General Forum

Well if you're putting in Bonds/Clemens then McGwire/Sosa/Palmeiro go in as well .

I don't understand that argument; why would you need to group all players that were accused of PEDs as justification for their induction?

McGwire's numbers do not add up to HOF-levels, whether he used or not. Bonds and Clemens do.

Are we talking about including players based on their 'raw' numbers, or based on wanting to believe they would have already been inducted had this whole thing never occured?

Every retired 500 HR club member is in Cooperstown other than Bonds / Mcgwire / Sosa / Palmiero / Manny / Sheffield (Papi/A-Rod not eligible yet) (also why I was grouping them together) and notice what every one of them has in common they all played in mid 90's to 2000's when the PED's were banned which it what is keeping them all out IMHO . Put them all in or none of them .

ComposerMike wrote:

I don't understand that argument; why would you need to group all players that were accused of PEDs as justification for their induction?

McGwire's numbers do not add up to HOF-levels, whether he used or not. Bonds and Clemens do.

Are we talking about including players based on their 'raw' numbers, or based on wanting to believe they would have already been inducted had this whole thing never occured?

Yes, my stance has changed over the years. I can't even explain it that well. But I'm over it. Put 'em all in. McGwire has 583 HR, 11th on the all-time list. On sheer numbers, I'm sorry, he's a no-brainer. So are Clemens and Bonds and Sosa (and don't tell me the one stupid corked bat incident somehow makes him so much worse than the others), and ARod. And Palmiero, Manny, and Sheffield and Papi are all players who, without the steroids thing, get in on the second or third ballot. Put 'em in and move on. 

As to the Hall of Fame in general, with only a few exceptions, I still think it is the best HOF there is, appropriately difficult and truly elite. So I won't complain about the methods of people getting there, including the writers and committee. If were to tweak it, however, I'd forbid anyone on any committee who was closely associated with the player from having a vote. So no former managers, scouts who signed the player, owners who signed the player, maybe no one who played on the same team. They should all have the integrity to recuse themselves if there's no hard and fast rule. But one could come up with a hard and fast rule (that, yes, would still have holes) that would eliminate the Harold Baines problem. (Don't get me wrong. I loved Harold Baines and can even see the argument for including him. But still....no.)

v3

The Harold Baines problem . Funny how a Harold Baines can get in but a much more deserving guy (Gil Hodges/Steve Garvey) can't .

I have definite opinions on HOF inclusion and seldom comment on topics like this but will say that I agree with ComposerMike. McGwire's numbers, besides the home runs are not HOF numbers.  I was in Busch stadium and saw him hit #62 and also there for #69 & #70. It was exciting and I loved seeing him play but... to me he's not a Hall of Famer.  Happy to have had him with the Cards and able to see him play for several years but he was pretty one dimensional.  In my opinion the number of home runs aren't enough of a reason to put him in.

I will also say that Pete Rose was an unbelievable ball player and belongs in the Hall EXCEPT he bet on baseball.  There's no excuse like people will say for PEDs about there weren't rules against it.  Betting has been taboo since the Black Sox scandal and according to what I've read League representatives talk every year to the players about it in Spring Training.  Rose accepted, for good or bad the permanent banishment and now has to live with it.  I might feel different if he had admitted to it from the beginning but he didn't.  He denied for years, then it was, well... I did bet but it was only on other teams.  Then a few years later it was, well... I did bet on my team but only to win.  Then a few years later it was, well... I bet against them but never tried to influence the games.  
Sorry, great player but he broke the rules.

I'm loving the discussion on this topic. I like hearing everyone's point of view on it. 

Anyone ever consider to put them (the steroids group and that would include Papi eventually) in the HoF but not have an induction ceremony for them?

2020 would have been a perfect year for that, Bru.

To me at least, I feel like Pete Rose will get into the hall when he dies. 

I feel like Bonds was good enough for the hall even before taking steroids, winning 2 MVPs with Pittsburgh, and  one the first year he was with San Fran. I think it was somewhere around 2000 when he started using them, and looking at his stats from '86 to '99, a .288 BA & 163 OPS+
 

I believe Clemens used steroids in '98 (i may be wrong tho), and again in 2000 & 2001. That's 3 years out of 24. Yeah he won the Cy Young Award in both '98 and '01, but just a year earlier in '97 he won 21 games with an ERA of 2.05. And still there's his MVP 1986 season, as well as his '87, '90 and '91 seasons, so to me, he's good for the hall as well.

And for Shoeless Joe, his career average is .356, career average for hits is 216, and has an OPS+ of 170. As for the ban, if someone was trying to throw a WS, batting .375 seems to me like you aren't really throwing. (But we don't have defensive stats for the 1919 WS, so that's still a possibility of the claim)

I'd like to hear more from others as well