the building when they elect new members.
The "Character Clause" needs to be completely done away with.
If they continue to use it to exclude certain players (Rose, Bonds, Clemens, Rodriguez, Palmeiro, etc.....), then conversely, they should use it to include certain players, such as Dale Murphy.
Since they refuse to treat everyone by the same standard, the standard needs to change.
Steve
It's not an OR. You still have to be good enough, and of good character (as far as what the voters believe I suppose). So that would not mean that you're in if you're pretty good and you have excellent character (as far as what the voters believe again).
I suspect that someday these guys will get a fair shot at induction to the HOF. I'm just scared to death of another CU forums steroid debate.
The steroid debate has had a longer career in this forum than any player being targeted for violations.
and any debate here matters not at all. Neither the writers nor Vets committee will ever know or care about what some old trading cards collectors and sellers on an internet forum (an outdated paradigm) think.
2222
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
Not even a minute do I buy the whole buh buh buh I'm a man-child japery - Me (2025)
Who you calling old? 😡