Unanimous selection.
Don Mattingly was the only other who got at least 50 percent of the votes.
Don Mattingly was the only other who got at least 50 percent of the votes.
Fred McGriff: Hall of Famer…
- Thread starter Maroon Eagle
- Start date
Crime Dog!!
One of my favorites back in my card collecting days.
If character matters, it pads his stats tremendously.
One of my favorites back in my card collecting days.
If character matters, it pads his stats tremendously.
Tom Emanski approves.
Only problem with the Murph is longevity. For 8 years, he was one of the greatest all time. The beginning and way too long end of his career just wasn’t good though.
Crime Dog be reminding me I'm an Old Dog.
Schilling being kept out for political reasons and Palmeiro being kept out b/c a crackhead POS needed to bring everybody around him down is a travesty. Palmeiro is no Bonds, McGwire or Sosa. But, that’s who these sh1theads lump him in with.
First off, I think all of them should be in regarding Bonds, McGwire, Palmeiro, and Clemens. I'm on the fence about Sosa just due to how long he was great, but I would still vote him in personally. To those sitting on their high horse saying they shouldn't be in, I ask one question - if you were in one of the most competitive leagues in the world and it could help you out or even just put you on a level playing field, would you turn it down if it wasn't against the rules? If you say you would, I want you to really evaluate that answer. It could cost you millions.
I also ask this question that I will also answer in helping you decide they should all be in. Did Babe Ruth play against the very best competition? No, he did not. He played in the segregated era. So, because of that, his stats were padded. At the very least, they were padded slightly.
So in the HOF, you have the segregated era and you should have the steroid era. Off topic, but related - I think Pete Rose absolutely belongs in as a player. If you want to keep him out as a manager, I'm all for it, but nothing he ever did shows he ever tried to shave points or throw games. He gave it his all and as a player goes, he absolutely deserves to be in.
If we try to play morality police on this, I would ask why in the wide world Mickey Mantle is in the HOF? He was a known alcoholic. If we really want to look into it, I'm sure we could find all sorts of seedy things about every single member of the HOF in every sport.
Let them in.
I also ask this question that I will also answer in helping you decide they should all be in. Did Babe Ruth play against the very best competition? No, he did not. He played in the segregated era. So, because of that, his stats were padded. At the very least, they were padded slightly.
So in the HOF, you have the segregated era and you should have the steroid era. Off topic, but related - I think Pete Rose absolutely belongs in as a player. If you want to keep him out as a manager, I'm all for it, but nothing he ever did shows he ever tried to shave points or throw games. He gave it his all and as a player goes, he absolutely deserves to be in.
If we try to play morality police on this, I would ask why in the wide world Mickey Mantle is in the HOF? He was a known alcoholic. If we really want to look into it, I'm sure we could find all sorts of seedy things about every single member of the HOF in every sport.
Let them in.
I absolutely concur. Put Pete in. And I would have leading the league in performance enhancing drugs to stay in the game personally.
I say put Rose in after he dies. Gambling on baseball means a lifetime ban. He knew that. And he continued to lie about well after it had been proven. But, let him in posthumously.
Rose's ban and ignoring the steroid users isn't about being the "morality police." Its about following the rules of the game. Those guys didn't.
Rose's ban and ignoring the steroid users isn't about being the "morality police." Its about following the rules of the game. Those guys didn't.
But steroid use wasn't against the rules. It was against the law, sure, but it wasn't against the rules. As a matter of fact, the players union had specifically negotiated against allowing players to be tested for steroids in the then collective bargaining agreement.
I was wondering if Schilling got punished.
But it looks like he got messed up by a new voting policy:
That’s from this Athletic article:
It WAS against the rules. They didn't test for it, but the possession, use, or sell of any controlled substance - including anabolic steroids - was prohibited by MLB in 1991. Any player caught using steroids was subject to disciplinary action, and risked permanent expulsion from the game.
Fay Vincent sent notice across the league.
