210 replies to this topic

[SBTarheel]

Bonds

Clemens

Pedro

Johnson

Smoltz

Raines

Mussina

Biggio

 

 

just 8

[Mike in STL]

Here is a question. Do Sosa and McGwire make your ballots even if the whole roids thing never happened? What I mean is, in a "vacuum" are their resumes good enough?

Easily good enough. I just placed McGwire on mine over Sosa because Mac has been eligible for eight years, Sosa just three.

Ive come around on the idea of putting all the steroid users in for two reasons.

1. Its just an era in the sport and nothing else. So many people used thats impossible to say player X never used. Where do we draw the line? Alleged is fine but if you fail a test you're out? What if you admit it despite not failing a test? Just put them in. Its baseballs fault for letting the era happen for its own financial gain.

2. Its simple. If Ty Cobb can be in the Hall of Fame, everyone can. Including Rose. The things he did on and off the field are far worse than gambling or steroids.

[RShack]

2. Its simple. If Ty Cobb can be in the Hall of Fame, everyone can. Including Rose. The things he did on and off the field are far worse than gambling or steroids.

 

Right.  You just hold your nose and vote based on what they did on the field...

 

For me, Bonds decided that.  When he was IMO-max-using and being a mega-unpleasant SOB , he was remarkable anyway... a way better ratio of dingers to hittable pitches than I ever could have imagined.  I couldn't not vote for him even though I hate voting for him.  Once I got clear about that, the rest of it became easy. 

 

And if Bonds was a felony, Rose was a misdemeanor...

[mweb08]

Me too.

I agree with Shack and DJ. Go stock up on non perishable food and bottled water.


Here is a question. Do Sosa and McGwire make your ballots even if the whole roids thing never happened? What I mean is, in a "vacuum" are their resumes good enough?

Both borderline IMO, and no way among the 10 best candidates. If one wants to use PED use as somewhat of a tie beaker, leaving these guys off would make sense.

[Mike in STL]

Both borderline IMO, and no way among the 10 best candidates. If one wants to use PED use as somewhat of a tie beaker, leaving these guys off would make sense.

You think a guy with 600 home runs, and another with almost 600 are borderline if we're leaving PEDs out of it? There are certain things that make you a shoe in. 500 homers, 3,000 hits, 300 wins. 

[mweb08]

Both borderline IMO, and no way among the 10 best candidates. If one wants to use PED use as somewhat of a tie beaker, leaving these guys off would make sense.

You think a guy with 600 home runs, and another with almost 600 are borderline if we're leaving PEDs out of it? There are certain things that make you a shoe in. 500 homers, 3,000 hits, 300 wins. 

Borderline for me as certain milestones don't make one an automatic for me.

[Mike in STL]

Borderline for me as certain milestones don't make one an automatic for me.

Fair enough. I think that Sosa is as good a five tool player in his prime as anyone. And McGwire's .982 OPS, .394 OBP shouldn't be overlooked. 

[mweb08]

Borderline for me as certain milestones don't make one an automatic for me.

Fair enough. I think that Sosa is as good a five tool player in his prime as anyone. And McGwire's .982 OPS, .394 OBP shouldn't be overlooked. 

Sosa's prime was well past any time you could argue him as a five tool player, which I don't think he ever was. McGwire was dominant with the bat, but had durability issues and didn't really contribute in any other way.

[Mike in STL]

Sosa's prime was well past any time you could argue him as a five tool player, which I don't think he ever was. McGwire was dominant with the bat, but had durability issues and didn't really contribute in any other way.

From age 24-28, Sosa was a 30/30 candidate and got there twice. That was before that ridiculous 98' season. I'll give you that "five tool" is generous as he only hit .300 once in that span. 

[mweb08]

Sosa's prime was well past any time you could argue him as a five tool player, which I don't think he ever was. McGwire was dominant with the bat, but had durability issues and didn't really contribute in any other way.

From age 24-28, Sosa was a 30/30 candidate and got there twice. That was before that ridiculous 98' season. I'll give you that "five tool" is generous as he only hit .300 once in that span. 

That wasn't his prime. His defense wasn't exactly good other than his arm. Also check how many times he was caught stealing.

[mweb08]

Towards the end of that was his prime, but his speed decreased by the point where he really started to mash.

[Mike in STL]

That wasn't his prime. His defense wasn't exactly good other than his arm. Also check how many times he was caught stealing.

His SB success rate is 68.6%. Rickey Henderson's is 80.7%. I'm not going to nit pick say if he was safe stealing just one more time every ten attempts then he's so much better of a player. I think he was just fine in the field. 

 

Well, if I had a vote, I would vote for him. You don't have to.

[Mike in STL]

Towards the end of that was his prime, but his speed decreased by the point where he really started to mash.

Prime doesn't start at age 27 for everyone. I consider prime is whatever is considered your best years. He established himself as a great player before the juiced up 98'-2000 seasons. 

 

Mike Trout to me is in his prime right now. 

[BobPhelan]

Bonds, Clemens, Pedro, Mussina, Bagwell, Biggio, Johnson, McGwire, Smoltz, Edgar Martinez

[mweb08]

That wasn't his prime. His defense wasn't exactly good other than his arm. Also check how many times he was caught stealing.

His SB success rate is 68.6%. Rickey Henderson's is 80.7%. I'm not going to nit pick say if he was safe stealing just one more time every ten attempts then he's so much better of a player. I think he was just fine in the field. 
 
Well, if I had a vote, I would vote for him. You don't have to.

That % isn't really a positive and that 12% is a huge difference.

[mweb08]

Towards the end of that was his prime, but his speed decreased by the point where he really started to mash.

Prime doesn't start at age 27 for everyone. I consider prime is whatever is considered your best years. He established himself as a great player before the juiced up 98'-2000 seasons. 
 
Mike Trout to me is in his prime right now. 

He was not a great player until he started hitting a ton of homers and started walking a lot more. He hit a good amount of homers and stole plenty of bases, but when you look deeper, he was just a good player due to the lack of OBP and not really being much of a plus on the basepaths.

[RShack]

His SB success rate is 68.6%. Rickey Henderson's is 80.7%. I'm not going to nit pick say if he was safe stealing just one more time every ten attempts then he's so much better of a player.

 

Are you saying a 10% (or in this case 12%) difference is nit picking?  Now, if we were talking about a guy who's batting average is .600 vs. another guy who's batting .660, I guess it doesn't matter much.  But with lots of things 10% is a big difference, especially when you're near the boundary of good vs not-good. With SB's, you have to be at 75% to be at break-even, don't you?  

 

Overall, I can see your point, but I don't think this one part is a good argument.

[Mike in STL]

Are you saying a 10% (or in this case 12%) difference is nit picking?  Now, if we were talking about a guy who's batting average is .600 vs. another guy who's batting .660, I guess it doesn't matter much.  But with lots of things 10% is a big difference, especially when you're near the boundary of good vs not-good. With SB's, you have to be at 75% to be at break-even, don't you?  

 

Overall, I can see your point, but I don't think this one part is a good argument.

I was really getting at that when you talk about the whole body of work, taking something like SB% into account is nitpicking. I mentioned he was a 30/30 guy before the juice kicked in. I don't care how often he was caught, and it wasn't some terrible rate like he was caught more than half the time. No one mentions that Reggie Jackson struck out a ton, or Cal Ripken grounded into the most double plays. Who cares how often you get caught stealing when it's not alarmingly bad?

 

His case against McGwire was he hit for power and not much else. But pitchers pitch and don't do much else. No one says Nolan Ryan's numbers are good, but he didn't field his position well. I couldn't tell you if he did or not because no one cares. I'll take the worse defensive first baseman in the league if he'll hit my team 500 home runs over the next 12 years.

 

Reggie Jackson is a close comp to McGwire, albeit worse AVG/OBP/SLG and most K's ever, and took him five more years to get to 563 HRs, and he's in the Hall. 

 

So I'd vote Sosa and McGwire based on home runs alone, but they were good enough at other things too.

[DJ MC]

Bonds

Clemens

Pedro

Johnson

Smoltz

Raines

Mussina

Biggio

 

 

just 8

 

Why no Bagwell or Piazza?

 

Piazza is easily the best-hitting catcher ever, and Bagwell has an argument for best first baseman in National League history.

[mweb08]

It absolutely should matter if you streal 30 bases, but get caught 15 times. That's really not better than someone who stole 7 bases and got caught 3 times, but you wouldn't be making a big deal of that. Sosa's case is based on his amazing stretch as one of the best power hitters ever, not on his early years where he was a good, but not great player. Also, what McGwire or anyone else does on the bases and in the field should matter. Do you really disagree? He still has a good case, though if PEDs aren't considered, but not as one of the 10 best eligible players IMO.