NOBODY voted into the baseball HOF.
- Thread starter mjh94
- Start date
Biggio should have been voted. Probably wasn't because I think it's his first year which is so stupid.
I used to think the same thing until I saw some numbers showing who his closest comparable was each year. Before PEDs, his closest comparables were players like Shawn Greene (e.g. 28 year-old Bonds was the closest to 28 year-old Greene). After he started using PEDs, the closest comparables were Mays and Ruth. He was probably a Hall of Famer without steroids, but Dale Murphy was just as good as Bonds until they were both about 32. Murphy was out of baseball within a couple of years. Bonds, with the help of PEDs, put up better number than Ruth's 25-29 year-old years (his prime) when he was 35-39. So to say Bonds was a Hall of Famer without PEDs isn't a given. He could have fallen as hard as Murphy.
That said, as a baseball coach and hitting instructor, the hitter with the best swing mechanics I've ever seen is Bonds, and his strike zone discipline is one of the best.
That said, as a baseball coach and hitting instructor, the hitter with the best swing mechanics I've ever seen is Bonds, and his strike zone discipline is one of the best.
I'd like to know who his pre-steroids 3-time MVP comparable is. Also, until age 32 Murphy was a clear HOFer, and many will tell you he should be regardless of his post-32 fall-off.
I'll try to find the list. I was pretty surprised by it.
I'll tell you that Murphy belongs in, but it's mostly sentimental. For 5-7 years, he was one of the 2 best position players in the game. Beyond that, he was my hero as a kid. My Dad and his generation worshiped Mickey Mantle. My generation worshiped Murphy. Obviously, Murphy isn't Mickey Mantle, but I think that should count for something. The logical part of me knows Murphy was borderline and probably didn't measure up if longevity is important at all, but the 10-year-old kid in me would put him in right behind Ruth, Mays, Williams, Mantle, and Aaron.
I'll tell you that Murphy belongs in, but it's mostly sentimental. For 5-7 years, he was one of the 2 best position players in the game. Beyond that, he was my hero as a kid. My Dad and his generation worshiped Mickey Mantle. My generation worshiped Murphy. Obviously, Murphy isn't Mickey Mantle, but I think that should count for something. The logical part of me knows Murphy was borderline and probably didn't measure up if longevity is important at all, but the 10-year-old kid in me would put him in right behind Ruth, Mays, Williams, Mantle, and Aaron.
Sucks. I think if they're going to label an era the "steriod era," then they shouldn't penalize great players that were great during that era. You know, since everyone was doing it.
Please go back and read my post and try again. I'm not making any argument for their career numbers.
I looked at both their stats. You can't only look at a players best 3-4 years though and even Murphy's best are getting topped by Bonds's earlier years especially if you factor in Bonds's steals, defense and OBP. Bonds has a 15 year stretch from 1990 to 2004 of just absolutely ridiculous numbers. 2004 at the age of 39 Bonds put up clown numbers. He batted .360 had 45 homeruns, over 100 rbi's and runs and the most ridiculous stat of all was he walked an amazing 232 times to finish with an over .600 OBP. This was 3 years after he hit 73 17ing homeruns. Are PED's really that beneficial and if so why the 17 aren't we all using them?
The whole steroid era needs to have asterisks I guess but to punish the best of the best during a 10-15 year stretch is just stupid imo. Punish MLB but the players that used didn't really have much of a choice considering how much everyone was getting paid in contracts and the pressure to compete with those numbers. What was their choice? To not use and have numbers that will have them out of the league in 3 years?
I believe there was an emphasis given on homeruns by the powers that be behind closed doors after the strike year (Canseco, McGwire, Sosa and Bonds) and it leaked out and opened Pandora's box. Those pushing the use of the PED's are none other than the top of all of MLB. That's my belief. Of course I have no proof.
The whole steroid era needs to have asterisks I guess but to punish the best of the best during a 10-15 year stretch is just stupid imo. Punish MLB but the players that used didn't really have much of a choice considering how much everyone was getting paid in contracts and the pressure to compete with those numbers. What was their choice? To not use and have numbers that will have them out of the league in 3 years?
I believe there was an emphasis given on homeruns by the powers that be behind closed doors after the strike year (Canseco, McGwire, Sosa and Bonds) and it leaked out and opened Pandora's box. Those pushing the use of the PED's are none other than the top of all of MLB. That's my belief. Of course I have no proof.
I haven't look at Murphy enough to say one way or another.
However, I do like that the BBWA protect the Baseball HOF. Just look at the Basketball HOF for an example of what happens when you start to water down the credentials required to get in. It's not the Hall of the very good. It ought to be hard to get in, even if a player is really likable. Again, I don't know where Murphy stands in that argument.
However, I do like that the BBWA protect the Baseball HOF. Just look at the Basketball HOF for an example of what happens when you start to water down the credentials required to get in. It's not the Hall of the very good. It ought to be hard to get in, even if a player is really likable. Again, I don't know where Murphy stands in that argument.
One day it will come out that a player already in the HOF used steroids, and that will probably open the floodgates. My money's on Ripken (you have to admit that it's suspicious how we went so many years without ever having an injury).
Agreed. MLB didn't care that people were using steroids because fans loved the longball. MLB can't take the high ground now.
There are already plenty of cheaters in the HOF. Why does everyone get caught up in steroids?
Razer blades, grease, sand paper, loaded bats, methamphetamines in the 50s, stealing signs, tommy john surgery, corrective eye surgery, etc
Who the hell cares if bonds is juicing if the pitcher he is facing is too?
Biggio is not a "first ballot HOF'er", but I thought he might get in on the first ballot just because people had no one else to vote for. Kinda would sent a strong message, too. Biggio was not on 32% of the ballots....I wonder who those people voted for? Can they send in a blank ballot?
Murph's not gonna get in - he got 18% of the vote and 75% is required .... he has been on the ballot for so long now he only has a year or two left to be voted in ..... you're right, absolutely no excuse .... 2 time league MVP, don't know about the other awards he had but I think he had over 400 homers or very close to it
You're still missing my point. Their numbers aren't that far apart up to their age 27 seasons. Both had multiple MVP's and were into the 300's in home runs. Their slash lines weren't that far apart either. Bonds' numbers were a littler better, but they were nowhere close to being far enough apart where any rational person would think that Bonds would end up hitting almost 400 more home runs than Murphy.
Murphy fell off a cliff a couple of years later, while Bonds went on to hit 400 more homes after his prime (i.e. he hit most of his home runs after his prime years) thanks to steroid use. If Murphy had started juicing when Bonds did, who knows what his stats would have ended up being, and who knows how long Bonds would have been productive if he hadn't. One thing is not debatable though: he wouldn't have put up better numbers at ages 35-39 than Babe Ruth, the greatest player of all time, did in his prime. He basically had the greatest 5-year stretch in the history of baseball for any player (including his own numbers earlier in his career and Ted Williams, Babe Ruth, Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, etc. in their primes), and he did it when most players are in sharp decline.
That in a nutshell is my problem with voting in the known steroid users. They were able to play longer at a high level due to PEDs. Meanwhile, players like Murphy and McGriff probably didn't use, their careers were a lot shorter, and their numbers don't look anything like the ones who did use steroids.
Murphy fell off a cliff a couple of years later, while Bonds went on to hit 400 more homes after his prime (i.e. he hit most of his home runs after his prime years) thanks to steroid use. If Murphy had started juicing when Bonds did, who knows what his stats would have ended up being, and who knows how long Bonds would have been productive if he hadn't. One thing is not debatable though: he wouldn't have put up better numbers at ages 35-39 than Babe Ruth, the greatest player of all time, did in his prime. He basically had the greatest 5-year stretch in the history of baseball for any player (including his own numbers earlier in his career and Ted Williams, Babe Ruth, Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, etc. in their primes), and he did it when most players are in sharp decline.
That in a nutshell is my problem with voting in the known steroid users. They were able to play longer at a high level due to PEDs. Meanwhile, players like Murphy and McGriff probably didn't use, their careers were a lot shorter, and their numbers don't look anything like the ones who did use steroids.
Bob Costas made a great analogy about why steroids is a bigger deal than the other cheaters. Scuffing balls, using vaseline, and taking amphetamines were like conventional weapons. Steroids were like nuclear weapons because they completely transformed the game. Roughing up a baseball to make it move a couple of extra inches is nowhere close to injecting something that can make you hit a baseball 50 feet farther or extend your career by 5 years.
And the argument that, since pitchers and hitters were both doing so it must be okay is just stupid. If that were true, then you are saying that Sammy Sosa would have hit 60+ homers 3 times if no one were using steroids, Bonds would have done what he did after age 35, etc. That just isn't even reasonable to assume.
And the argument that, since pitchers and hitters were both doing so it must be okay is just stupid. If that were true, then you are saying that Sammy Sosa would have hit 60+ homers 3 times if no one were using steroids, Bonds would have done what he did after age 35, etc. That just isn't even reasonable to assume.
I'm not missing your point. Murphy had a nice 6 year stretch but he's not even close to HOF numbers. He hit 398 HR and had a carrier batting avg of .265. Carlos Beltran has a better argument than Murphy so does Lance Berkman and Todd Helton. You can't just take the top 5 years when it's the entire career that determines whose HOF worthy and whose not. Wanna discard Bonds homeruns? Fine he's still HOF material with zero homeruns. He is top 2 of all-time and #1 in my eyes. I am a lifetime Giants fan though.
Yes, you are missing the point. Where did I say Murphy should get in? I only used Murphy because he was close enough in numbers to Bonds before he supposedly started doping to make a decent comparison and because both were on the ballot this year.
My point was that Bonds wasn't too far ahead of Murphy after their age 27 seasons. Murphy ended up having one of the sharpest declines I can think of, and he didn't have the longevity or numbers to have a HOF career. Bonds got to his HOF numbers after taking PEDs. If he had quit after his age 27 season, he wouldn't have the numbers in any cumulative category like home runs, hits, or stolen bases, same as Murphy. Therefore, to say Bonds was a Hall of Famer without steroids (i.e. assuming that he would last as long as he did and not have a sharp decline, which isn't uncommon for non-steroid users) is a leap of faith, and Murphy is a great example of why it's not a given that early in a great player's career. Plenty of people assumed he was a lock for the Hall in 1987 before he hit his decline. That's not to say it's not possible or even probable, but Bonds' Hall status wasn't a slam dunk in 1998.
My point was that Bonds wasn't too far ahead of Murphy after their age 27 seasons. Murphy ended up having one of the sharpest declines I can think of, and he didn't have the longevity or numbers to have a HOF career. Bonds got to his HOF numbers after taking PEDs. If he had quit after his age 27 season, he wouldn't have the numbers in any cumulative category like home runs, hits, or stolen bases, same as Murphy. Therefore, to say Bonds was a Hall of Famer without steroids (i.e. assuming that he would last as long as he did and not have a sharp decline, which isn't uncommon for non-steroid users) is a leap of faith, and Murphy is a great example of why it's not a given that early in a great player's career. Plenty of people assumed he was a lock for the Hall in 1987 before he hit his decline. That's not to say it's not possible or even probable, but Bonds' Hall status wasn't a slam dunk in 1998.
I couldn't disagree more
If they cheated then they should be banned. The only argument that might make headway is that the powers that be in baseball were turning a blind eye and let this happen because "Chicks" love the long ball. My stance there, two wrongs don't make a right.
These players cheated and it made them better than the competiong unfairly. They are 17ing theives. They stole from the of other players doing it correctly'. They got rich 17 'em. I don't blame Bonds as much as the others. He only got into the game after he saw all the attention the others were getting.
Baseball is a 162 games and by the heat of August you need a break and you are tired and hungry but if you are on steriods you are getting stronger, lasting longer and hitting the ball farther. Don't tell me it doesn't improve your ability to hit the ball because when you feel good and strong you are quicker and better you. Balls that would normally drop at the warning track were going over the wall for a HR.
No, they cheated and they should never be awarded for doing so.
The Hall of Fame doesn't omit these years. The information about what happened each year is in the HOF. You don't have to elected for your story to be there. I don't want them ever to get in.
Watching Bond's cheatin' *** pass Hank Aaron and him being gracious to such a cheat as him just sickens me. I left baseball after that day and haven't watched much since. Banning these players from the HOF just might get me to watching it again.... might.
If they cheated then they should be banned. The only argument that might make headway is that the powers that be in baseball were turning a blind eye and let this happen because "Chicks" love the long ball. My stance there, two wrongs don't make a right.
These players cheated and it made them better than the competiong unfairly. They are 17ing theives. They stole from the of other players doing it correctly'. They got rich 17 'em. I don't blame Bonds as much as the others. He only got into the game after he saw all the attention the others were getting.
Baseball is a 162 games and by the heat of August you need a break and you are tired and hungry but if you are on steriods you are getting stronger, lasting longer and hitting the ball farther. Don't tell me it doesn't improve your ability to hit the ball because when you feel good and strong you are quicker and better you. Balls that would normally drop at the warning track were going over the wall for a HR.
No, they cheated and they should never be awarded for doing so.
The Hall of Fame doesn't omit these years. The information about what happened each year is in the HOF. You don't have to elected for your story to be there. I don't want them ever to get in.
Watching Bond's cheatin' *** pass Hank Aaron and him being gracious to such a cheat as him just sickens me. I left baseball after that day and haven't watched much since. Banning these players from the HOF just might get me to watching it again.... might.
Last edited:
Did I mention that I have a flaw. I hate thieves! and using steriods is stealing from the person that is doing it fairly. 17 all these thieves.
U mad pic anyone?
U mad pic anyone?
What about Palmeiro, does he have a shot at the HOF? He is in rare company with Aaron, Mays, and Murray as the only players with 500+ HRs and 3000+ hits (A-rod is close to joining that crowd).
What about the sudden abundance of middle relievers in their 30s throwing high 90s for the first time in their careers?
Besides, Bonds wasn't just using steroids. He was using HGH. Pretty big difference IMO. Steroids if not abused only give you testosterone levels that others have naturally. You can't say the same about HGH.
Besides, Bonds wasn't just using steroids. He was using HGH. Pretty big difference IMO. Steroids if not abused only give you testosterone levels that others have naturally. You can't say the same about HGH.
I was referring to all PEDs, including HGH, when I said steroids. I can't remember whether Costas said steroids or PEDs in general, but I assume he meant all performance enhancers were nuclear. I think they're all in the same category because the way they are being used by athletes is to significantly alter the body's makeup.
Palmeiro has pretty much no chance......
Even though his accomplishments put him in a very exclusive club his chances of making the hall were considered marginal BEFORE the steroid scandal. The scandal puts those chances at zero.
Even though his accomplishments put him in a very exclusive club his chances of making the hall were considered marginal BEFORE the steroid scandal. The scandal puts those chances at zero.