OT: Player who didn’t make the baseball Hall of Fame that you think should? | Page 4 | The Boneyard

OT: Player who didn’t make the baseball Hall of Fame that you think should?

Who should be a hall of gamer before time runs out?

  • Total voters
    135
Clemens was done when he left the Red Sox, then suddenly he was renewed beyond belief and got better and better the older he got. His entire post-Red Sox career was fueled by steroids.
 
ZenConn said:
Bonds and Clemens should be in. PED's isn't only limited to the the 90's and up and has been in baseball from the start - from creatine to HGH to amphetamines and everything in between.

Hell, I once read that Babe Ruth once tried to inject himself with some sort of steroid or testosterone from a sheep or something and got himself sick.
Expand ...
100% agreed, we have no clue who was using steroids before hand but the assumption should be that there were a good amount. Mlb used bonds, Clemens and others as scapegoats, but is it really fair to punish them because they were using steroids when baseball started placinh an emphasis on testing?

Think of guys like ken Griffey jr, who more or less came right before the era mlb started testing hard. Not saying he did steroids because there’s no proof, but he also played in a time when steroids were rampant, and showed a similar trajectory (both stats and physical build) to other known steroid users. But people consider him definition of a hall of famer (deservedly). Why no links to steroids? Because he wasn’t tested like bonds or Clemens and because people thought he had a perfect swing.

Really don’t think there’s a good solution to steroid users other than to put them in.
 
FlippinCrazy! said:
100% agreed, we have no clue who was using steroids before hand but the assumption should be that there were a good amount. Mlb used bonds, Clemens and others as scapegoats, but is it really fair to punish them because they were using steroids when baseball started placinh an emphasis on testing?

Think of guys like ken Griffey jr, who more or less came right before the era mlb started testing hard. Not saying he did steroids because there’s no proof, but he also played in a time when steroids were rampant, and showed a similar trajectory (both stats and physical build) to other known steroid users. But people consider him definition of a hall of famer (deservedly). Why no links to steroids? Because he wasn’t tested like bonds or Clemens and because people thought he had a perfect swing.

Really don’t think there’s a good solution to steroid users other than to put them in.
Expand ...

Well Griffey also declined with age (as expected) unlike Bonds and Clemens.
 
Husky25 said:
Not that he deserves a plaque in The Hall, necessarily, but the BBWAA did Dwight Evans a great disservice when he fell off the ballot after his 3rd year of eligibility.
Expand ...

Noboby can explain how, if Baines is in, Evans is not. Evans' career OPS is 20 points higher, he has the same number of home runs, he finished in the top 5 in MVP voting twice vs. zero for Baines (and in the top ten 4 times vs. one for Baines), was one the best defensive outfielders of his era (8 gold gloves), hit 30+ homers 3 times vs. zero for Baines, and led the league in runs scored, home runs, OPS (twice) walks (3 times), total bases, and on base percentage at one point or another during his career. Baines led the league in an offensive category once -- slugging percentage in 1984.
 
Palatine said:
Clemens was done when he left the Red Sox, then suddenly he was renewed beyond belief and got better and better the older he got. His entire post-Red Sox career was fueled by steroids.
Expand ...
They were all on steroids.

Clemens was done when he left the Red Sox just like Verlander was done when he left the Tigers.
 
.-.
The Viking said:
Lifetime ERA/FIP/xFIP

Schilling - 3.45 / 3.23 / 3.17 (Postseason 11-2, 2.23 ERA, World Series 4-1, 2.06)
Mussina - 3.68 / 3.57 / 3.68 (Postseason 7-8, 3.42 ERA, World Series 1-1, 3.00)
Pettitte - 3.85 / 3.74 / 3.70 (Postseason 19-11, 3.81 ERA, World Series 5-4, 4.06)

Of the three, Schilling is the best.
Expand ...

I was lukewarm on Mussina, but after looking over his stats again, I don't think his inclusion is egregious.
270 wins, 2800 K's, 9 top-6 Cy Young finishes, 83 bWAR including 10 5-WAR seasons. The only knock on Mussina is that he never won a Cy Young or a World Series.

Pettitte is a no. His counting stats are close to Mussina, but only 5 top-6 Cy finishes, 61 bWAR, and only 3(!) seasons with >4 WAR. He was solid, but rarely outstanding. The biggest thing going for him is being the 5th or 6th best player on a team that won 5 World Series. That's not enough for me.

Schilling is tough, but I ultimately lean towards yes. Paltry win total (216), but he got 3K strikeouts. Only 4 top-4 Cy finishes, though tough luck in two of those years, 2001 and 2002, when he had over 17 bWAR total and probably would have won it if Randy Johnson was in the AL. 81 total bWAR and a clearly defined peak , unlike Pettitte, gives a HOF feel to his career. Add in that the postseason heroics and I think he belongs. He was one of the defining pitchers of his era.
 
ZenConn said:
Bonds and Clemens should be in. PED's isn't only limited to the the 90's and up and has been in baseball from the start - from creatine to HGH to amphetamines and everything in between.

Hell, I once read that Babe Ruth once tried to inject himself with some sort of steroid or testosterone from a sheep or something and got himself sick.
Expand ...

Not to mention all the pitchers with their spitballs and Vagisil. Corked bats. etc.
 
AZHuskiePop said:
I think the steroid era has as much to do with the unanimous voting as his greatness
I think the field is shrunk considerably when certain guys are excluded .
Expand ...

By that token Pedro should have been unanimous too. Outside of being the best pitcher I've personally seen in my lifetime, he flat out dominated 98-01 during the heart of the steroid era. Pedro starts were absolute must watch TV during that time, if you were a baseball fan in general.
 
intlzncster said:
By that token Pedro should have been unanimous too. Outside of being the best pitcher I've personally seen in my lifetime, he flat out dominated 98-01 during the heart of the steroid era. Pedro starts were absolute must watch TV during that time, if you were a baseball fan in general.
Expand ...

Same with Mariano steroid era, heck still is, best closer, reliever ever and it's not close. I think Pedro was great, dominating but isn't the best pitcher ever although you can argue maybe . Hence the deserving 100%.
 
.-.
The HOF discussions are fun but there are unseen levels in the Hall. Babe, Lou, Williams, Mays, Mantle, Pedro, Koufax plus many more sit on an elite shelf. Mariano is on that shelf too but the 3 other guys that got in this year are not of their level IMO. Making it in supposedly puts all players in the same elite club but even here all things are not equal. BTW, anyone who has not been to Cooperstown should think about going because it’s quite a special town and place.
 
Excalibur said:
Noboby can explain how, if Baines is in, Evans is not. Evans' career OPS is 20 points higher, he has the same number of home runs, he finished in the top 5 in MVP voting twice vs. zero for Baines (and in the top ten 4 times vs. one for Baines), was one the best defensive outfielders of his era (8 gold gloves), hit 30+ homers 3 times vs. zero for Baines, and led the league in runs scored, home runs, OPS (twice) walks (3 times), total bases, and on base percentage at one point or another during his career. Baines led the league in an offensive category once -- slugging percentage in 1984.
Expand ...

Neither deserve to be in the HOF but Evans would have a better argument. He was a great OFer with one of the best arms ever in MLB but .272, 70 RBI a year isn't HOF numbers although there are worst in it. Baines a much better hitter in his prime but lasted only because he could hit, didn't play in the field all that much late and wasn't at all that good.
 
mauconnfan said:
Same with Mariano steroid era, heck still is, best closer, reliever ever and it's not close. I think Pedro was great, dominating but isn't the best pitcher ever although you can argue maybe . Hence the deserving 100%.
Expand ...

I mean, you can make that delineation if you want (best ever at position), but all the other guys already in the Hall didn't get that same treatment. The Top 5 guys to ever play the game (at any position) aren't unanimous, so it's hard to now arbitrarily apply that same label. And I think we can agree that Mariano is not in the Top 5 (any position) to ever play the game.

I'm also not saying Pedro was the best ever. Just the best I've seen in my lifetime. I can't speak to the hundred odd years before me.

And I'm not at all saying that because I am a Sox fan. You can go back and watch him pitch, and even now, it's mind boggling stuff. I still don't know how he did what he did with a baseball.

I won't be surprised if Jeter gets in unanimously*, mainly, because sportswriters loved his button up straight-edged style. And he does not remotely deserve it under your criteria.

*although if there's a Marlins writer voting, there's a chance he takes out the current state of the club on Jeter's candidacy lol
 
I’m honestly surprised by Mussina. He was an above average pitcher but HOF? If he’s in will we see someone like Josh Beckett, Mark Burhle, Cliff Lee?
 
mauconnfan said:
Neither deserve to be in the HOF but Evans would have a better argument. He was a great OFer with one of the best arms ever in MLB but .272, 70 RBI a year isn't HOF numbers although there are worst in it. Baines a much better hitter in his prime but lasted only because he could hit, didn't play in the field all that much late and wasn't at all that good.
Expand ...

I don't think Evans is a HOFer. But that's because I don't think Baines is either.

Voters criteria just seems to shift from year to year and it's annoying.
 
.-.
intlzncster said:
I don't think Evans is a HOFer. But that's because I don't think Baines is either.

Voters criteria just seems to shift from year to year and it's annoying.
Expand ...

I'm not saying that Evans is a HoFer. I think he should have gotten more consideration.

BBWAA criteria is drastically different than the Veteran's Committee. I can understand if a player was close and exhausted his 15 year window. Baines fell off the ballot in year 6. Evan's had a better career and was done after 3.
 
Last edited:
Slasher said:
Well Griffey also declined with age (as expected) unlike Bonds and Clemens.
Expand ...

You can't make that distinction. Some guys break down early because all that muscle and power puts strain on their tendons/joints (which aren't bolstered in the same way by steroids). Without real medical analysis, you can't tell.

In fact, I've heard people claim that Pedro must have been using because he broke down when he was in his early to mid 30s. It's laughable logic.
  • He was built like a wet noodle, so clearly it wasn't muscle enhancing steroids.
  • What about Lance Armstrong style blood doping PEDs for recovery/longevity purposes? Well, he must have stopped using when he was like 30 yrs old, because he broke down quick.
  • Most likely scenario (occams razor): guys built as small/slight as him, who throw as hard as he did, with severe whipping motion, break down early because their slight frames can't handle that kind of torque. eg. Tim Linecum
  • Whereas, guys who are built like houses Randy Johnson, Nolan Ryan, etc can last forever.
If I had to, I'd wager that Pedro was one of the guys not using (same with Mariano). But I wouldn't bet the house on a single player from that era. Firmly in the 'everybody's suspect' camp.
 
Last edited:
intlzncster said:
I mean, you can make that delineation if you want (best ever at position), but all the other guys already in the Hall didn't get that same treatment. The Top 5 guys to ever play the game (at any position) aren't unanimous, so it's hard to now arbitrarily apply that same label. And I think we can agree that Mariano is not in the Top 5 (any position) to ever play the game.

I'm also not saying Pedro was the best ever. Just the best I've seen in my lifetime. I can't speak to the hundred odd years before me.

And I'm not at all saying that because I am a Sox fan. You can go back and watch him pitch, and even now, it's mind boggling stuff. I still don't know how he did what he did with a baseball.

I won't be surprised if Jeter gets in unanimously*, mainly, because sportswriters loved his button up straight-edged style. And he does not remotely deserve it under your criteria.

*although if there's a Marlins writer voting, there's a chance he takes out the current state of the club on Jeter's candidacy lol
Expand ...

I don' think there's any way #2 gets unanimous, just my 2 cents.

Pedro, Mariano - steroid era we speak of who knows what either were doing. Would love to believe both were clean but who knows, who cares. 2 greats!
 
mauconnfan said:
Pedro, Mariano - steroid era we speak of who knows what either were doing. Would love to believe both were clean but who knows, who cares. 2 greats!
Expand ...

Exactly. Nobody knows. And that furthers the point that all these guys should be in the Hall.

I was only saying, if I was forced to bet on great players who weren't juicing, I'd bet on the Pedro's and Mariano's of the world.

But I wouldn't bet the house.
 
bballgrda said:
Hilarious that some posters are citing RBI
Expand ...

Hilarious that no one would:rolleyes:....if you don't drive in runs what the heck you doing offensively unless you lead off? It's called baseball and it's been one of the main stats forever hasn't changed.
 
.-.
mauconnfan said:
Neither deserve to be in the HOF but Evans would have a better argument. He was a great OFer with one of the best arms ever in MLB but .272, 70 RBI a year isn't HOF numbers although there are worst in it. Baines a much better hitter in his prime but lasted only because he could hit, didn't play in the field all that much late and wasn't at all that good.
Expand ...

I'm with you that neither should be in. But a much better hitter in his prime? Do the numbers I posted mean anything? Baines had a prettier swing, that's about it.

Evans' two best seasons:

1987 -- .305 BA, 34 HR, 123 RBI, .986 OPS, 106 walks.
1982 -- .292 BA, 32 HR, 98 RBI, .932 OPS, 112 walks.
(his 1981 season was actually better but tough to compare due to the strike)

Baines' best two:

1984 -- .304 BA, 29 HR, 94 RBI, .903 OPS, 54 walks
1999 -- .312 BA, 25 HR, 103 RBI, .919 OPS, 54 walks (extra credit for doing this at age 40)
 
It always amazes me that Dave Winfield got in but Evans didn't get a whiff and was dropped off the ballot.
Evans had a higher WAR (a counting stat) despite having 2000 less at bats and won a ton of gold gloves playing the toughest right field in baseball
 
Not to mention Evans OPS in world series games was .977 while winfield was .414
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,640
Messages
4,587,419
Members
10,497
Latest member
Orlando Fos


Top Bottom