Photo

2020 HOF Ballot


  • Please log in to reply
120 replies to this topic

#21 SportsGuy

SportsGuy

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 91,979 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 30 December 2019 - 05:12 PM

It irritates me when people vote for anyone and not Bonds or Clemens to be honest.


Yea that’s true but if they are voting for guys who actually should be HOFers, I’m good with it.

#22 TwentyThirtyFive

TwentyThirtyFive

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,312 posts

Posted 13 January 2020 - 08:24 PM

Wagner deserves a lot more love. Hes the greatest LH relief pitcher of all time and IMO one of the 5 greatest RPs period.

#23 BSLChrisStoner

BSLChrisStoner

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 148,697 posts

Posted 20 January 2020 - 10:09 AM

ESPN: 2020 Baseball Hall of Fame: Whom did our voters pick?
https://www.espn.com...our-voters-pick



#24 Thirteen

Thirteen

    Rookie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 505 posts

Posted 20 January 2020 - 03:34 PM

ESPN: Predicting MLB's Hall of Fame selections through the 2020s

 

There's a lot I disagree with there.



#25 SBTarheel

SBTarheel

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,765 posts
  • LocationEldersburg, Md

Posted 20 January 2020 - 03:55 PM

ESPN: Predicting MLB's Hall of Fame selections through the 2020s

 

There's a lot I disagree with there.

I like the picks in general, and was really happy to see Kenny Lofton's name at the end. Always liked him. 


@beginthebegin71

#26 Mike B

Mike B

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,631 posts
  • LocationTowson Md.

Posted 20 January 2020 - 05:09 PM

I like the picks in general, and was really happy to see Kenny Lofton's name at the end. Always liked him. 

I always thought Lofton was fun to watch and a very good player, but feel like he falls a little short of the HOF


@mikeghg

#27 ivanbalt

ivanbalt

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,072 posts

Posted 21 January 2020 - 06:56 AM

ESPN: Predicting MLB's Hall of Fame selections through the 2020s

 

There's a lot I disagree with there.

 

If the HOF leaves out Bonds and Clemens for PEDs but lets Ortiz in despite PEDs, it will cement its status as a complete joke.


  • BSLMikeRandall likes this

#28 Slidemaster

Slidemaster

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,201 posts

Posted 21 January 2020 - 09:10 AM

If the HOF leaves out Bonds and Clemens for PEDs but lets Ortiz in despite PEDs, it will cement its status as a complete joke.


To be fair there is a lot more evidence against Bonds and Clemens than Ortiz. Is there anything against Ortiz other than his name being leaked as being on an "anonymous" report?

Not saying he didn't use. Just that the mountain of evidence against Bonds and Clemens is much taller than that against Ortiz.
  • Mackus likes this

#29 ivanbalt

ivanbalt

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,072 posts

Posted 21 January 2020 - 09:48 AM

To be fair there is a lot more evidence against Bonds and Clemens than Ortiz. Is there anything against Ortiz other than his name being leaked as being on an "anonymous" report?

Not saying he didn't use. Just that the mountain of evidence against Bonds and Clemens is much taller than that against Ortiz.

 

It was leaked that Ortiz failed a test.  For everything against them, Bonds and Clemens never failed a test.



#30 weird-O

weird-O

    MVP

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,768 posts
  • LocationI'm here from downtown, I'm here from Mitch and Murray.

Posted 21 January 2020 - 09:54 AM

It irritates me when people vote for anyone and not Bonds or Clemens to be honest.

Their roid use bothers me. Added to that, is their arrogance about that whole situation. I prefer a version of Cooperstown that doesn't feature those guys. 


Good news! I saw a dog today.


#31 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,622 posts

Posted 21 January 2020 - 09:57 AM

It was leaked that Ortiz failed a test.  For everything against them, Bonds and Clemens never failed a test.

 

Bonds admitted use, albeit he said the didn't know they were steroids.

 

Ortiz failed a test before failing was punishable, right?  When they were doing the trial period to decide if they should start testing with public punishment?



#32 weird-O

weird-O

    MVP

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,768 posts
  • LocationI'm here from downtown, I'm here from Mitch and Murray.

Posted 21 January 2020 - 09:59 AM

It was leaked that Ortiz failed a test.  For everything against them, Bonds and Clemens never failed a test.

If I'm not mistaken, they didn't officially fail any tests, because there wasn't a rule in place that banned all those substances. So they get off on a technicality. But they absolutely were using. After all these years, my passion for this conversation, and my passion for being against their entry, has faded. If they get in, so be it. I won't affect my life in any way. But, like I said above, I prefer they not be in. 


Good news! I saw a dog today.


#33 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,622 posts

Posted 21 January 2020 - 10:02 AM

I can't pin down how I would vote were I a voter.  I think there are a couple reasonable approaches a voter could take and I won't criticize even if it's not the way I'd go.  Or not the way I'd go today, because maybe it would be the way I'd go tomorrow.  I'm ok with someone not voting for anyone who they believe was a proven user, such as a failed test (Palmeiro, Ramirez) or admitted use (McGwire, Rodriguez, Bonds, Shefield) or highly credible accusations even if it didn't come with actual conviction or punishment (Clemens, Ortiz may also qualify).  I think I'd vote for everyone, but if someone says an admitted user won't get their vote I won't criticize that opinion.

 

But one approach I am certain is unreasonable is to not vote for anyone in the era or to not vote for anyone you suspect but doesn't have any seriously credible evidence against them.  Piazza, Bagwell and others.  Unless there is legit stink on them I've forgotten about, I think they deserve to be in.  Not fair holding them to a higher standard and assuming they used just since they are big sluggers when steroids could help little guys and pitchers just as much.  And it's just asinine to not vote for anybody.



#34 weird-O

weird-O

    MVP

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,768 posts
  • LocationI'm here from downtown, I'm here from Mitch and Murray.

Posted 21 January 2020 - 10:15 AM

I can't pin down how I would vote were I a voter.  I think there are a couple reasonable approaches a voter could take and I won't criticize even if it's not the way I'd go.  Or not the way I'd go today, because maybe it would be the way I'd go tomorrow.  I'm ok with someone not voting for anyone who they believe was a proven user, such as a failed test (Palmeiro, Ramirez) or admitted use (McGwire, Rodriguez, Bonds, Shefield) or highly credible accusations even if it didn't come with actual conviction or punishment (Clemens, Ortiz may also qualify).  I think I'd vote for everyone, but if someone says an admitted user won't get their vote I won't criticize that opinion.

 

But one approach I am certain is unreasonable is to not vote for anyone in the era or to not vote for anyone you suspect but doesn't have any seriously credible evidence against them.  Piazza, Bagwell and others.  Unless there is legit stink on them I've forgotten about, I think they deserve to be in.  Not fair holding them to a higher standard and assuming they used just since they are big sluggers when steroids could help little guys and pitchers just as much.  And it's just asinine to not vote for anybody.

If I was a voter, I would have voted for Piazza. I know there were clubhouse stories and the back acne. But like you said, there wasn't enough smoke for me to think there was a fire. I feel differently about Bagwell. Like Bonds, that guy just blew up. His body went through changes that normal humans don't experience. And after his career, he shrunk back down again. 

 

This think the reason this debate rolls on and on, is because the lines are blurred. Plus, I've spoken with several people who aren't bothered by roid use. There are lots of people who commend them for using chemicals to enhance their abilities. I remember one guy from the Sun board, who use to say, "I want to see pitchers throw 200 MPH fastballs, and hitters send those fastballs 700 feet". He loved the idea of a completely enhanced MLB where all the players openly use and promote their drugs of choice.       


Good news! I saw a dog today.


#35 Slidemaster

Slidemaster

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,201 posts

Posted 21 January 2020 - 10:27 AM

It was leaked that Ortiz failed a test. For everything against them, Bonds and Clemens never failed a test.

As I recall, Bonds and Clemens were on the Mitchell report as well, weren't they?

Was the Mitchell report testing only for steroids, or for any banned substance? Not all banned substances are steroids. A number of diuretics, and other things are on there as well because they can act as masking agents.

Again, I'm not saying that he didn't use steroids, but as I remember, they didn't even inform the players on that report what they tested positive for. That failed test in my eyes is actually less damning then Bonds admitting his use in my eyes.

Honestly, I'll be very disappointed if bonds are Clemens gets in, but they wouldn't be the first cheaters in the Hall of Fame. There's also evidence that Pudge Rodriguez and Mike Piazza used, so maybe the floodgates are open by now. Still, it would make me sad to see them enshrined and honored when they were so blatantly disrespectful of the game and it's history.

#36 Slidemaster

Slidemaster

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,201 posts

Posted 21 January 2020 - 10:31 AM

As an aside, I'm not typically a conspiracy theorist, but the Palmeiro positive test always bothered me.

He just hasn't acted the way most other users did when they got caught. He's still trying to play baseball at age 50, just to prove that he still can. He seemed genuinely shocked and dismayed when he was found to have tested positive.

I don't know. Maybe he's just a great actor. But there's a part of me that wonders if Major League Baseball needed to hammer home the fact that their testing worked to gain back the public's trust. What better person to catch then the guy who wagged his finger at them in court?

I'll take off my tinfoil hat now.

#37 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,622 posts

Posted 21 January 2020 - 10:36 AM

He just hasn't acted the way most other users did when they got caught. 

 

Ryan Braun acted the same way...

 

I won't completely dismiss your skepticism about his test results.  Anything is possible and MLB is shady.  But I do think it's equally presumptive to find ways to explain away actual failed tests or admissions as it is for others to assume use from those who don't have failed tests.


  • DJ MC likes this

#38 SBTarheel

SBTarheel

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,765 posts
  • LocationEldersburg, Md

Posted 21 January 2020 - 10:58 AM

Their roid use bothers me. Added to that, is their arrogance about that whole situation. I prefer a version of Cooperstown that doesn't feature those guys. 

Fair enough, agree to disagree. 

 

I just feel like they're deserving, and if the Hall of Fame wants to acknowledge the steroid use, I'm cool with that too. 


@beginthebegin71

#39 weird-O

weird-O

    MVP

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,768 posts
  • LocationI'm here from downtown, I'm here from Mitch and Murray.

Posted 21 January 2020 - 12:24 PM

Fair enough, agree to disagree. 

 

I just feel like they're deserving, and if the Hall of Fame wants to acknowledge the steroid use, I'm cool with that too. 

Yep, it's all opinion. I've heard others who think the HOF should accept them. Accept the fact that it was an era of PED use, most players used, and among those users, these guys stood out as the best of their enhanced generation. That argument holds water. Some fans will be happy with that decision, others won't. And as we see from their ever growing vote percentages, members of the Association have either softened on the PED era, or they've seen a bunch of their old school members retire/pass on.      


  • SBTarheel likes this

Good news! I saw a dog today.


#40 Thirteen

Thirteen

    Rookie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 505 posts

Posted 21 January 2020 - 12:26 PM

Fair enough, agree to disagree. 

 

I just feel like they're deserving, and if the Hall of Fame wants to acknowledge the steroid use, I'm cool with that too. 

 

They both (as well as ARod) were pretty much HOFers before they thought they could get even better.  I'd be fine with them being enshrined, BUT, their plaque MUST talk about the PEDs.

 

Then there were the guys who wouldn't have been as good without them...Sosa, Ortiz...


  • SBTarheel likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


Our Sponsors


 width=  width=