SOMers - Stratomatic Baseball

Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: Building the Hall of Fame
«First  <  1 2 3 4 5 637  >  Last»  | Page of 37  sorted by


VP of Operations

Status: Offline
Posts: 16185
Date: Dec 17, 2014
Building the Hall of Fame
Permalink  
 


Nitrous Oxide wrote:
seajaw wrote:
More importantly, they [steroids] are against the law.  This is a federal offense we are talking about.  Stuff the DEA comes after you for doing.

But, when we have proof, do we allow those players to reap the rewards of their cheating by letting them earn baseball's highest honor?  I


I would just like to point out that there has been no proof of Barry Bonds or Roger Clemens ever took steroids. Is there a ton of warranted speculation? Oh yeah.

Barry Bonds was found guilty of obstruction of justice relating to whether he took steroid by evading answering questions. He was never convicted of possessing or using steroids. This casts a long shadow on Bonds because he has not passed all the challenges.

Roger Clemens was found not guilty on 6 counts (two counts of perjury, three counts of making false statements and one count of obstructing Congress)

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/8068819/roger-clemens-found-not-guilty-all-six-counts-perjury-trial

Since Roger Clemens was found not guilty in a court of law and never suspended by MLB then he passed all the official challenges concerning steroids. The only trial left is the court of public opinions. I believe we live in a country where innocent until proven guilty is the standard. Roger Clemens has not been found guilty of anything. Speculation and suspicion are not the standards by which a man should be judged especially after he had his day in court.

I have a much harder time justifying Pete Rose, Shoeless Joe, and Barry Bonds than I do Roger Clemens. The other 3 were all disciplined in some manner (yet I still believe all 3 are HOFers). Roger Clemens is a man in official good standing with MLB and the legal system.

I cannot condemn a man who fought for his reputation and won. I have no reason to not vote him in as the greatest pitcher of his era and one of the elites of all time.

 

I respect the dissenting opinions and this thread has been excellent. There are some really well though out comments here.

 

 


You are correct, that Clemens won his battle.  And they only got Bonds on obstruction.  Count me as one of the guys who thinks they each beat the rap.

My comments do hold, however, for all the players who were actually caught.  And we'll ultimately see how Bonds and Clemens do with the writers.

But this does make the bigger point about whether or not you can trust the numbers.

Ultimately, it's many of the guys who stayed clean who lose out.  That's no way to run a business.  If you are one of the guys who didn't cheat, why should you be the one paying the price?

If you're a pitcher, and you get rocked by a bunch of guys who later tested positive, no one's going to take those dingers off your record.  And that's not right.

It's not like you can file an appeal and get your record cleared.

You know what they say about ****roaches, how -- if you see one or two -- that usually means there are a whole bunch more lurking?  I wonder to what degree the same holds true for the guys who get caught.

How many more might actually be doing the stuff?



__________________

"No cell, no car, no credit cards, he's sixty-plus and gray...
Just sitting in his basement, with a Strat game underway."



Season Ticket Holder - Lower Deck

Status: Offline
Posts: 260
Date: Dec 17, 2014
Permalink  
 

I don’t have a problem voting for the guys believed to have used PEDs during their careers because MLB allowed it to happen, so as far as I’m concerned PEDs were fair game during that time period. Athletes are always looking for something to give them that edge over the competition, and if you were an athlete (in this case an MLBer) and you found something that gave you that edge and no one stopped you from using that something, would you stop using it? Probably not. MLB had no reason to crack down on the problem, in fact guys believed to be “juicing” were good for business, Bonds was chasing records, and the McGwire/Sosa HR record battle in ’98 was bringing fans back to the game that were lost due to the ’94 work stoppage.  Was this fair to guys that stayed clean? From what most of us are taught and believe the answer is obviously “no”, but by MLB standards at the time, PEDs were fair game and anyone that wanted to use them had access to them. If someone wanted to risk ruining their health in the long-run for a relatively short-lived time in the spotlight, who was there to stop them?  

So in terms of voting I cannot hold PEDs against these guys that have HOF-worthy numbers when the league they were playing for allowed them to use PEDs.



__________________


VP of Operations

Status: Offline
Posts: 16185
Date: Dec 17, 2014
Permalink  
 

NatsFan wrote:

 

I don’t have a problem voting for the guys believed to have used PEDs during their careers because MLB allowed it to happen, so as far as I’m concerned PEDs were fair game during that time period. Athletes are always looking for something to give them that edge over the competition, and if you were an athlete (in this case an MLBer) and you found something that gave you that edge and no one stopped you from using that something, would you stop using it? Probably not. MLB had no reason to crack down on the problem, in fact guys believed to be “juicing” were good for business, Bonds was chasing records, and the McGwire/Sosa HR record battle in ’98 was bringing fans back to the game that were lost due to the ’94 work stoppage.  Was this fair to guys that stayed clean? From what most of us are taught and believe the answer is obviously “no”, but by MLB standards at the time, PEDs were fair game and anyone that wanted to use them had access to them. If someone wanted to risk ruining their health in the long-run for a relatively short-lived time in the spotlight, who was there to stop them?  

So in terms of voting I cannot hold PEDs against these guys that have HOF-worthy numbers when the league they were playing for allowed them to use PEDs.


That's an interesting approach and, yes, anyone could have had them.  I just can't get past the having to cheat -- break the law -- in order to compete on a balanced playing field.

Guys will quite possibly be denied the Hall because their numbers don't compare to the juicers.  Those tainted players skewed legit players' numbers.

Here's a scary way of looking at it: imagine how much better guys like Greg Maddux, Randy Johnson and Pedro Martinez might look, if not for the juicers.  And, instead of looking like just-another-really-good-but-not-quite-elite-hurler, someone like Curt Schilling might be a shoo-in.

Same with Mike Mussina.  Who knows how much the juicers affected their numbers...and our perceptions?



__________________

"No cell, no car, no credit cards, he's sixty-plus and gray...
Just sitting in his basement, with a Strat game underway."



VP of Operations

Status: Offline
Posts: 16185
Date: Dec 17, 2014
Permalink  
 

glewis wrote:

My case for Satchel Paige

Satchel Paige is the second of the four players I had placed in my first 10 ballot, but did not get enough votes to be part of the inaugural SOMers Hall of Fame class.

As I was compiling my first 10 I decided I should include players from the Negro League.  The players in the Negro League were every bit the equal of those in the Major Leagues.  Black ball players were some of the most dominate players in Major League history after the color barrier was broken by Jackie Robinson in 1947, the election of Mays and Aaron to the SOM inaugural class verifies this.  It goes to reason that black ball players prior to 1947 were also some of the greatest ball players of all-time and should be considered among the first 10.  

So now the question becomes who to place in the first 10.  Satchel Paige, Josh Gibson, Oscar Charleston, Cool Papa Bell, Bullet Joe Rogan, Mule Suttles, Buck Leonard, and Pop Lloyd all jumped to mind.  Off to do some research and thinking.  These were all great players, the equal or superior of many white Hall of Famers.  I had a difficult time narrowing down the best hitter of all-time, but settled on Josh Gibson and Oscar Charleston.  For pitchers I decided on Satchel Paige, Joe Rogan, and Smokey Joe Williams.  In the end I didn't feel Charleston and Gibson were the superior of some of the other hitters on my list (although on further reflection I would have included Gibson and left off Gehrig, maybe I was influenced by the Gehrig bio I'm currently reading).  I also felt the position of pitcher is the most important on the field (I ended up including 3 pitchers in my top 10 and considered several more), so a pitcher it would be, but whom? There are many that would argue that Rogan and Williams were better pitchers than Paige.  The difficulty of the comparing Negro League players is the statistical numbers aren't there, so you're often relying on anecdotal evidence.  

In the end I settled on Satchel Paige, was Satchel the greatest pitcher in Negro League history?  Maybe not, but he may have been.  Maybe that opinion was a result of his showmanship. Satchel's showmanship brought him fame, but his fame brought attention to the Negro League and all of the other great players.  Satchel also had the the fortune of great timing, among the great pitchers of the Negro League he was able to pitch in the Major League.  Paige, even though he was in his forties, fared very well in the majors.  In his rookie year, at age 41, he finished with a 6-1 record and 2.48 ERA.  He was an all-star in 1952 and 1953.  He won 12 games and saved 10 more in 1952 at the age of 45.  In 1965 he started a game for Kansas City pitching 3 innings and allowing only 1 hit and no runs, he was 58!  I can only imagine how he would have fared in his prime.

I will continue to include Negro League players in my choices, continuing to vote for Paige and continuing to consider other Negro League players.


I don't think there is any doubt that Satch is one of the finest pitchers the game has ever seen.  Whether he's top five, or top 10, is uncertain.

He did dominate those Major League hitters he faced in settings like the old California Winter League, and on various barnstorming tours.  He was also a valuable hurler in his later years, when he finally broke through to the Bigs.

As a showman, he was beyond compare.  He had a great sense of his value, and how to get the most out of it.



__________________

"No cell, no car, no credit cards, he's sixty-plus and gray...
Just sitting in his basement, with a Strat game underway."



Umpire

Status: Offline
Posts: 9230
Date: Dec 17, 2014
Permalink  
 

glewis wrote:

My case for Jackie Robinson

I thought it would make for interesting conversation if we all made a case for the players we had in our personal top 10, but didn't make SOMer 1st Class of our Hall of Fame.

I thought I would start with Jackie Robinson, the lowest vote getter of my top 10 (I was the only person who placed him on a ballot).

First, an explanation of what I considered when making my choice.  While I did look at overall numbers that was only part of my criteria.  Seajaw asked us to make a statement with our first 10, so I considered two other factors.  Did the player make a historical contribution to the game or change to course of how the game was played?  Is the player an American icon (e.g. could you walk down the street and when you asked people would know who you were talking about).

Jackie Robinson's career numbers don't measure up to the other players on this list or other HoF 2nd basemen (although a career .311 BA  is nothing to sneeze at)for that matter.  But you have to consider he was a rookie at the age of 28.  Looking at other HoF players, it is not unusual to have some of their best years to occur in their early to mid - 20s.  Robinson missed those years because of racial bias and then World War II.  His numbers would measure up much better if he was a rookie earlier and there wasn't a war.  I think you have to factor in World War II when considering any player from this era.  Robinson during the first seven years of his career was a very dominate player.  Top 10 in votes for MVP in 1947, 49, 51 & 52 (won it in 1949), he also received votes in four other years.  He twice led MLB in WAR during that time. He was an All-Star from 1949 to 1954.  He was a key catalyst on those great Dodger teams of the 1950s.  

Robinson did this all under immense pressure to perform.  If he had failed, it could have set back integration of MLB several years.  Think of the impact that would have had on several other Hall of Fame players.  Branch Rickey wanted someone that could perform under pressure and could keep his feelings in check.  Yes, others could have been chosen.  But Rickey knew what he was doing and picked Robinson.  

The historical significance of Robinson is without question.  MLB chose to honor Robinson by retiring his jersey number with all teams and they still pay tribute today to Jackie Robinson.  He changed the course of baseball history and because of the profile of baseball, the course of American history.  Robinson's performance influenced many Americans, both black and white, and moved America towards civil rights.

As a former U.S. History teacher I can tell you two baseball names appear in any textbook I've ever seen. Babe Ruth and Jackie Robinson.  They are American icons and symbols of an era. I'm pretty certain if you walked down the street and asked people who Jackie Robinson was you would get a large number of people that knew.  I'm not sure you would get the same response for Walter Johnson.

I looked beyond career numbers when considering Robinson and considered his larger role in the history of baseball and the history of the United States.  


 This is an excellent post!

 



__________________


Umpire

Status: Offline
Posts: 9230
Date: Dec 17, 2014
Permalink  
 

I want to address Jackie Robinson and Negro League stars together.

Since I am taking the approach of a clean sheet, in my view segregated baseball is irrelevant. The Negro League's best players are on equal footing with their MLB counterparts. It takes more analysis but it becomes pretty clear there are several guys mentioned in posts that stick out.

I've already mentioned that Paige and Josh Gibson were in my all time top 10. I believe they were the best 2 players from roughly half a century of the Negro Leagues. They were dominant. The Negro Leauges have the same problem as MLB in this format. They have a lot of great players but they can't all go into the top 10. I will vote for Paige and Gibson in the next round. In addition I will add Oscar Charleston to my voting. He could do everything exceptionally well. After those 3 it will take more work to determine where Smokey Joe Williams, Turkey Stearnes, Mule Suttles, Bullet Joe Rogan, Cool Papa Bell and the other legends fit in...but they all will fit.

Where does this leave Jackie Robinson? His numbers are good enough to be in the HOF. His historical context puts him clearly #1 of all time in my opinion. If I was not using a clean slate approach Robinson would have been my first vote. Since I am using the approach I'll work Jackie in when I believe his numbers support in context to the pool at large.

Make no mistake Jackie Robinson makes it into any baseball HOF no matter its its SOMers or any other group taking a look at this.



__________________


VP of Operations

Status: Offline
Posts: 16185
Date: Dec 17, 2014
Permalink  
 

Nitrous Oxide wrote:

I want to address Jackie Robinson and Negro League stars together.

Since I am taking the approach of a clean sheet, in my view segregated baseball is irrelevant. The Negro League's best players are on equal footing with their MLB counterparts. It takes more analysis but it becomes pretty clear there are several guys mentioned in posts that stick out.

I've already mentioned that Paige and Josh Gibson were in my all time top 10. I believe they were the best 2 players from roughly half a century of the Negro Leagues. They were dominant. The Negro Leauges have the same problem as MLB in this format. They have a lot of great players but they can't all go into the top 10. I will vote for Paige and Gibson in the next round. In addition I will add Oscar Charleston to my voting. He could do everything exceptionally well. After those 3 it will take more work to determine where Smokey Joe Williams, Turkey Stearnes, Mule Suttles, Bullet Joe Rogan, Cool Papa Bell and the other legends fit in...but they all will fit.

Where does this leave Jackie Robinson? His numbers are good enough to be in the HOF. His historical context puts him clearly #1 of all time in my opinion. If I was not using a clean slate approach Robinson would have been my first vote. Since I am using the approach I'll work Jackie in when I believe his numbers support in context to the pool at large.

Make no mistake Jackie Robinson makes it into any baseball HOF no matter its its SOMers or any other group taking a look at this.


Excellent thoughts.  Had there been no Jackie Robinson, there's no telling how long we might have waited.

A whole class of superstar performers -- Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Roy Campanella and Larry Doby among them -- would have likely spent even more of their careers toiling in the Negro Leagues.

The emergence of those legends, when they finally got to show their skills in a Major League-quality setting, makes us wonder just how great Paige, Gibson, Charleston might have really been.  Our SOM cards give us an idea.

But let's reverse the process.  How would we have viewed Mays, had he spent his career playing under the same conditions that Charleston did?  How much of his brilliance would we have seen?  What would a Willie May card, based on a career of Negro League play, have looked like?



__________________

"No cell, no car, no credit cards, he's sixty-plus and gray...
Just sitting in his basement, with a Strat game underway."



Season Ticket Holder - Upper Deck

Status: Offline
Posts: 168
Date: Dec 17, 2014
Permalink  
 

OK Seajaw, you holding the carrot out in front of us.

When do you anticipate asking for the next batch of votes ?

Talk is cheap, I want some action !!!!

__________________


VP of Operations

Status: Offline
Posts: 16185
Date: Dec 17, 2014
Permalink  
 

tomthebomb wrote:

OK Seajaw, you holding the carrot out in front of us.

When do you anticipate asking for the next batch of votes ?

Talk is cheap, I want some action !!!!


I'm enjoying the back-and-forth here, so I've been in no real hurry. wink

If I announce Round 2 now, and set a ballot due date of Dec. 26th, will everyone have enough time to think it over?

Either that, or I can wait, and start accepting ballots the day after Christmas, with a due date of Jan. 2.

Whichever, I know I'm for a great round-table discussion with stratfan70 and TerryB, when we get together for our post-holiday SOM 'n' cookies.



__________________

"No cell, no car, no credit cards, he's sixty-plus and gray...
Just sitting in his basement, with a Strat game underway."



First Base Coach

Status: Offline
Posts: 2666
Date: Dec 17, 2014
Permalink  
 

seajaw wrote:
tomthebomb wrote:

OK Seajaw, you holding the carrot out in front of us.

When do you anticipate asking for the next batch of votes ?

Talk is cheap, I want some action !!!!


I'm enjoying the back-and-forth here, so I've been in no real hurry. wink

If I announce Round 2 now, and set a ballot due date of Dec. 26th, will everyone have enough time to think it over?

Either that, or I can wait, and start accepting ballots the day after Christmas, with a due date of Jan. 2.

Whichever, I know I'm for a great round-table discussion with stratfan70 and TerryB, when we get together for our post-holiday SOM 'n' cookies.


I've got my 2nd 10 ready to gosmile



__________________

"The players are the same age always, but the man in the crowd is older every season."

 



First Base Coach

Status: Offline
Posts: 2666
Date: Dec 17, 2014
Permalink  
 

My Case for Lou Gehrig

I believe the Iron Horse has a good chance of making it in on the 2nd SOM Hall of Fame ballot, but I'll make the argument anyway.

Gehrig is almost universally considered the greatest offensive first basemen in history. A career .340 batting average, 493 Home Runs, 1995 Runs Batted In (still 5th best all-time - he averaged 149 RBIs/year), .447 On Base Pct..  American League MVP in 1927 and 1936, runner-up in 1931 and 1932, top 5 finishes in 1933, 1934, 1935, and 1937.  The statistics are limited by the onset of ALS (Lou Gehrig's disease) in 1938, by 1939 Gehrig was finished as a ball player at 36 years of age.  

Gehrig appeared in 7 World Series, winning 6.   In 34 Series games Gehrig batted .361 with 10 home run and 35 runs batted in.

Gehrig's most significant statistic, the one in which he is most identified with, is the 2,130 consecutive games played.  The streak make Gehrig's sudden decrease as a ball player even more shocking.  

Gehrig also is responsible for one of the iconic moments in baseball history, his "I'm the luckiest man" speech

It was Gehrig that ushered in the change in how the game was played, as much as Ruth.  It showed that other hitters beside Ruth could hit home runs.  In 1927 Ruth hit 60 and Gehrig had 47, the next highest was 18. As baseball entered the 1930s every team was looking for players to hit home runs.



__________________

"The players are the same age always, but the man in the crowd is older every season."

 



VP of Operations

Status: Offline
Posts: 16185
Date: Dec 18, 2014
Permalink  
 

glewis wrote:

My Case for Lou Gehrig

I believe the Iron Horse has a good chance of making it in on the 2nd SOM Hall of Fame ballot, but I'll make the argument anyway.

Gehrig is almost universally considered the greatest offensive first basemen in history. A career .340 batting average, 493 Home Runs, 1995 Runs Batted In (still 5th best all-time - he averaged 149 RBIs/year), .447 On Base Pct..  American League MVP in 1927 and 1936, runner-up in 1931 and 1932, top 5 finishes in 1933, 1934, 1935, and 1937.  The statistics are limited by the onset of ALS (Lou Gehrig's disease) in 1938, by 1939 Gehrig was finished as a ball player at 36 years of age.  

Gehrig appeared in 7 World Series, winning 6.   In 34 Series games Gehrig batted .361 with 10 home run and 35 runs batted in.

Gehrig's most significant statistic, the one in which he is most identified with, is the 2,130 consecutive games played.  The streak make Gehrig's sudden decrease as a ball player even more shocking.  

Gehrig also is responsible for one of the iconic moments in baseball history, his "I'm the luckiest man" speech

It was Gehrig that ushered in the change in how the game was played, as much as Ruth.  It showed that other hitters beside Ruth could hit home runs.  In 1927 Ruth hit 60 and Gehrig had 47, the next highest was 18. As baseball entered the 1930s every team was looking for players to hit home runs.


Another winner.

I think Lou will get in pretty quick.



__________________

"No cell, no car, no credit cards, he's sixty-plus and gray...
Just sitting in his basement, with a Strat game underway."



VP of Operations

Status: Offline
Posts: 16185
Date: Dec 18, 2014
Permalink  
 

Okay, We have six Hall of Fame inductees, so far.

Who's next?

Give me your lists of 10 players, via PM, no later than midnight, Dec. 26 (PST).

That should give everyone enough time.



__________________

"No cell, no car, no credit cards, he's sixty-plus and gray...
Just sitting in his basement, with a Strat game underway."



First Base Coach

Status: Offline
Posts: 2666
Date: Dec 18, 2014
Permalink  
 

My Case for Honus Wagner

With the "Flying Dutchman's" near election to the SOM Hall of Fame I don't think I have to make much of a case, but I'll make my case anyway.

Honus Wagner is regarded by many as the greatest shortstop in the history of baseball (and the first SOM class did not include an infielder) and by many of his contemporaries as the greatest player of his generation.

"Acknowledging that there may have been one or two whose talents were greater, there is no one who has ever played the game that I would be more anxious to have on a baseball team." - Historian / Author Bill James in The Biographical Encyclopedia (2000)

"I name Wagner first on my list, not only because he was a great batting champion and base-runner, and also baseball's foremost shortstop - but because Honus could have been first at any other position, with the possible exception of pitcher. In all my career, I never saw such a versatile player." - John McGraw

Wagner  was an outstanding hitter, base runner, and fielder.

"With his huge hands and quick moves he was considered the premier shortstop of the era and probably the best of all time given the size of the gloves and player surfaces." - Jonathan Fraser Light in The Cultural Encyclopedia of Baseball (1997)

Wagner finished his career with 3,420 hits (8th all-time),m643 doubles (9th all-time), 252 triples (3rd all-time), 723 stolen bases (10th all-time) and a .328 lifetime Batting Average.  He ranked first in WAR in from 1905 to 1908 and was 2nd in 1904, 1909, and 1912.  

 



__________________

"The players are the same age always, but the man in the crowd is older every season."

 



Umpire

Status: Offline
Posts: 9230
Date: Dec 18, 2014
Permalink  
 

If Wagner doesn't get in this next round I'll shake my head.

__________________
«First  <  1 2 3 4 5 637  >  Last»  | Page of 37  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.



Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard