Which of these players would you elect to the Hall?

[BMW]

I voted Griffey, ARod and Pete Rose. Because I don't think some on the list are good enough to make it (Palmeiro, Thome, Jackson, Belle), and some of them I don't like (Bonds, McGwire, Sosa).

[nanwynnfan]

Just taking a look at Barry Bonds' batting production before the whole steroids fiasco began [at least the accusations and pre-trial convictions], most fans would probably agree that, between 1984 and 1999, Bonds had already put up a first-ballot HoF career.

Production:

Although Bonds had established himself as capable of >40 HR seasonal production a few times before the 2001 blowout year of 73, the exercise below backs out BOTH 2000 [49 HR] and 2001 [73 HR]; and then applies Bonds' HR production rate, before and after, in two segments:

1984 through 1999; 2002 through 2007.

Given that, if we look first at Bonds' run production per plate appearance, without 2000 and 2001, we get:

1,721 Runs Created in 8,534 PA = .2017, or 1 RC in every 4.96 PA.

If we take the same looks at Bonds' HR production per AB [because IBB skew PA so badly], we have Bonds, 1984 through 1999; and Bonds 2002 through 2007 @ HR/AB @ .072 or 1 HR for every 13.89 AB.

Over his entire career, Bonds has had 9,847 AB. At 7.2% HR rate that comes to 709 HR. THAT is the number that freezes Bonds' HR production rate [ex-2000 & 2001] and applies it to those seasons. We are debating, at the bottom line, 53 HR, disallowing any age anomalies for Bonds in the process.

Age

Much has been made about Bonds' performance and production relative to his age. However, the two seasons getting the most acute attention are the years he was 35 and 36 year old respectively.

The age arguers seem to find a default argument against power surge hitters; but aging in MLB is aging; so I figured, if I could find one player for each decade between 1901 and 2007 who performed way above expectation for age, I could make a point that age anomalies are more common than accusers would have us believe.

I did not limit myself to power anomalies, but average, OB% and slugging, relative to career for non-power players as well. One/decade is too simple a task:

Player...................Season..........Age...... ........BA/PB%/SLG

Wagner...................1911...........37........ ... .334/.423/.507
Speaker..................1925............37....... ... .389/.479/.578
Cobb......................1925............38...... .... .378/.468/.598
Ruth.......................1931............36..... ..... .376/.495/.700
Radcliff....................1941...........35..... ...... .311/.354/.411
Appling....................1947............41..... ..... .314/.423/.534
T. Williams................1957...........38......... .. .388/.526/.731
Musial.....................1962............41..... ...... .330/.416/.508
Rose.......................1979............38..... ....... .331/.418/.430
Winfield...................1988............36..... ....... .322/.398/.530
Gwynn....................1997............37....... ...... .372/.409/.527
Henderson...............1999............40........ ..... .315/.423/.466
Raines.....................1997............37..... ....... .321/.403/.454
Baines.....................1999............40..... ...... .312/.387/.533
McGriff....................2001............37..... ....... .306/.386/.544

What is astounding is Bonds' performance AFTER 2001, especially 2006 and 2007 after having lost a season to injury. I would argue that there is a counter-argument to be made in Bonds' defense, if we can reasonably expect that:

1. After 2001 and certainly 2002, no player with a brain, an advisor, an agent, a doctor or a lawyer would have dared play with 'roids and in the face of 'roids testing and screening, so that Bonds in his 40s is an outstanding specimen for enurance, rehab and underlying great natural talents.

2. Bonds, stripped of 2000 and 2001 and then relegated to "rest of career" rates comes out at 709 HR. However, his rate of performance, from 2002 through 2007 is better than ever before, ages 37 - 42]. This production; ongoing scrutiny; recovery from a season lost at age 40; conditioning and recovery argue for an astounding athlete in the post "hit-the-fan" years, unaided by anything other a Spartan regimine, plate discipline and talent.

3. The arguments over Bonds' cap size, weight znd overall girth go only so far. Filling out and gaining weight are normal factors of the aging process; so a guy going from 175-225 between the ages of 22 and 42 are not immediately suggestive of steroid use.

4. Some here have him pronounced guilty; and the jury is still out. They are out because they haven't even been screened or seated yet.

Bonds, as a natural talent is so far ahead of his generation, that the gap is hard to digest. Griffey is the only real comp; and everone gives him a "pass," despite swollen numbers and multiple injuries.

A-Rod and Pujols are similarly given passes; and I won't challenge those; but considerable portions of their careers [fate willing] are ahead of them, so projected heroics are just that: promissory notes not yet redeemed.

Nowhere am I arguing what a great guy Bonds is.

[Triad]

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

Coming at the subject from a different angle, I toss out past and present scandals, known and alleged, and look at productivity only, with no other subjecive or emotional elements involved.

I think that's the only rational and quantifiable way to approach measuring an athlete. Everything else becomes too political.

[kflo]

According to the excerpt, Anderson told an acquaintance who was wearing a wire in 2003 that: "The whole thing is, everything I've been doing, it's all undetectable. The stuff I have, we created it. You can't buy it anywhere else; you can't get it anywhere else. You can take [it] the day of [a drug test], pee, and it comes up clear.

Bonds had immunity in grand jury testimony from everything but perjury. He claimed in testimony that he didn't know what Anderson was giving him. "At the end of [the] 2002, 2003 season, when I was going through [a bad period], my dad died of cancer ... I was fatigued, just needed recovery you know, and this guy says, 'Try this cream, try this cream,'" he said. "And Greg came to the ballpark and said, you know, 'This will help you recover.' And he rubbed some cream on my arm ... gave me some flaxseed oil, man. It's like, 'Whatever, dude.'"

[nanwynnfan]

I would respectfully suggest that the above-quoted references to the Balco-Bonds alleged evil connection have absolutely NO place in this thread.

Kflo has repeatedly, obsessively and compulsively hammered home these "points" on another thread pretty well dedicated to Bonds condemnation and pronouncements of assumed guilt.

THIS thread is about players whom one would or would not elect into the HoF. It is not about use or abuse, which has its proper place over there, not here.

Just suggesting that enough might just be enough.

[kflo]

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

I would respectfully suggest that the above-quoted references to the Balco-Bonds alleged evil connection have absolutely NO place in this thread.

Kflo has repeatedly, obsessively and compulsively hammered home these "points" on another thread pretty well dedicated to Bonds condemnation and pronouncements of assumed guilt.

THIS thread is about players whom one would or would not elect into the HoF. It is not about use or abuse, which has its proper place over there, not here.

Just suggesting that enough might just be enough.

as long as you continue posting this:

After 2001 and certainly 2002, no player with a brain, an advisor, an agent, a doctor or a lawyer would have dared play with 'roids and in the face of 'roids testing and screening, so that Bonds in his 40s is an outstanding specimen for enurance, rehab and underlying great natural talents.

i'll have to keep reposting the above.

[nanwynnfan]

Fine. Now you've had the last word on two threads. Congratulations!

[kflo]

I just don't understand why you would continue putting forth that position given those quotes.

[nanwynnfan]

Since the thread is centered around a poll, established by the starter, here's a new angle.

If all voters who have already entered votes, and all new ballot casters had the option of Ichiro Suzuki added to the poll eligibles, how many would vote HIM in?

I ask this because active players have already been included.

[WilsonC]

Absolutely on Ichiro, without a doubt.

[nanwynnfan]

OK. That's two.

[bedir than average]

Originally Posted by WilsonC

Absolutely on Ichiro, without a doubt.

To vote him in you would have to say he is a pioneer of the game, as he did not play long enough in MLB. Now I'm quite a large fan of his, having advocated for him a full two years before he came to Seattle, but referring to him as a pioneer on the equal of Jackie Robinson or other Negro League players is a tad presumptuous.

Nothin forbid Japanese players from playing in the Majors, in fact several had done so already.

Now if Ichiro completes this contract (I'm certain he will) and has average or better loss of skills than I'm certain that he will put up numbers that have him in the Hall.

After 11 years in MLB he should have about
2300 Hits (top 75 with a vast majority of those ahead in the Hall)
1200 Runs
2700 Total Bases
.325 Batting Average
450 Steals
Top 100 MVP rank
9 Gold Gloves
10 AllStar Games


So would I vote for him if he retired now? No
Would I vote for him if he plays a minimum of 10 years? Almost certainly

[nanwynnfan]

[quote=bedir than average;142871]To vote him in you would have to say he is a pioneer of the game, as he did not play long enough in MLB. Now I'm quite a large fan of his, having advocated for him a full two years before he came to Seattle, but referring to him as a pioneer on the equal of Jackie Robinson or other Negro League players is a tad presumptuous."




When I posted the suggestion of Ichiro Suzuki and wanted to see votes he's get, I went under the assumption that, stressing his being an active player, the story remained untold. Pioneering did not enter into my mind at all; but in, fact, the adjustment to a new "world" of culture, language and competitive level is certainly a challenge worthy of consideration.

I would not have elected to dwell on the unique pioneering of black players, since that is really an internal problem of the American national family's own dysfunctionality; but Ichiro may well have had some psychological challenges almost as monstrous as those attending blacks 60 years ago. He came from leagues traditionally observed as less worthy than our own MLB level; he came from the nation that was our most hated foe in WW II; his true talent level was laid on the line at a late prime age; he faced significant cultural and language challenges, and the way players and fans interact on and off the field.

I did presume his career would continue at a consistent level for 4-5 years to come,

However, even at this point, without attempting to find unique elements to gild his greatness, he has already passed some incredible milestones:

-1st season, age 27, RoY and MVP;
-ALL seasons played to date, All Star;

I didn't check, but the all-time list certainly doesn't have too many players who have amassed a lifetime average of .333.

I did not presume either the voting would be on his career, frozen at this time. I nominated him for voting because other active players were on the ballot; and the book isn't closed on them, either.

My point was essentially to see how much support a non-power guy might get. Then too, let's not forget his awesome defense.

Morever, although it isn't totally relevant to a ballot here, there are some exceptions to the career longevity rule for HoF inclusion: Monte Irvin and Ross Youngs come immediately to mind.

[unreal654]

Any thoughts on Omar Vizquel? I really think his defense makes a good case for him getting in.

[kflo]

you also have guys like kent, bagwell, juan gonzalez, piazza, power guys who are linked to the era.

if ichiro's career ended abruptly, i think he'd get a puckett like reception to the hall.