I'm being sarcastic, yes. It highlights how value is perceived and how it is often incongruent with talent or performance.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
MLB - 2015 Baseball Hall of Fame Class Inductees
- Thread starter Sanjuro
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
I'm being sarcastic, yes. It highlights how value is perceived and how it is often incongruent with talent or performance.
Can anyone help me understand how Johnson got more votes than Pedro? I just can't see it.
johnson was more successfull over a longer period of time. Pedros peak was of course insane. But johnson threw ~1300 more innings in only more 4 seasons played. pedro wasnt the same pitcher after age 32. (although still very good)
I'm being sarcastic, yes. It highlights how value is perceived and how it is often incongruent with talent or performance.
ok. just making sure. i do laugh at the people bringing up that smoltz had more value becuase he went to the pen and was a successful closer. (mussina threw 4X as many innings during the 4 years smoltz was in the pen...lol value)
I don't see the issue with Smoltz getting in before Mussina.
outside of mussina being just as good..if not better?
outside of mussina being just as good..if not better?
Yes you can debate such but numbers are not the whole body of work of a player. In the end a lot of people believe he is first ballot and Mussina is not.
matthewwhatever
Member
People don't play baseball to possibly have a chance at getting to the Hall of Fame. They play baseball because minor league/benchwarmers like Travis Ishikawa make 500k a year.
You'd have to be insane to stick with baseball just on the off chance you'll be one of the lucky few who makes it to the majors and earns a decent salary. The average minor leaguer makes something like $15-20k a year, and spends his whole season living either on a bus or in a crappy apartment. Anyone in it just for the money won't last long.
Well, I'll admit I don't know enough about admissions of cheating after people are already in the hall. If they there were up for the hall know and we knew, then I'd argue the same for them. We know about these guys now, and what many of them did and I don't think they should be in the hall of fame for it.
I think keeping them out could be a line in the sand for future users as well. I don't want the message to be that you can cheater and still get in if people think you were good enough without cheating. IT's why Pete Rose got the permaban. They wanted to make sure that people in the game knew if you gamble on games, it's fucking over for you forever.
Gambling has been explicitly forbidden for nearly a century (though even with that being the case, there are a few guys in the Hall who had their wrists slapped for betting on games). PEDs weren't just not forbidden, they were ignored and/or tacitly encouraged by everyone associated with the game, from the owners to management to the media to fans. Barring players from the Hall after the fact places the blame for the era entirely on their shoulders, which is totally ridiculous. If you really want to be moralistic about it, I could maybe see punishing players who were caught using after testing was instituted, but if you're going to go after Selig Era guys for steroids you should be willing to go after every player already in the Hall who took PEDs, too. You'd basically have an empty room after doing that, of course, but if you're going to be all high and mighty about it, at least be consistent.
Cal Ripken. Nolan Ryan.
Those are two people you'll never hear linked to PEDs, but whose careers I always msintained were suspiciously PED-like. PEDs don't just give you power, they let you recover faster. So you're throwing high heat into the late years like Ryan, yet Clemens gets pegged as suspect for doing the same. Cal's iron man record was also really unusual in the era of long disable lists. People think PEDs mean thick necks and big bats, but it doesn't. Some guys don't necessarily bulk up the same anyway. So all it became was a witch hunt to find scapegoats for the era so baseball could place all the blame on these select individuals and ignore the institutional failures that lead to it. Also to distract from the fact that we really don't know all the people using. We have no idea. So put a face on it, put a ban on them and bury heads in the sand.
I say since we don't know the extent of the abuse, vote guys on their merits. That means Big Mac gets in. And though he was never an amazing player like Bonds, he and Sosa were two guys who helped drive baseball back into the spotlight. Their HR race is remembered for both men, not one over the other. Then again, my entire baseball viewership was during the steroid era. That goes back into the 80s imo, which is when I started watching. PEACE.
Nolan Ryan just had Advil!
I think McGwire and Sosa both belong in the Hall, but I don't know that they're quite so slam dunk. They both hit a ton of homers, and McGwire has that gaudy OBP, but beyond that, they both had notable flaws. I'd put them in, but I could see why a voter might be lukewarm on them without even thinking about PEDs.
Yes you can debate such but numbers are not the whole body of work of a player. In the end a lot of people believe he is first ballot and Mussina is not.
Self evidently that's the case, because Smoltz got in and Mussina didn't. What we're discussing is whether that's reasonable.
Some of us are arguing that perception is not always reasonable or accurate. Some people may play in the right market, or may never be the best player on their team (Smoltz can suffer from this, so too does Mussina) or never be part of a "dynasty" (Mussina actually misses this, as the Yankees late 90s dynasty essentially ended when he joined, and the Orioles before that were terrible).
It doesn't make us right, of course; we're just supporting our argument as best we can. We're asking you to do the same.
Self evidently that's the case, because Smoltz got in and Mussina didn't. What we're discussing is whether that's reasonable.
Some of us are arguing that perception is not always reasonable or accurate. Some people may play in the right market, or may never be the best player on their team (Smoltz can suffer from this, so too does Mussina) or never be part of a "dynasty" (Mussina actually misses this, as the Yankees late 90s dynasty essentially ended when he joined, and the Orioles before that were terrible).
It doesn't make us right, of course; we're just supporting our argument as best we can. We're asking you to do the same.
reasonable? with the voters that we have?probably not. I firmly believe that Mussina should have be in it since last year. Luck is not on his side because of the new group of players entering in the past two years. Now like I said I don't see the issue that Smoltz got in now and Mussina didn't because I get it, I know why he didn't get in. The voters are very black and white in terms of votes. It is unfair and the system needs fixing. We can't have the same situation happening every year. It is just going to get worst if they don't fix it.
I wish that like 5 or 6 players get in from now on. :/
You'd have to be insane to stick with baseball just on the off chance you'll be one of the lucky few who makes it to the majors and earns a decent salary. The average minor leaguer makes something like $15-20k a year, and spends his whole season living either on a bus or in a crappy apartment. Anyone in it just for the money won't last long.
Wait you think minor league players are working out and trying to improve because they LOVE the game? My whole point is that saying they wont make the hall isn't a deterrent when millions of dollars is the alternative.
Barry Bones OBP'd over .600 one year. SIX FUCKING HUNDRED. He was on base 60% of the time for an entire year. I don't care if he injected bull semen directly into this eyeballs that alone is Hall worthy.
He had 232 walks. It's not that impressive to get walked more frequently because everyone knows your odds of hitting a home run are insane because you're on steroids. His walk rate prior to his 30's was never above 130. It nearly doubled his best walk rate from his 20s.
Ninja Scooter
Member
He had 232 walks. It's not that impressive to get walked more frequently because everyone knows your odds of hitting a home run are insane because you're on steroids. His walk rate prior to his 30's was never above 130. It nearly doubled his best walk rate from his 20s.
Yeah a .600 OBP is not impressive. Ok guy.
He had 232 walks. It's not that impressive to get walked more frequently because everyone knows your odds of hitting a home run are insane because you're on steroids. His walk rate prior to his 30's was never above 130. It nearly doubled his best walk rate from his 20s.
Haha dudes head is fucked up today cuz of the roids
matthewwhatever
Member
Apparently a side effect of his giant head was developing the greatest batting eye ever. Totally makes sense that it only happened to him and no one else.
You're saying that pro baseball players stick it out through the minors purely in the hopes of maybe getting financial gain? Because that's just dumb. I'm not saying the money isn't an incentive at all, but I'm guessing that the vast majority of players play baseball because they, you know, like playing baseball. That's why you see so many guys sticking around the game long after they should've retired -- it's not the extra millions, it's because baseball is what they do.
Wait you think minor league players are working out and trying to improve because they LOVE the game? My whole point is that saying they wont make the hall isn't a deterrent when millions of dollars is the alternative.
You're saying that pro baseball players stick it out through the minors purely in the hopes of maybe getting financial gain? Because that's just dumb. I'm not saying the money isn't an incentive at all, but I'm guessing that the vast majority of players play baseball because they, you know, like playing baseball. That's why you see so many guys sticking around the game long after they should've retired -- it's not the extra millions, it's because baseball is what they do.
Yeah a .600 OBP is not impressive. Ok guy.
When almost half your OBP is from walks which is atypically high cuz you're roids, yeah, it's not that impressive. He had 135 hits.
evil solrac v3.0
Member
I agree, but he probably needed PEDs to become an inner circle HoFer, for what that's worth. Without PEDs, he was not going to be talked about in the same breath as Ruth or Mays. He was probably on a trajectory to be more like a Wade Boggs or Roberto Clemente level player, but we'll never know for sure.
Have you seen Bagwell's neck? It's mottled. Suspiciously mottled.
just go to baseball reference and check his numbers. far, far ahead of the players you mentioned.
The A-Rod witch hunt is ludicrous. The amount of Yankee fans condemning him after singing his praises in 2009 is typical of the fan base.
Like Bonds and Clemens before him, people will get over it once he retires
I don't condemn him, I hope he comes back better than ever.
We know that steroids notably increase regeneration and that both Clemens and Bonds took them. We know that they had unusually long careers with abnormal arcs, both (although particularly Bonds) having strange peaks in their late 30s when that is highly unusual because the body is beginning to break down.
In the sense that nothing can ever be proven with absolute certainty, sure, that's not proven.
I think the better question is whether keeping cheaters out is worthwhile when we already know so many cheaters have gotten in (e.g. spitballers, greeny users, etc.) Of course, the response to that would be that mistakes made in the past does not suggest we should continue to make mistakes in the future. It's a reasonable discussion to have.
I just don't believe steroids are a "cheat" sports are about gaining the edge over the competition. you can take all the steroids you want but you still have to put in a lot of work to be successful.
And before this is mentioned: yes, at least a few other HoF players lasted in to their 40s the way both Clemens and Bonds did. However, I can't think of a single player whose career peak was at age 37, as it was for Bonds.
One could argue this is just a random fluke, but given that the specific thing steroids are proven to achieve is faster regeneration, it seems much more likely that the steroids assisted him in avoiding the natural aging curve. Bonds had a peak at "normal" ages (28-32) and then began to taper off in a normal fashion by 1999, only to have a massive resurgence unlike anything we've ever seen in his mid to late 30s.
Yep, that's possible. A lot of this is down to perception, and perception is inherently flawed.
he wasn't tapering off at all.
Can anyone help me understand how Johnson got more votes than Pedro? I just can't see it.
nothing wrong with it. Johnson was an all time great.
Yes you can debate such but numbers are not the whole body of work of a player. In the end a lot of people believe he is first ballot and Mussina is not.
but numbers tell a different story.
So apparently Bill Madden (NY beat writer) didn't vote for Piazza because "players he spoke to who played against Piazza said he used steroids".
Madden has always been a joke, can't wait until he goes away.
He had 232 walks. It's not that impressive to get walked more frequently because everyone knows your odds of hitting a home run are insane because you're on steroids. His walk rate prior to his 30's was never above 130. It nearly doubled his best walk rate from his 20s.
OBP of .600 is not impressive? pitchers were scared because he was on drugs? wha?
Wait you think minor league players are working out and trying to improve because they LOVE the game? My whole point is that saying they wont make the hall isn't a deterrent when millions of dollars is the alternative.
yes. why else would they bother with shitty bus rides and nearly minimum wage?
When almost half your OBP is from walks which is atypically high cuz you're roids, yeah, it's not that impressive. He had 135 hits.
i cant even comprehend this statement.
Jack Remington
Banned
His OBP would have been lower with some protection in the lineup. He was a system player that year if you think about it.
TarpitCarnivore
Member
He kind of has a point, Bonds had 120 intentional walks that year because pitchers would rather put him on base than see him hulk smash their pitches 900 feet. Nobody else has ever had more than 45 intentional walks in a season.
Look at the players around him in 2004: http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/SFG/2004.shtml
He got walks because he was the best hitter in the game and they'd sooner face JT Snow or Ray Durham than Bonds.
yes. why else would they bother with shitty bus rides and nearly minimum wage?
The whole point of my argument is that not getting into the hall of fame is not a deterrent for using PED's. The fact that such a small percentage even make it to the league is just more evidence to support that. I'm not saying players don't love the game, I'm saying their love of the game is secondary to their love of money. Bench players don't stick around because they love sitting on the bench. They do it because some are still making good money.
He kind of has a point, Bonds had 120 intentional walks that year because pitchers would rather put him on base than see him hulk smash their pitches 900 feet. Nobody else has ever had more than 45 intentional walks in a season.
Okay, then just as a a thought experiment, let's subtract 80 of his plate appearances altogether. We'll ignore 80 of his intentional walks.
That'd bring his plate appearances down to 537. He had 135 hits. We'll give him 152 of his actual 232 walks. His OBP would then be... (135 + 152) / 537 = .534.
That's still an insane OBP. It would push that season down to the fifth-best OBP season of all time!
Edit: And I forgot to even add in the nine times he was hit by a pitch. So his OBP would have been .551, making that season the third highest of all time.
outside of mussina being just as good..if not better?
Smoltzie was a post-season monster. Numbers wise Mussina stacks up pretty well against a lot of pitchers in the hall but if you were comparing the two and you had to pick one for the Hall, pretty sure most everyone except yankees fans would choose Smoltz. Does Mussina get in? I don't know, but I dont think anyone will be surprised if he does.
Okay, then just as a a thought experiment, let's subtract 80 of his plate appearances altogether. We'll ignore 80 of his intentional walks.
That'd bring his plate appearances down to 537. He had 135 hits. We'll give him 152 of his actual 232 walks. His OBP would then be... (135 + 152) / 537 = .534.
That's still an insane OBP. It would push that season down to the fifth-best OBP season of all time!
Edit: And I forgot to even add in the nine times he was hit by a pitch. So his OBP would have been .551, making that season the third highest of all time.
It's not as simple as that. In addition to drawing fewer intentional walks, his unintentional walk rate would have plummeted without steroids, as pitchers wouldn't have been so afraid to challenge him. Moreover, the fact that he saw so few hittable pitches allowed him to completely change his approach at the plate, which enabled his batting average to skyrocket as well -- he hit .362 that year, well above his career average of .298 -- as he seldom had to offer at close pitches and instead was able to sit on pitches that were mistakenly left over the heart of the plate. The intimidation factor caused by Bonds' rampant steroid use led to a major increase in all aspects of his offensive performance, not just his home run hitting.
It's not as simple as that. In addition to drawing fewer intentional walks, his unintentional walk rate would have plummeted without steroids, as pitchers wouldn't have been so afraid to challenge him. Moreover, the fact that he saw so few hittable pitches allowed him to completely change his approach at the plate, which enabled his batting average to skyrocket as well -- he hit .362 that year, well above his career average of .298 -- as he seldom had to offer at close pitches and instead was able to sit on pitches that were mistakenly left over the heart of the plate. The intimidation factor caused by Bonds' rampant steroid use led to a major increase in all aspects of his offensive performance, not just his home run hitting.
Well, now this I agree with -- or at least see as a really good argument. Like you say: "It's not as simple as that." That's exactly why I was just trying to point out that we can't view his intentional walks in isolation -- which is oversimplifying it.
I wasn't a fan of Bonds, but I still think he was an amazing player. He's one of the best of all time -- and one who's actually caused himself to become underrated because now people attribute almost all his success to steroids. I also think he belongs in the Hall, because everything he did still counts, officially. If you won't scratch his career from the official records, then it's pettiness to keep him out.
AAAnonymous
Banned
Bat speed is a contributor to a players ability to make contact with a ball
Mechanics could impact if they're hitting grounders, pop ups, line drives, etc.
One could be aided by PEDs and one can't
WTF? So every other 35 year old player just forgot their mechanics after playing baseball all their life. Whereas Bonds just had such great mechanics.
I'm not saying Bonds was never a good hitter. But you first started with a statement that PEDs don't suddenly make you swing a bat better. You are wrong in that you think all it takes is a good swing. Do all players' mechanics get worse, and that's why they end up retiring instead of enjoying their best years ever?
I've got a list here, of Bonds' best seasonal numbers before age 35, compared to his best numbers after 35:
- batting average: .336 at age-28; .370 at age-37; 10% higher thanks to PEDs
- HR: 46 at age-28; 73 at age-36; 59% higher thanks to PEDs
- walks: 151 at age-31; 232 at age-39; 54% higher thanks to PEDs
- OBP: .461 at age-31; .609 at age-39; 32% higher thanks to PEDs
TarpitCarnivore
Member
WTF? So every other 35 year old player just forgot their mechanics after playing baseball all their life. Whereas Bonds just had such great mechanics.
I'm not saying Bonds was never a good hitter. But you first started with a statement that PEDs don't suddenly make you swing a bat better. You are wrong in that you think all it takes is a good swing. Do all players' mechanics get worse, and that's why they end up retiring instead of enjoying their best years ever?
I've got a list here, of Bonds' best seasonal numbers before age 35, compared to his best numbers after 35:
- batting average: .336 at age-28; .370 at age-37; 10% higher thanks to PEDs
- HR: 46 at age-28; 73 at age-36; 59% higher thanks to PEDs
- walks: 151 at age-31; 232 at age-39; 54% higher thanks to PEDs
- OBP: .461 at age-31; .609 at age-39; 32% higher thanks to PEDs
I know it takes more than a good swing which is why I separated the two. His bat speed improvements could very well have been from PEDs, we don't know, but it's stupid when people act like Bonds is ONLY good because he took PEDs. PEDs don't magically make you a better player. You still have to put in the work.
By your logic every player who took PEDs should have a 50% increase in HR, walks, and obp irregardless of their physical ability.
Smoltzie was a post-season monster. Numbers wise Mussina stacks up pretty well against a lot of pitchers in the hall but if you were comparing the two and you had to pick one for the Hall, pretty sure most everyone except yankees fans would choose Smoltz. Does Mussina get in? I don't know, but I dont think anyone will be surprised if he does.
moose wasnt exactly a bum in the playoffs, and its a shame that people put so much stock in a 200 inning sample spread across 14 or 15 years. Mussinas regular season numbers are just as good if not better than smoltz and he deserved to be elected ahead of him. doesnt matter at this point of course, whats done is done. but its not right. and looking at the people that vote makes it clear that a change is needed.
TarpitCarnivore
Member
moose wasnt exactly a bum in the playoffs, and its a shame that people put so much stock in a 200 inning sample spread across 14 or 15 years. Mussinas regular season numbers are just as good if not better than smoltz and he deserved to be elected ahead of him. doesnt matter at this point of course, whats done is done. but its not right. and looking at the people that vote makes it clear that a change is needed.
Unfortunately the hall looks at awards before anything else. Smoltz not only got a ring but also the cy young. Moose was always shafted.
Unfortunately the hall looks at awards before anything else. Smoltz not only got a ring but also the cy young. Moose was always shafted.
moose certainly got the shaft in 2001. he was far and away the best pitcher in the AL and came in 5th in voting. lol @ wins and losses.
but it's stupid when people act like Bonds is ONLY good because he took PEDs. PEDs don't magically make you a better player. You still have to put in the work.
By your logic every player who took PEDs should have a 50% increase in HR, walks, and obp irregardless of their physical ability.
Someone should sign a bunch of bodybuilders to play baseball in order to get people to realize PEDs don't magically give players the ability to be a really good player.
Also i hope players who wear Phiten necklaces are banned from the hall, they are CHEATING
moose certainly got the shaft in 2001. he was far and away the best pitcher in the AL and came in 5th in voting. lol @ wins and losses.
If he'd gotten Carl Everett out and finished off his perfect game in 2001, I wonder if his season -- and thus career -- gets viewed differently. Can't believe he came in fifth, without a single first place vote.
just go to baseball reference and check his numbers. far, far ahead of the players you mentioned.
Right, because of the surge he had in his late 30s. He was on a normal career path that was tapering off in his mid 30s, then had an explosion of power that's literally unique in baseball history in his late 30s.
he wasn't tapering off at all.
Oh yes he was. His WAR from age 29 to 33 is listed this way:
9.4
8.0
7.9
3.6
Totally normal aging curve there: a peak at 28/29 with a gradual decline afterwards in to his early 30s. That curve looks totally normal. The next three years look like this:
7.5
11.6
11.6
A sudden, dramatic ramp back upwards that made his age 37 season better than any season he had in his "prime" 27-32 years.
Maybe he's just a genetic freak who happened to reach his physical peak at age 37. I think it's more likely that he had significant help.
Please note that all of this is different from saying that Bonds wasn't a HoF caliber player without steroids (he was) or saying that others weren't juicing too. I'm only showing here that steroids clearly boosted his performance in the latter stages of his career.
If he'd gotten Carl Everett out and finished off his perfect game in 2001, I wonder if his season -- and thus career -- gets viewed differently. Can't believe he came in fifth, without a single first place vote.
And Moose nearly had an additional perfect game earlier in his career that he lost in the 8th inning, I believe. The man always flirted with greatness but could never quite get there.
Walter White Walker
Member
I want Edgar Martinez in now. Randy Johnson agrees with me so let's make this happen.
XiaNaphryz
LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT
Right, because of the surge he had in his late 30s. He was on a normal career path that was tapering off in his mid 30s, then had an explosion of power that's literally unique in baseball history in his late 30s.
Oh yes he was. His WAR from age 29 to 33 is listed this way:
9.4
8.0
7.9
3.6
Totally normal aging curve there: a peak at 28/29 with a gradual decline afterwards in to his early 30s. That curve looks totally normal. The next three years look like this:
7.5
11.6
11.6
A sudden, dramatic ramp back upwards that made his age 37 season better than any season he had in his "prime" 27-32 years.
Maybe he's just a genetic freak who happened to reach his physical peak at age 37. I think it's more likely that he had significant help.
Please note that all of this is different from saying that Bonds wasn't a HoF caliber player without steroids (he was) or saying that others weren't juicing too. I'm only showing here that steroids clearly boosted his performance in the latter stages of his career.
It should be noted that he had injuries for a good portion of that 1999 season and missed like 40% of games that year, which is why his WAR dropped so much there.
It should be noted that he had injuries for a good portion of that 1999 season and missed like 40% of games that year, which is why his WAR dropped so much there.
This is true, but there are a couple of responses to this as well:
1) Injuries are more common as you get older. Or at least, they usually are. A lot of decline for many players comes not just from declining daily performance, but from a need to play fewer and fewer games as the player gets older.
2) Bonds played 102 games in 1999. If we extrapolate that over an expected 155 games a year (about what he had been averaging over his career), that equates to ~5.3 WAR, which is notably better than 3.6 but also still a notable decline from 7.9 (which was itself a notable decline from 9.4 two years prior).
Again, not saying that Bonds was a bad player, or that he wasn't a HOFer. Just showing that the evidence clearly suggests he got a lot of help in his later years.
XiaNaphryz
LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT
2) Bonds played 102 games in 1999. If we extrapolate that over an expected 155 games a year (about what he had been averaging over his career), that equates to ~5.3 WAR, which is notably better than 3.6 but also still a notable decline from 7.9 (which was itself a notable decline from 9.4 two years prior).
If i recall right from watching games that year, Bonds was also playing hurt for several of those games as well, so a straightforward extrapolation wouldn't necessarily tell the whole story either.
I get your overall point, just wanted to state that his 99 season was an outlier.
I think we should let the PED guys in the Hall, although that will probably take some time. Let the guys from the 90's in the Hall, but severely punish and properly test the players now. Clean up the game.
Also, let Pete Rose in the Hall, and Shoeless Joe. Rose should still be banned from working with a club or for the MLB, but I think he belongs in the Hall of Fame.
Also, let Pete Rose in the Hall, and Shoeless Joe. Rose should still be banned from working with a club or for the MLB, but I think he belongs in the Hall of Fame.
XiaNaphryz
LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT
I think we should let the PED guys in the Hall, although that will probably take some time. Let the guys from the 90's in the Hall, but severely punish and properly test the players now. Clean up the game.
Also, let Pete Rose in the Hall, and Shoeless Joe. Rose should still be banned from working with a club or for the MLB, but I think he belongs in the Hall of Fame.
Rose will likely get in some time after he dies and his exemption time is up.
Little Green Yoda
Member
Mussina wasn't much of a groundball type pitcher with the exception of his last season in 2008. His GB/FB ratio is roughly league average every other season. Besides, power pitchers who can limit BBs/HRs and eat innings will always be better pitchers than those who pitch to contact.Mussina wasn't a power pitcher though either. He was a groundball type of pitcher. He had several near 20-win seasons and a couple of near perfect games that he loss in the 9th inning - like the one against the RedSox. I think he was an under the radar gem for his time & now is the time for him to be recognized for a stellar career.
Mussina should be in the HoF and has better credentials (outside of narrative) than Smoltz though.
TarpitCarnivore
Member
Please note that all of this is different from saying that Bonds wasn't a HoF caliber player without steroids (he was) or saying that others weren't juicing too. I'm only showing here that steroids clearly boosted his performance in the latter stages of his career.
I don't disagree here, even though I may seem to be contradicting myself based on previous statements. There is no question that PEDs allow athletes to train at an unusual level with faster recovery. I just dislike the sweeping generalizations that PEDs == immediate success.
For every Bonds there are a bunch of blokes who went on something and had no impact. Which, if I had to hypothesize, largely comes down to work ethic.
So not only was Smoltz grossly underqualified for the hall as a player, he's also apparently a huge homophobe. Aren't voters supposed to take a player's moral character into consideration? That should have disqualified him right off the bat.
Delta Assault
Member
So not only was Smoltz grossly underqualified for the hall as a player, he's also apparently a huge homophobe. Aren't voters supposed to take a player's moral character into consideration? That should have disqualified him right off the bat.
...Ty Cobb's in the Hall of Fame.
]So not only was Smoltz grossly underqualified for the hall as a player,[/B] he's also apparently a huge homophobe. Aren't voters supposed to take a player's moral character into consideration? That should have disqualified him right off the bat.
How do you figure?
...Ty Cobb's in the Hall of Fame.
I'm not sure that justifies things. Saying mistakes were made in the past does not necessarily mean mistakes should be made in the future.
Unless you think neither is a mistake, which is also consistent.
Delta Assault
Member
I'm not sure that justifies things. Saying mistakes were made in the past does not necessarily mean mistakes should be made in the future.
Unless you think neither is a mistake, which is also consistent.
I'm just thinking that if those voters are trying to be consistent, which seems like a sensible thing to do, then that moral character consideration obviously isn't worth a whole lot.
How do you figure?
He was good but not great for most of his career.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.