|
Post by harlem on Jan 8, 2007 13:30:15 GMT -5
The 2007 inductee will be announced tomorrow, I think.
So the big question...
Does McGwire get in?
Does he even get enough votes to stay on the ballot?
|
|
|
Post by Doobs on Jan 8, 2007 14:00:01 GMT -5
He will garner about %25. Enough to stay on, but not enough to get in.
|
|
|
Post by ndbooster on Jan 8, 2007 15:00:20 GMT -5
I think he gets more than 25%, but will not be elected. Steroids will be a factor in keeping his vote total down, as it probably should be.
|
|
|
Post by harlem on Jan 9, 2007 7:19:36 GMT -5
The original straw poll back in November showed he did not have 25% of the writer's support. Kind of odd, considering he played when steroids were not a banned substance in the game.
|
|
|
Post by theforty on Jan 9, 2007 8:55:58 GMT -5
Have to agree with Harlem. When he played, it was not against the rules. I simply think it is wrong to hold people to a set of rules not on the books after the fact, no matter how well intentioned the reasoning may be.
His congressional hearing stance may have been regrettable, but I can't honestly say that I think it discredited the game - or if it did so - surely no worse than the actions of many, many other players, some of whom are in the Hall.
|
|
|
Post by Doobs on Jan 9, 2007 14:19:05 GMT -5
Cal and Tony got in. No Mark!
|
|
|
Post by ndbooster on Jan 9, 2007 15:16:49 GMT -5
Wow, Albert Belle only got 19 votes; maybe he wasn't the equal of Hank Greenberg after a
|
|
|
Post by theforty on Jan 9, 2007 17:05:46 GMT -5
I realize that this is a silly exercise in its own right, and isn't meaningful at all, but....
Dave Concepcion received 1 more HOF vote than Alan Trammell?
I know Dave played on the Big Red Machine and all, but he was not the player Alan was. Period.
In any given year, Dave was at best the 5th best positional player on the Reds (Bench, Morgan, Rose, Perez), and that's if you assume he was better than George Foster or Griffey Sr. - an evaluation which does not strike me as clear. As great as the Big Red Machine was (and they were), they did not have 5 HOF caliber positional players in their line-up at any time.
Concepcion was a better fielder than Trammell, but he was not nearly a good enough fielder to offset the differences in hitting, which are pretty significant.
|
|
|
Post by harrypoland1683 on Jan 9, 2007 20:40:14 GMT -5
When you look at fielding average, Trammell was significantly (.976 v. 971) better SS than Concepcion. Trammell had 277 errors in 2139 games at SS (one every 7.72 games) versus Concepcion's 2178 games and 311 errors (one every 7 games).
However, I don't know if Tram should be in HOF. I go back and forth. If Tram left the Tigers in the 1980's for the Yankees, the Red Sox, or LA he probably would have a better chance in HOF electing just because of the media attention. Instead, Tram soldiered with Tigers in good times and awful times. That, to me, is his great contribution to baseball.
As for McGwire, MLB overlooked steroids for years. MLB was particularly happy to overlook them in 1998. The players, the league, and the owners made a lot of money from steroids and everyone was happy. It's only because of judicial proceedings and other investigations that the MLB and players union with reluctance had sorta kinda addressed steroids.
In sum, I am not in favor of McGwire in the HOF.
|
|
|
Post by theburns on Jan 9, 2007 20:58:41 GMT -5
I won't even dignify comparing Trammell with Concepcion. Its a joke to even mention Concepcion as a hall of famer.
I was surprised with the McGwire backlash, though.
|
|
|
Post by theforty on Jan 10, 2007 6:35:18 GMT -5
Pretty much agree with the last two posts - I think Trammell is a borderline HOF candidate and much more deserving candidate than Concepcion.
I will add one more item to the McGwire argument, though...To the best of my knowledge - and please correct me if I am wrong - he never tested positive to steriods, nor admitted to using them.
I believe he used steriods - and this is a very strong belief. But I don't think anybody has solid evidence he used steriods (or if they do, it is not been disclosed). Were I voting on the hall, I don't know how I could resolve there being no evidence and not voting for him. Just my take.
|
|
|
Post by harlem on Jan 10, 2007 6:57:28 GMT -5
I will add one more item to the McGwire argument, though...To the best of my knowledge - and please correct me if I am wrong - he never tested positive to steriods, nor admitted to using them. I believe he used steriods - and this is a very strong belief. But I don't think anybody has solid evidence he used steriods (or if they do, it is not been disclosed). Were I voting on the hall, I don't know how I could resolve there being no evidence and not voting for him. Just my take. Both Harrypoland and Theforty make good points regarding McGwire. I, like a Jm J Bullock, swing both ways on this. Whereas Pete Rose's violation and punishment were cut and dry and written in blood, McGwire's alledged steroid use was just that... alledged. You, me, and anyone with any semblance of brain matter knows that we did. However, he was not caught, and even if he was, it was not against the rules, regardless of what the rules are now. But the Hall of Fame is about voting. And the general collection of boobery known as sportwriters can do whatever they want. Rose cannot be voted in, because of his violation of the gambling rule. McGwire can. If the sportswriters do not vote him in, the Hall of Fame will not be any lesser of an institution. Granted, steroids are a different performance enhancer, but on the basic ideal, how is this different than the amphetamines and speed that were prevalent in the 60's and 70's? This were not a banned substance in baseball, were illegal in the US, and were used to increase output. That said, I, myself, would not vote for McGwire. Of course, I also would not vote for Mike Piazza, either. I just don't like him.
|
|
|
Post by theburns on Jan 10, 2007 7:45:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by pathasst on Jan 10, 2007 14:17:11 GMT -5
My first post, yeah. Anyone who knows me probably realizes (and I am sick of beating that dead horse) that I am pissed that Mr. Longevity (ooohh ahhhh) received more votes than a true HoF like Mr. Tony Gwynn.
|
|
|
Post by Doobs on Jan 10, 2007 14:45:19 GMT -5
I know your knowlege of baseball is more than likely 1000 times more than mine, but why are you down on Cal Ripken, Jr.? Both him and Gwynn were awesome! Looking at the stats they have similarities and differences. Yes Tony had a better average by 60 points and he had double the triples, but Cal had more HRs, walks and doubles. Not to mention the fact that he played in the most consecutive games ever. Don't get me wrong I like Tony, but for me Cal was better. Not to mention the fact that my son's midle name is Cal for that reason alone.
|
|