Which of these players would you elect to the Hall?

[Triad]

In light of the scandals or rumors surrounding some players, which of the players listed in the poll above do you think should be voted into the Hall of Fame? (select all that apply)

[John F]

It's hard to consider any of the 'Roid era players. And Pete Rose has admitted his transgressions - not making him any more electable.

[WilsonC]

All of them. This is assuming that any lifetime bans were lifted and left to the discretion of the voters.

[bedir than average]

Thome is one who I teetered on, and might consider him depending on his next few years.

Rose if he admitted it should probably be in, but he hasn't and so no.

Jackson just didn't do it long enough, totally due to the Black Sox issues, but the longevity isn't there for me.

What are the rumors/scandals around Griffey?

[unreal654]

Why are Thome, Griffey, and A-Rod on this list?

[John F]

A-Rod is a future HOF... Hell, if he hung up the spikes today he'd be in on the first vote. He's been a baseball wunderkind since he was drafted and since? He's put up the numbers.

Griffey on the other hand -- if he hadn't gotten injured (is the kingdome/astroturf to blame?) he'd be the one chasing Hank Aaron, without the help of human growth hormones and steroids.

Bonds ranks up there with Pete Rose as a disgraced player. As does Mac with thanks to his congressional testimony that didn't deny steroid use.

[WilsonC]

It's an interesting list to be sure. The two interesting names which really stand out to me are Thome and Belle. A-Rod and Griffey have no real scandals or suspicions around them and are no brainers in terms of performance. The top four have strong enough steroid allegations that it really becomes a belief system more than a talent evaluation. The bottom two were banned from Baseball, and again represents as much a belief system as anything else.

Which leaves Thome and Belle.

Jim Thome's a player who's offensive numbers would clearly be in the shoe-in category in any other era. 500+ HR and even has a chance to reach 600+, as well as being an OBP machine. He's basically Harmon Killebrew with a higher batting average. The only thing preventing him from being an absolute no-brainer is the offensive context in which he plays.

That can lead to a catch-22, depending on one's belief system regarding steroids and their effect on Baseball. For those who believe that steroids played a big part in the increased power numbers of the era, and in particular for Bonds, Sosa, McGwire, and Palmeiro, there's really only two reasonable conclusions:
- Thome did steroids, or
- Thome's a Hall of Famer

If we assume for a moment that the numbers of Sosa, McGwire, Bonds, and Palmeiro can be disregarded due to steroid use ( note: I am NOT advocating this point of view as my own, rather I am trying to look at Thome from the perspective of someone who does ) then all of a sudden Thome moves to #2 on the all-time AB/HR ratio, behind only Ruth. Thome's power numbers suddenly look even more impressive if you pretend the careers of the above four guys never happened and if you consider steroids to be a big part of the increased power numbers of the era.

Which brings up the dilema. Thome's a big, strong guy who fits the steriotype a lot of people have about steroid users. To my knowledge he's never had any real allegations of steroid use, aside from by those who are suspicious of everyone with any muscle mass. His career path isn't unusual, and he's always been a pretty big guy. Given his overall performance, if you assume that steroids are a major part of the recent power numbers, isn't a vote against Thome awfully close to an accusation of steroid use, despite the lack of even circumstancial evidence?

And then there's Albert Belle. He's a player who has a few things going against him:
1. His career was ended early, which meant that his career totals fall short of milestones, despite an outstanding and consistent peak.
2. He was often surly, had a terrible relationship with the media, and was involve in a few controvertial incidents.
3. He was a big strong guy who had a ton of power, automatically making him a steroid suspect to some people.

An interesting comparisson is Kirby Puckett. Puckett has a similar forced early retirement due to health issues. Belle was a more dominant hitter, easilly, although Puckett was a better defender. The difference between them was more in playstyle and personality than what they brought to the baseball field.

Puckett was a popular player, whereas Belle was not. That no doubt has a lot to do with how Puckett got in on the first ballot, and Belle was completely ignored - especially given Belle's relationship with the media. The other thing is that Belle is a name that often comes up with steroid suspicions, even though there's not really any smoke there beyond his being big and strong and a star power hitter. People may assume he would use steroids, because he often came off as a jerk in the small snapshots of his character that the media presented to us, but that's about it. Even Jose Canseco didn't think Belle used steroids!

I can see justification for excluding Belle moreso than Thome, based on how much weight one puts on longevity and personality and milestones. He certainly was a on a Hall of Fame hitter's career path when he got hurt, and likely lost out more on number-padding than on much of the meat of his career. A Dick Allen comparisson would likely be apt here. They were both terrific hitters with outstanding peaks, but who didn't play long enough to build up milestones and who had some personality issues. Additionally, for those who discount the performance of steroid users, that which I said about Thome applies to Belle too.

[Triad]

Originally Posted by unreal654

Why are Thome, Griffey, and A-Rod on this list?

I wanted to throw in a few potential suspicions for down the road. There's a lot of guilt by association being applied, and it may come around to one or all of them eventually. Basically, in light of the adamant negativity of most fans regarding Bonds' Hall of Fame worthiness, I was curious what types of sentiments there are for some other players in similar situations or similar profiles.

Originally Posted by WilsonC

Jim Thome's a player who's offensive numbers would clearly be in the shoe-in category in any other era. 500+ HR and even has a chance to reach 600+, as well as being an OBP machine. He's basically Harmon Killebrew with a higher batting average. The only thing preventing him from being an absolute no-brainer is the offensive context in which he plays.

Now that you mention this, it makes me wonder if there end up being a dozen or so HOF-worthy players left unelected because to steroid controversies, then could that bode well for someone like Fred McGriff, whose 493 home runs would have been impressive prior to the 1990s. After a lot of the steroid users are shaken from the tree, so to speak, maybe guys like McGriff suddenly look good again amongst who's left. On second thought, the voters aren't that sophisticated or analytical. I don't think McGriff is worthy because I believe those mentioned in steroids controversies are, but if we removed them, he might not look so pedestrian. My gut feeling is that even if Jim Thome were not attached to any steroids controversy, and assuming he has one more decent year, the voters would still subconsciously penalize him for hitting 500 home runs in the steroid era. First basemen are supposed to hit 500 HR nowadays, right? Now, in terms of Griffey, 500 home runs for a center fielder is a different matter.

500 HR players by position:

1B - 8
2B - 0
SS - 2 (*Banks played 1B several years)
3B - 2
C - 0
LF - 2
CF - 3
RF - 6

Not as impressive when a 1B or RF does it as the other positions.

I threw Griffey in the mix just because he has a lot of home runs, and he's gotten bigger in his 30s. But as Seinfeld would say: "Not that there's anything wrong that..."

As for Thome, I voted 'no' for him right now, because I see him as inferior to many of his contemporaries, which would make me want to wait until a few years after his career is over to gain better perspective. I consider Jeff Bagwell, Mark McGwire, Rafael Palmeiro, Frank Thomas, Albert Pujols, Dick Allen and Keith Hernandez all better than Thome. Thome also has played two years primarily as a DH, which I think should count against a player's overall value for those seasons. Same for Frank Thomas, although he was otherworldly in his prime as a 1B.

With Belle, I think he's on the edge, and I could go either way with him. However, I see several other left fielders as more deserving: Tim Raines, Jim Rice, Minnie Minoso, and soon to be Rickey Henderson and Manny Ramirez, and then Bonds (?). And then Rose and Shoeless Joe would be good enough if they were eligible. So that's 8 left fielders who are more deserving who aren't in yet. I think I could wait on Belle for now and reserve judgment for later.

[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.

Because most position player metrics favor power guys over contact & singles hitters, I've divided players mentioned in the thread into two groups:

-power players at power positions;

-catalyst players, contact and baserunning as replacement for power value;

Among the power players, I inclued two factors, one positive and one negative:

-RC/PA as a decimal figure = runs created divided by total plate appearances ... only a dozen or so players since 1901 have produced @ > .2000 for careers;

-Since some noted sluggers whiff often, with erratic contact, some also hitting into high numbers of DP's, the negative counterbalance is composed of:

-strikeouts + DP's [counted as 1 "extra" out] divided by total outs made = negative out production;

For the contact players I try to highlight contact and bat versatility, along with base stealing skills, with RC/PA being more incidental.

Power Guys:

Player Name............... RC/PA............. Negative Outs %

Bonds....................... .2294....................23.2%
McGwire.................... .1996....................36.6
Sosa........................ .1642.....................36.8
Palmeiro................... .1694.....................20.1
Belle........................ .1807.....................26.0
Griffey..................... .1828....................26.8
Rodriguez................. .1998....................31.3
Thome..................... .1998....................42.2
Bagwell.................... .1896....................30.2
Rice........................ .1528.....................27.9
Henderson............... .1621....................21.9

Rickey Henderson is a double-edged shoo-in. He properly belongs in the catalyst/contact category but outproduces Rice and very nearly matches Sosa and Palmeiro in RC/PA with considerably fewer non-productive out to detract from production. Raines also exceeds Rice in RC/PA; and Minnie Minoso very nearly matches him.

Joe Jackson competes well in both categories.

Catalyst/Contact guys:

Player...............Steal/Attempts/%.........Sac. Hits........OBP%

Raines................808/954 = 84.7%............39............. .385
Henderson........1406/1741 = 80.8..............30............. .401
Rose................ 198/347 = 57.1..............56............. .375
Joe Jackson...... 202/263 = 76.8.............131............. .423
Minoso............. 205/335 = 61.2..............68............. .389

Of the second group, here's how they fare in RC/PA and Negative Outs:

Player.................RC/PA...............Negative Outs %

Raines.............. .1579.....................16.6%
Henderson........ .1621.....................21.9
Rose................. .1399.....................13.6
Joe Jackson....... .1886.......................9.1
Minoso.............. .1525.....................15.2

Numbers will be allowed to speak for themselves, without further comment from me.

[frenchman]

bedir: Rose if he admitted it should probably be in, but he hasn't and so no.

...then he should be in...don't know where you live but Rose came clean a year ago...

[bedir than average]

Umm, no, he didn't admit to several things proven in the Dowd report, such as betting on the Reds

[djwhokid]

All of those players except Jim Thome, Raffy, Albert Belle, Pete Rose, and Joe Jackson.

Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa deserve it. The steroid allegations should prevent them from being first-ballot Hall of Famers... but they should get in eventually.

You cannot be guilty of using steroids without 100% proof. They "probably" used steroids is not good enough.

I also believe steroids shouldn't wipe away an entire career. Bonds had a HOF before he allegedly took the juice.

The allegations against Sosa are flimsy. If you want to bar him because of a corked bat, well, that's no worse than a pitcher using a foreign substance.

[djwhokid]

Originally Posted by John F

It's hard to consider any of the 'Roid era players.

Let me ask you something.

Here is a hypothetical situation.

If you were suspected of cheating on a test in college, should that prevent you from ever winning the Nobel Peace Prize or any other academic award. What if you find a cure for AIDS?

One transgression shouldn't wipe away an entire career. And Barry Bonds being a jerk shouldn't hurt his standing. A person in the media gets their feeling hurt because Barry yelled at him/her? ROTFLMAO!

We have to be honest. Not everyone has the same definition of cheating. We also do not know exactly how much better (if at all) a player becomes by using steroids. No scientist, baseball analysts, or fan knows.

It is not like their are consequences. If Barry did use steroids, he will suffer in his health and sexual drive.

I think those are even trade-offs.

[John F]

Originally Posted by djwhokid

Let me ask you something.

Here is a hypothetical situation.

If you were suspected of cheating on a test in college, should that prevent you from ever winning the Nobel Peace Prize or any other academic award. What if you find a cure for AIDS?

Barry Bonds didn't find the cure for AIDS. Nor did any of the rest of the 'Roid era players. They artificially inflated their statistics. Cheating in college? What a bad analogy. It's more like falsely presenting research data that they had indeed cured AIDS when in truth they couldn't cure a case of the sniffles.

Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Rafael Palmeiro and the rest of those who have been involved with steroids ruined their own careers by making everyone - fans, journalists, those already in the hall of fame - question what achievements they reached were real and which ones were fake or achieved by artificial means.

You won't win a Nobel Prize in science by stating you've solved Cold Fusion and not presenting the proof. And if you present the proof and you've been found to be lying - you've ruined your own career. Mark did that in front of congress. Barry has done that with his constant denials and the evidence against him, Rafael did it by having a positive steroid test while he was still playing the game.

Don't try to spin this as a college test -- that's amateur level stuff. You can't get any more top level in terms of sports than playing at the Major League level. Schools out, and you're supposed to prove yourself capable of playing at that level without artificial enhancement.

[WilsonC]

I suppose a more apt Nobel Prize comparisson for steroids would be a scientist who came up with the 'eureka' moment for his award winning idea while high on LSD, or something of that ilk. In both cases, there is a chemical adjustment in the person's functioning - one to the body, the other to the mind - that affects what the individual achieved. In both cases, it's unknown what the individual would have done without the adjustment, but in both cases, the individual needs to be of unquestionable talent anyways to make it to the Nobel Prize/Hall of Fame level. Somehow, it doesn't have the same stigma for the scientist as it does for the athlete.