|
Post by bbg95 on Dec 7, 2022 11:54:06 GMT -5
1. Shoeless Joe and Pete Rose should both be in, and the Hall of Fame continues to look like a joke with their absences, along with Bonds and Clemens. 2. It's widely believed that Bonds began using PEDs after the 1998 season. He already had 99.9 WAR by that point and was clearly a Hall of Famer. It appears that Clemens started using in the middle of the 1998 season, but he had 92.7 WAR by the time that season started. He was also clearly in already. And it's not like those guys were the only PED users, just the most high-profile. I discount their stats a bit for greatest of all time discussions but not for the Hall of Fame. 1. I completely agree about Jackson and Rose. Completely different than Bonds and Clemens. 2. Again, you are arguing pure stats and ignoring the fact they both thought they were bigger than the game and took actions to harm the game. I have very little sympathy for what Bonds and Clemens did. It is not simply a matter of what they did before the time you think they started blatantly cheating, it is to what point the damage they did negates what they did before. No, they weren't the only PED users. ARod, McGwire and Sosa are also not in the HoF, among others with lesser credentials. I mean, David Ortiz is in the Hall of Fame (first ballot no less!), and he literally failed a PED test. The Hall of Fame is a joke. Regarding Bonds and Clemens, I think it's absurd to keep them out when at least half of the players in that era were juicing. It's baseball's own fault for looking the other way for so long.
|
|
|
Post by oldnewbie on Dec 7, 2022 12:07:23 GMT -5
1. I completely agree about Jackson and Rose. Completely different than Bonds and Clemens. 2. Again, you are arguing pure stats and ignoring the fact they both thought they were bigger than the game and took actions to harm the game. I have very little sympathy for what Bonds and Clemens did. It is not simply a matter of what they did before the time you think they started blatantly cheating, it is to what point the damage they did negates what they did before. No, they weren't the only PED users. ARod, McGwire and Sosa are also not in the HoF, among others with lesser credentials. I mean, David Ortiz is in the Hall of Fame (first ballot no less!), and he literally failed a PED test. The Hall of Fame is a joke. Regarding Bonds and Clemens, I think it's absurd to keep them out when at least half of the players in that era were juicing. It's baseball's own fault for looking the other way for so long. And I think it is absurd to let them in if you know they all were juicing. Kick Ortiz into a special collection, don't let Bonds and Clemens in. Describe the era, describe what happened, list McGwire and Sosa along with Bonds and Clemens and ARod, throw Ortiz into that section and say the whole era is suspect and these are known to be the worst offenders. I'm good with that.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 12,944
|
Post by bluepenquin on Dec 7, 2022 12:20:07 GMT -5
Out of curiosity, I looked up what Joe Posnanski (who I respect) had to say about Kent. I found a ballot from 2015, so I'm not sure if his thinking has changed since then, but he had Kent just out. I have to say that his reasoning is pretty suspect for a guy as smart as Posnanski is. He basically used the eye test to evaluate Kent's defense and ignored the metrics that show Kent to be better in that department (for a guy as metrics-focused as Posnanski, this is a red flag). Even worse, Posnanski discounts Kent's impressive power numbers (most homers ever by a second baseman, only second baseman not named Rogers Hornsby to slug .500 for his career) because he played in a power era...but it's largely believed that Kent was clean. I think that anyone who put up big power numbers in that era while clean (e.g. Ken Griffey Jr.) is even more impressive because so many others (batters and pitchers) were juiced out of their mind. Edit: Considering that Kent was playing in San Francisco, the epicenter of the BALCO scandal, I'm pretty confident that he was clean. Oh, and also as I'm looking into it, he was a proponent of blood testing and freezing samples as far back as at least 2005. Yeah, I'm almost 100% sure that he was clean. I don't have a strong opinion on Kent. Bobby Grich is by far a worse snub than Kent. And I am not sure that Grich's power numbers given the era are much different than Kent. Poz is awesome. He is among the select few (along with Bill James) that does the fielding bible every year. I would say he knows a thing or two about defense and the role of metrics in determining real defensive value. I wasn't aware of Kent being disliked by the media. If true - I wonder how much of this was him being a teammate of Bonds and having the delicate balance between supporting his star teammate and talking to the media. Also - Bonds could have influenced him in terms of the role of the media.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 12,944
|
Post by bluepenquin on Dec 7, 2022 12:32:23 GMT -5
McGriff is a borderline HOF guy. I don't have a problem with him getting in. Mattingly will probably get in next year - he wasn't nearly as good as McGriff and really shouldn't be in the HOF (same for Dale Murphy). In terms of baseball - there is no reason why Curt Schilling isn't in the HOF. And then not having Bonds or Clemens is a joke. A-Rod is another - just plain stupid. It will be interesting to see what happens with Carlos Beltran. Another no doubt HOF player, but did have the Houston scandal that was blown way out of portion. So you are a pure stats guy, with no regard for the integrity of the game argument? For me, none of the blatant cheaters get in before Rose (who was banned as a player for what he did later as a manager), and really none before shoeless Joe. Bonds and Clemens were supreme, hall of fame talents who did as much to harm the game as anyone ever has. I disagree that they get a pass. I also don't think you would see them in the same light if they broke down and faded with age. Schilling is a wildly different discussion of how freely you can express yourself with no repercussions from your employer or your industry. His numbers are not good enough to overcome those that just hate him. His mouth with Clemens stats would be in. I disagree with that and would vote Schilling into the HoF long before Bonds or Clemens. I would argue that the harm done to the game by Joe Jackson and Pete Rose is huge. Joe Jackson literally threw the world series - he should have been banned and he shouldn't be in the HOF. Pete Rose - I defended him for a long time (I didn't really like him much as a player). But the guy bet on his own baseball games while manager. You just cannot allow this in professional sports and he was rightfully banned. I do think he should be in the HOF, but certainly believe he needed to wait a long time. The integrity of the game is in great peril if the players are throwing the game. I don't think we just ignore Barry Bonds and PED users - but how do we handle Gaylord Perry who was illegally doctoring the ball to gain an advantage. What about all the players that have used a corked bat? How about the players in the 70's that were taking 'greenies' in order to get through a season? How about all the outspoken racist players (Cobb being among the more notorious) in bseball history? Certain writers and baseball historians want to parcel out various forms of 'cheating' as being fun and part of the game for some (usually white guys) and an unforgiveable sin (usually black guys).
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 12,944
|
Post by bluepenquin on Dec 7, 2022 12:35:25 GMT -5
And yes - once they let Bagwell and then later Ortiz into the HOF - the door is wide open for Bonds.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Dec 7, 2022 12:38:10 GMT -5
So you are a pure stats guy, with no regard for the integrity of the game argument? For me, none of the blatant cheaters get in before Rose (who was banned as a player for what he did later as a manager), and really none before shoeless Joe. Bonds and Clemens were supreme, hall of fame talents who did as much to harm the game as anyone ever has. I disagree that they get a pass. I also don't think you would see them in the same light if they broke down and faded with age. Schilling is a wildly different discussion of how freely you can express yourself with no repercussions from your employer or your industry. His numbers are not good enough to overcome those that just hate him. His mouth with Clemens stats would be in. I disagree with that and would vote Schilling into the HoF long before Bonds or Clemens. I would argue that the harm done to the game by Joe Jackson and Pete Rose is huge. Joe Jackson literally threw the world series - he should have been banned and he shouldn't be in the HOF. Pete Rose - I defended him for a long time (I didn't really like him much as a player). But the guy bet on his own baseball games while manager. You just cannot allow this in professional sports and he was rightfully banned. I do think he should be in the HOF, but certainly believe he needed to wait a long time. The integrity of the game is in great peril if the players are throwing the game. I don't think we just ignore Barry Bonds and PED users - but how do we handle Gaylord Perry who was illegally doctoring the ball to gain an advantage. What about all the players that have used a corked bat? How about the players in the 70's that were taking 'greenies' in order to get through a season? How about all the outspoken racist players (Cobb being among the more notorious) in bseball history? Certain writers and baseball historians want to parcel out various forms of 'cheating' as being fun and part of the game for some (usually white guys) and an unforgiveable sin (usually black guys). To be honest, the guy from the White Sox who shouldn't be in the Hall of fame is Comiskey, not Jackson. I don't care if Jackson threw the World Series or not. If he did, it was because Comiskey mistreated Jackson and the other Black Sox players. He's still one of the best players ever (he's 12th in career OPS+), and the entire purpose of the Hall of Fame is supposed to be honoring the best players in baseball history. It doesn't do that right now and is thus a failure.
|
|
|
Post by oldnewbie on Dec 7, 2022 12:39:51 GMT -5
And yes - once they let Bagwell and then later Ortiz into the HOF - the door is wide open for Bonds. You believe in compounding mistakes?
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Dec 7, 2022 12:40:14 GMT -5
Out of curiosity, I looked up what Joe Posnanski (who I respect) had to say about Kent. I found a ballot from 2015, so I'm not sure if his thinking has changed since then, but he had Kent just out. I have to say that his reasoning is pretty suspect for a guy as smart as Posnanski is. He basically used the eye test to evaluate Kent's defense and ignored the metrics that show Kent to be better in that department (for a guy as metrics-focused as Posnanski, this is a red flag). Even worse, Posnanski discounts Kent's impressive power numbers (most homers ever by a second baseman, only second baseman not named Rogers Hornsby to slug .500 for his career) because he played in a power era...but it's largely believed that Kent was clean. I think that anyone who put up big power numbers in that era while clean (e.g. Ken Griffey Jr.) is even more impressive because so many others (batters and pitchers) were juiced out of their mind. Edit: Considering that Kent was playing in San Francisco, the epicenter of the BALCO scandal, I'm pretty confident that he was clean. Oh, and also as I'm looking into it, he was a proponent of blood testing and freezing samples as far back as at least 2005. Yeah, I'm almost 100% sure that he was clean. I don't have a strong opinion on Kent. Bobby Grich is by far a worse snub than Kent. And I am not sure that Grich's power numbers given the era are much different than Kent. Poz is awesome. He is among the select few (along with Bill James) that does the fielding bible every year. I would say he knows a thing or two about defense and the role of metrics in determining real defensive value. I wasn't aware of Kent being disliked by the media. If true - I wonder how much of this was him being a teammate of Bonds and having the delicate balance between supporting his star teammate and talking to the media. Also - Bonds could have influenced him in terms of the role of the media. At one point, I would have said that Posnanski was the best sportswriter in the country. I might even still think he is. But it is very unlike him to selectively use the eye test when he doesn't usually do that. And his argument about Kent playing in a power era is complete nonsensical. If we think a player was clean, then playing in an era where so many other players weren't actually makes their numbers look better by comparison, not worse. Edit: I'm unfamiliar with Grich, as he is before my time. But after looking at his numbers, I agree that he should be in the Hall of Fame. Although, looking a little closer, this is kind of what I'm talking about. Grich has clearly inferior stats to Kent in a vacuum, but he's getting a lot of credit (e.g. WAR, OPS+) for playing in a lower-scoring environment. But if Kent was clean (and I think he was), then his value numbers are artificially lower because of his era.
|
|
|
Post by oldnewbie on Dec 7, 2022 12:47:46 GMT -5
So you are a pure stats guy, with no regard for the integrity of the game argument? For me, none of the blatant cheaters get in before Rose (who was banned as a player for what he did later as a manager), and really none before shoeless Joe. Bonds and Clemens were supreme, hall of fame talents who did as much to harm the game as anyone ever has. I disagree that they get a pass. I also don't think you would see them in the same light if they broke down and faded with age. Schilling is a wildly different discussion of how freely you can express yourself with no repercussions from your employer or your industry. His numbers are not good enough to overcome those that just hate him. His mouth with Clemens stats would be in. I disagree with that and would vote Schilling into the HoF long before Bonds or Clemens. I would argue that the harm done to the game by Joe Jackson and Pete Rose is huge. Joe Jackson literally threw the world series - he should have been banned and he shouldn't be in the HOF. He did? From BR: "Jackson had an outstanding World Series. He tied a record with 12 hits, batted .375/.394/.563, including three doubles, a home run and six RBIs." He also played flawlessly in the field, threw a runner out at the plate and would have thrown out another but a teammate deflected the ball away from the catcher. He was then acquitted in court. From that you conclude he threw the world series and should be banned?
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 12,944
|
Post by bluepenquin on Dec 7, 2022 12:48:25 GMT -5
I would argue that the harm done to the game by Joe Jackson and Pete Rose is huge. Joe Jackson literally threw the world series - he should have been banned and he shouldn't be in the HOF. Pete Rose - I defended him for a long time (I didn't really like him much as a player). But the guy bet on his own baseball games while manager. You just cannot allow this in professional sports and he was rightfully banned. I do think he should be in the HOF, but certainly believe he needed to wait a long time. The integrity of the game is in great peril if the players are throwing the game. I don't think we just ignore Barry Bonds and PED users - but how do we handle Gaylord Perry who was illegally doctoring the ball to gain an advantage. What about all the players that have used a corked bat? How about the players in the 70's that were taking 'greenies' in order to get through a season? How about all the outspoken racist players (Cobb being among the more notorious) in bseball history? Certain writers and baseball historians want to parcel out various forms of 'cheating' as being fun and part of the game for some (usually white guys) and an unforgiveable sin (usually black guys). To be honest, the guy from the White Sox who shouldn't be in the Hall of fame is Comiskey, not Jackson. I don't care if Jackson threw the World Series or not. If he did, it was because Comiskey mistreated Jackson and the other Black Sox players. He's still one of the best players ever (he's 12th in career OPS+), and the entire purpose of the Hall of Fame is supposed to be honoring the best players in baseball history. It doesn't do that right now and is thus a failure. Jackson was a great player. OPS+ is a decent stat, but it is flawed in the ways that OPS is flawed (it over values slugging percentage vs. on base percentage). wRC+ is a better metric. Jackson had less than 5700 plate appearances. His career OPS+ would have gone down had he continued his career.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 12,944
|
Post by bluepenquin on Dec 7, 2022 12:52:17 GMT -5
I don't have a strong opinion on Kent. Bobby Grich is by far a worse snub than Kent. And I am not sure that Grich's power numbers given the era are much different than Kent. Poz is awesome. He is among the select few (along with Bill James) that does the fielding bible every year. I would say he knows a thing or two about defense and the role of metrics in determining real defensive value. I wasn't aware of Kent being disliked by the media. If true - I wonder how much of this was him being a teammate of Bonds and having the delicate balance between supporting his star teammate and talking to the media. Also - Bonds could have influenced him in terms of the role of the media. Edit: I'm unfamiliar with Grich, as he is before my time. But after looking at his numbers, I agree that he should be in the Hall of Fame. Although, looking a little closer, this is kind of what I'm talking about. Grich has clearly inferior stats to Kent in a vacuum, but he's getting a lot of credit (e.g. WAR, OPS+) for playing in a lower-scoring environment. But if Kent was clean (and I think he was), then his value numbers are artificially lower because of his era. Grich did the things people undervalued back in the 70's and 80's - walked, played great defense. While he wasn't good at the things people overvalued - batting average. His 1981 season was shaping up to be his best season - but was cut short by the strike. He and Schmidt had great short seasons that year.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Dec 7, 2022 12:52:41 GMT -5
To be honest, the guy from the White Sox who shouldn't be in the Hall of fame is Comiskey, not Jackson. I don't care if Jackson threw the World Series or not. If he did, it was because Comiskey mistreated Jackson and the other Black Sox players. He's still one of the best players ever (he's 12th in career OPS+), and the entire purpose of the Hall of Fame is supposed to be honoring the best players in baseball history. It doesn't do that right now and is thus a failure. Jackson was a great player. OPS+ is a decent stat, but it is flawed in the ways that OPS is flawed (it over values slugging percentage vs. on base percentage). wRC+ is a better metric. Jackson had less than 5700 plate appearances. His career OPS+ would have gone down had he continued his career.No kidding. He's still a Hall of Famer. And according to this, Jackson's career wRC+ was 165, which is tied for 8th all time. That doesn't help your argument. Yes, if he had a normal career, there would have been a decline in his rate numbers as he aged, but his counting numbers would be a lot better too.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Dec 7, 2022 13:06:37 GMT -5
Jackson was a great player. OPS+ is a decent stat, but it is flawed in the ways that OPS is flawed (it over values slugging percentage vs. on base percentage). wRC+ is a better metric. Jackson had less than 5700 plate appearances. His career OPS+ would have gone down had he continued his career.No kidding. He's still a Hall of Famer. And according to this, Jackson's career wRC+ was 165, which is tied for 8th all time. That doesn't help your argument. Yes, if he had a normal career, there would have been a decline in his rate numbers as he aged, but his counting numbers would be a lot better too. I found the FanGraphs career wRC+ leaders, which I hadn't looked at before. 1. Babe Ruth 2. Ted Williams 3. Lou Gehrig 4. Rogers Hornsby 5. Barry Bonds 6. Mike Trout 7. Mickey Mantle 8. Ty Cobb 9. Joe Jackson 10. Stan Musial I did not realize that Mike Trout was quite that high (he's also seventh on the career OPS+ leader board). And Mark McGwire is 12th (14th in OPS+).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2022 13:11:41 GMT -5
I would argue that the harm done to the game by Joe Jackson and Pete Rose is huge. Joe Jackson literally threw the world series - he should have been banned and he shouldn't be in the HOF. He did? From BR: "Jackson had an outstanding World Series. He tied a record with 12 hits, batted .375/.394/.563, including three doubles, a home run and six RBIs." He also played flawlessly in the field, threw a runner out at the plate and would have thrown out another but a teammate deflected the ball away from the catcher. He was then acquitted in court. From that you conclude he threw the world series and should be banned? Absolutely he threw it. Jackson is the only left fielder in World Series history to misplay multiple triples permitting runs to score in the same series. If you look at when he did well in the series, you'll see he did it when it didn't matter. It's a pity because Jackson was great. Also, he's not the only one in that era to throw games. Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker did. And if you look at the game stories of the 1918 Series, you can come to a reasonable conclusion that the Cubs tossed the Series the year before the Black Sox.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Dec 7, 2022 13:22:47 GMT -5
He did? From BR: "Jackson had an outstanding World Series. He tied a record with 12 hits, batted .375/.394/.563, including three doubles, a home run and six RBIs." He also played flawlessly in the field, threw a runner out at the plate and would have thrown out another but a teammate deflected the ball away from the catcher. He was then acquitted in court. From that you conclude he threw the world series and should be banned? Absolutely he threw it. Jackson is the only left fielder in World Series history to misplay multiple triples permitting runs to score in the same series. If you look at when he did well in the series, you'll see he did it when it didn't matter. It's a pity because Jackson was great. Also, he's not the only one in that era to throw games. Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker did. And if you look at the game stories of the 1918 Series, you can come to a reasonable conclusion that the Cubs tossed the Series the year before the Black Sox. If I remember correctly, I think the White Sox were trying to win some games and lose others, so that might explain why his overall numbers were good.
|
|