OT Baseball HOF hypocrisy

[Scoe]

It's more than popularity but that doesn't fit your narrative. Not my words but the words of Tim Kirkjian on ESPN and most everybody other than Rob Parker on MLB Network and he historically hates everything Boston. Even Rob Manferd put Ortiz in a different category of Manny, ARod, Bonds, etc...signifying to voters that whatever he tested for in 2003 wasn't as bad or the same as some of the others. Again, Tim Kirkjians words not mine this morning on Sportscenter. Kirkjian said basically that the commissioner signaled to the voters that he was cleared. Good enough for Kirkjian and the voters. To say Ortiz history with enhancers is the same as Bonds and Clemens is an awful and inaccurate take. We will never know everyone who used steroids and how much. Nobody is considered innocent in my book. Not even Griffey Jr, Jeter, etc...There are degrees and circumstances though where some of it is egregious with some pretty damning evidence where you can't look the other way and some of it is not close to that level. Pudge, Bagwell, Piazza all in too cuz they were nice? Were Sosa, Palmiero, jerks?

Whatever put them all in who cares put Rose and Shoeless Joe in to I really don’t care.

 

[Deepster]

Rice was NOT a product of Fenway. He was one of the strongest guys in the league. I shook his hand, and his hand made my hand look like something from a doll. His hands were huge, The guy was the hulk. The thing about Fenway is that it giveth and taketh away. Line shots that would be homers in other parks are turned into doubles and sometimes singles by the green monster.

Just for comparison, how many other major leaguer's hands have you shaken?

 

[UCfor3]

Whatever put them all in who cares put Rose and Shoeless Joe in to I really don’t care.

Oh I agree with this completely, but as long as they are not, there will be these partisan arguments where some have an agenda. I'm a Sox fan so that was why I paraphrased the ESPN and MLB Network guys words so it wasn't just me being a complete homer. There were legit reasons, whether you agree with them or not, that went on behind the scenes with even Manfred involved that paved the way. It wasn't just that he was cordial to reporters or some popularity contest even though I'm sure the fact he's generally well liked didn't hurt and may have even helped a little. Character is actually one of the criteria so people having a problem with that is a bit of a mystery.

 

[nomar]

I don't know what cycle Ortiz or Sosa were on but I know they were both on the '03 list that was supposed to be kept quiet and one guy is paying the price for it and the other isn't. You're a child if you think you can tell who took steroids and who didn't just by looking at them. Sosa hit 33 homers at 24 years old. They had very similar trajectories but Sosa proved he was a big time MLB homerun hitter earlier than Ortiz. I couldn't stand Sosa but there is no rationale for keeping one guy out and putting one guy in when they both have no doubt Hall of Fame #'s and both have the same steroid stain. This isn't supposed to be a popularity contest.

You also say McGwire doesn't belong. He was the best homerun hitter in MLB the day he stepped into major league baseball. He was hitting mammoth tape measure shots right away and hit 49 his rookie year, only missing 50 for the birth of his kid. He doesn't get in because he's one of the only people who eventually told the truth?

The hypocrisy is just stunning from MLB. Condone it...make all that money off of it...then punish the guys that made you all that money and saved the sport. Most of the league was doing it from the minor leaguers fighting for a contract to the guys on small contracts fighting for a bigger contract to the best players in the sport. Yet we're going to pin all of this on the creme de la creme, the best players ever in the sport while lesser players get a free pass and get into the Hall. The hypocrisy from the people who run MLB, down to the writers, and all the way down to the fans who will argue their favorite guy deserves it while others don't is just stunning.

Oh come on. Did you think I'm not going to point out that the year in which McGwire hit 49 homers as a twig was 1987, the same year (off the top of my head) that Wade Boggs hit 24 homers? The juice ball year? He didn't put up numbers until he turned into the Incredible Hulk.

Rabbit Ball: the wacky 1987 baseball season

1987 was the first year I truly started paying attention to baseball statistics.

mlb.nbcsports.com

I provided a bunch of data points and you chose what to rebut. We'll agree to disagree.

 

[8893]

Just for comparison, how many other major leaguer's hands have you shaken?

Lol. I think we need to see a Pal hand shot.

 

[nomar]

Just for comparison, how many other major leaguer's hands have you shaken?

I shook Scott Kazmir's hand. Small. He smelled like cabbage.

 

[nomar]

Oh come on. Did you think I'm not going to point out that the year in which McGwire hit 49 homers as a twig was 1987, the same year (off the top of my head) that Wade Boggs hit 24 homers? The juice ball year? He didn't put up numbers until he turned into the Incredible Hulk.

Rabbit Ball: the wacky 1987 baseball season

1987 was the first year I truly started paying attention to baseball statistics.

mlb.nbcsports.com

I provided a bunch of data points and you chose what to rebut. We'll agree to disagree.

Just to amend my comment on McGwire slightly, he was obviously a good power hitter with a good eye prior to 1995. But he was not a good contact hitter and he certainly didn't hit more HRs than singles until miraculously, after two years basically sidelined to due injury, he showed up looking like Hulk Hogan.

Also, as you say, McGwire admitted it. Good for him for being honest. But I just don't see his pre-1995 output as being HOF worthy as opposed to, say, those of Bonds and Clemens.

Sosa and McGwire were peers. Their bodies changed at around the same. Their numbers went from good to BABE RUTH at around the same time. They both were done by the time Canseco's book came out.

Throwing Ortiz in the same box smacks of bias notwithstanding the claim that you're treating them all the same.

Yeah, I'm a Sox fan. I don't Manny should be in. I do think Clemens should be in. I think Pettite isn't a HOFer based on the numbers, but I believe he took HGH for a short period of time and if he was a HOF-caliber player I'd put him in.

I don't think the "all or nothing" approach is appropriate. I think it's appropriate for everyone to form their own opinion on every player on an individual basis.

 

[tzznandrew]

I’d like this twice if I could. It’s becoming the Hall of Good.

I think Papi being a likeable guy helped his cause. Bonds, A-Rod, Clemens, etc were notorious d-bags. Kinda like Laettner…

The worst players in the Hall were put in in the 1940s-1970s. The Vets have put in some questionable guys recently, but there were way fewer teams and a higher proportion of guys got in.

 

[mauconnfan]

Beyond the fact that Sosa's body (and head) completely changed, that at age 29 he started putting up video game stats (forget Papi's allegedly suspicious improvement -- this dude put up 66-63-50-64!!!), that he pretended not to be able speak English when called before Congress, that he told Jeremy Schaap that he "did what he had to do," and that he got caught with a corked bat, they're exactly the same.

And you didn't answer my question. I'm curious. You said Ortiz took steroids. Which steroids? Be specific. What is your source, besides your own ass?

Sosa Is Said to Have Tested Positive in 2003 (Published 2009)

Sammy Sosa, who joined Mark McGwire in 1998 in pursuit of the single-season home run record, is said to be among players who tested positive for a performance-enhancing drug.

www.nytimes.com

Sosa and Papi familiar stories of denial and yet most believe they both tested positive for PEDs 2003. Sosa not even close to the hitter Papi was but again, lying cheats. Is what it is but please put Bonds, Clemens and ARod in now so it’s not such a mockery.

 

[nomar]

Sosa Is Said to Have Tested Positive in 2003 (Published 2009)

Sammy Sosa, who joined Mark McGwire in 1998 in pursuit of the single-season home run record, is said to be among players who tested positive for a performance-enhancing drug.

www.nytimes.com

Sosa and Papi familiar stories of denial and yet most believe they both tested positive for PEDs 2003. Sosa not even close to the hitter Papi was but again, lying cheats. Is what it is but please put Bonds, Clemens and ARod in now so it’s not such a mockery.

I keep omitting A-Rod but I'd vote him in too. With those 3 guys I just have zero doubt that they'd have been HOFers if they never took anything stronger than Tylenol.

 

[boba]

An observation - in threads like this you can really ID the Yankee fans and the Red Sox fans.

None of the following belong in the Baseball Hall of Fame: Bonds, Rodriquez, Schilling, Clemens.
An observation: your hypothesis is s h e e t.

 

[HuskyHawk]

This is naive. PED were rampant in the 80's/90's. The names you know have one of three reasons yoy know. 1. The confessed, tested positive. 2. They played in New York/Boston or were otherwise connected to the Mets trainer that was the primary source in the area. 3. They were ratted out by someone in categories 1 or 2.

If you look at the list, an outsized number of players were from the Caribbean, specifically DR. The incenctive to escape extreme poverty to play made using a non-choice. Ortiz was clearly one of those guys.

Its the Lance Armstrong tell, anyone doing extraordinary physical feats against people doing PEDs, was by default also using PED's. You can decide how you feel about it, but you can't deny it.

Yep. Let them all in. Bonds belongs. Clemens belongs. ARod belongs. Roids were prevalent for awhile, and batters and pitchers were both advantaged in that era. So its a wash. Ortiz never tested positive and his best years came after the testing was implemented. He was inducted as he should be. Schilling belongs as well, even if he has options that annoy most writers.

 

[Scoe]

Yep. Let them all in. Bonds belongs. Clemens belongs. ARod belongs. Roids were prevalent for awhile, and batters and pitchers were both advantaged in that era. So its a wash. Ortiz never tested positive and his best years came after the testing was implemented. He was inducted as he should be. Schilling belongs as well, even if he has options that annoy most writers.

I would even put Rose in and shoeless Joe.

 

[boog204]

One thing I've always considered about the Mitchell Report, is that there are 89 players officially named/leaked (this doesn't include ANY Red Sox or ARod, those names were leaked later). Of those 89, 73 either admitted they used or had clear evidence (checks written to suppliers or clubhouse confiscation). The other 16 all are in the trainers or Balco's "books" so there's something there. I totally get the "false positive/not sure what was tested" narrative. But it seems like the vast majority of those connected to the Mitchell Report were users by admission. Wikipedia breaks it down here --> List of Major League Baseball players named in the Mitchell Report - Wikipedia

On the "never failed a test" angle, Bonds supposedly failed one test for Greenies; what we all know many legends were using for many, many years and Clemens never failed an official test. So the Papi is clean because he never failed argument is lame, too, imo. If we are 100% certain that Bonds and Clemens were using, but they do not have a pure steroid fail, should we give them a pass, too?

I'm a Yankee fan, Papi should be in as he was one of the best players of his era; an era that included rampant steroid use by way more guys than I think we will ever know. I mean as a Yankee fan the only guys who would surprise me would be Mo and Jeter because their bodies and skill decline seemed natural to me. I'd almost assume that the vast majority of the rest were on something. Papi should be in, however, he should not be in before Bonds and Clemens.

 

[Scoe]

Now they are not testing for Steroids, I’m fine with it get a deal done now.

 

[navery12]

Now they are not testing for Steroids, I’m fine with it get a deal done now.

That's not true, they're not testing because there's no MLB players to test. Once the lockout ends testing will start again

 

[ColchVEGAS]

Thanks for that update. I was confused by the no steroid testing as well, and assumed it would be back in place once an agreement was made

 

[Scoe]

That's not true, they're not testing because there's no MLB players to test. Once the lockout ends testing will start again

Ok that would make sense, damn was hoping we would get steroids back in baseball lol.

 

[navery12]

Ok that would make sense, damn was hoping we would get steroids back in baseball lol.

I would also sign up for steroids back in baseball. Maybe they'll get distracted by everything else in the CBA they can't agree on and forget to add in testing lol

 

[Connecticut13]

One thing I've always considered about the Mitchell Report, is that there are 89 players officially named/leaked (this doesn't include ANY Red Sox or ARod, those names were leaked later). Of those 89, 73 either admitted they used or had clear evidence (checks written to suppliers or clubhouse confiscation). The other 16 all are in the trainers or Balco's "books" so there's something there. I totally get the "false positive/not sure what was tested" narrative. But it seems like the vast majority of those connected to the Mitchell Report were users by admission. Wikipedia breaks it down here --> List of Major League Baseball players named in the Mitchell Report - Wikipedia

On the "never failed a test" angle, Bonds supposedly failed one test for Greenies; what we all know many legends were using for many, many years and Clemens never failed an official test. So the Papi is clean because he never failed argument is lame, too, imo. If we are 100% certain that Bonds and Clemens were using, but they do not have a pure steroid fail, should we give them a pass, too?

I'm a Yankee fan, Papi should be in as he was one of the best players of his era; an era that included rampant steroid use by way more guys than I think we will ever know. I mean as a Yankee fan the only guys who would surprise me would be Mo and Jeter because their bodies and skill decline seemed natural to me. I'd almost assume that the vast majority of the rest were on something. Papi should be in, however, he should not be in before Bonds and Clemens.

Ortiz played in a different period than Bonds (although I know there was some overlap). There was widespread testing for much of Ortiz’s career and certainly for his best years. So, I view them differently.

Ultimately, it’s still a question of proof. It’s not a criminal trial, sure, but do we have proof beyond a reasonable doubt? I know some of you will disagree, but I don’t think we do. And if we’re going to keep someone out of the HOF, I think we need that proof.

 

[StllH8L8ner]

One thing I've always considered about the Mitchell Report, is that there are 89 players officially named/leaked (this doesn't include ANY Red Sox or ARod, those names were leaked later). Of those 89, 73 either admitted they used or had clear evidence (checks written to suppliers or clubhouse confiscation). The other 16 all are in the trainers or Balco's "books" so there's something there. I totally get the "false positive/not sure what was tested" narrative. But it seems like the vast majority of those connected to the Mitchell Report were users by admission. Wikipedia breaks it down here --> List of Major League Baseball players named in the Mitchell Report - Wikipedia

On the "never failed a test" angle, Bonds supposedly failed one test for Greenies; what we all know many legends were using for many, many years and Clemens never failed an official test. So the Papi is clean because he never failed argument is lame, too, imo. If we are 100% certain that Bonds and Clemens were using, but they do not have a pure steroid fail, should we give them a pass, too?

I'm a Yankee fan, Papi should be in as he was one of the best players of his era; an era that included rampant steroid use by way more guys than I think we will ever know. I mean as a Yankee fan the only guys who would surprise me would be Mo and Jeter because their bodies and skill decline seemed natural to me. I'd almost assume that the vast majority of the rest were on something. Papi should be in, however, he should not be in before Bonds and Clemens.

There is a reason no Sox were listed in the Mitchell report:

 

[UncleSpliff]

Ortiz played in a different period than Bonds (although I know there was some overlap). There was widespread testing for much of Ortiz’s career and certainly for his best years. So, I view them differently.

Ultimately, it’s still a question of proof. It’s not a criminal trial, sure, but do we have proof beyond a reasonable doubt? I know some of you will disagree, but I don’t think we do. And if we’re going to keep someone out of the HOF, I think we need that proof.

They didn’t start testing for HGH until about 2013-2014. That’s the drug most of these mlb guys were doing after the hard anabolics of the 90s and early 2000s and there was no testing for it for most of Ortiz’s career. Now these guys micro dose. Take very small amounts of the drug that exit your system in 24 hours or less. There’s countless ways to beat these drug tests. MLB doesn’t use a USADA level drug testing protocol like they do in the Olympics or fighting where they literally show up at your house at 2am with a testing kit randomly. These guys know when they’re gonna be tested. The mlb testing protocol is a joke.

 

[boog204]

There is a reason no Sox were listed in the Mitchell report:
View attachment 73179

Oh, I know! Didn't want the totally biased Yankee fan in me to come out just yet.

 

[boog204]

Ortiz played in a different period than Bonds (although I know there was some overlap). There was widespread testing for much of Ortiz’s career and certainly for his best years. So, I view them differently.

Ultimately, it’s still a question of proof. It’s not a criminal trial, sure, but do we have proof beyond a reasonable doubt? I know some of you will disagree, but I don’t think we do. And if we’re going to keep someone out of the HOF, I think we need that proof.

Of course and really it's the court of public opinion and trying to connect dots. I truly believe that the far majority of baseball fans believe that Ortiz was using. Those that don't are Red Sox fans. We could say the same for Piazza, Bagwell, and many others who are already in the HOF.

I cannot distance myself from the fact that the vast majority of the names on the original failed test list were in-fact users. Why Ortiz is the one guy who's test is deemed invalid is beyond my understanding. Most of the other admitted guys on that list didn't fail tests either.

Honestly, I don't blame any guy who did PEDs and if you were made better as a result and got away with it, all power to you. I certainly didn't mind when Pettitte was pitching well or Giambi was hitting homeruns against Pedro to keep us in the game in 2003. Scumbag though he is, watching Bonds turn into a video game player was awesome. It was incredible to watch someone who was just infinitely better than anyone else. And, to be honest, I'd take the steroid era in a heartbeat when games were exciting and interesting over the complete drudgery that is solo homeruns, shifts, and the endless strikeout baseball of 2022.

 

[Scoe]

Universal DH and a draft lottery now. The one league that draft lottery makes the most sense is the NFL. MLB draft is such a crap shoot.