SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 8, 2020 0:47:35 GMT -5
Dick Allen doesn’t have many of the classic numbers for HOF, but he is sort of Rice-y. Awesome, then didn’t get to pad with slow decline. Just... poof. Even as a small Hall guy, I can see the case. Can’t say I’m totally on board, but.... maybe. I'm ashamed to say - it took Allen's death for me to really look at his career and realize that this man should have been inducted into the HOF. I thought, short career, 351 HRs....blah, blah, blah. But my God, this guy was seriously raking from 1964 - 1974, an era where pitchers either dominated or really had the upper hand. I didn't realize that his OPS was more than 50% greater than average. The man was a dominant offensive player. You can lose a .900 plus OPS, like a McGriff or Delgado, but to miss that in the era Allen put that up is inexcusable. I really think he belonged in the HOF. Then you also have to remember - that he also performed in a social climate that was pretty brutal. I wished I would have appreciated his career more than I did. I knew about his 1972 greatness, but I should have realized it ran deeper and longer than that season. It's too late to make it up to him, but I do hope when the Veteran's Committee reconvenes they put him in.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,926
|
Post by ericmvan on Dec 8, 2020 2:36:05 GMT -5
Dick Allen doesn’t have many of the classic numbers for HOF, but he is sort of Rice-y. Awesome, then didn’t get to pad with slow decline. Just... poof. Even as a small Hall guy, I can see the case. Can’t say I’m totally on board, but.... maybe. Guys who played after Allen and ...
had essentially the same Hall Worthiness ...
Willie McCovey Jim Thome
had less ...
Barry Larkin Eddie Murray Ted Simmons Roberto Alomar Paul Molitor Willie Stargell Vladimir Guerrero Dave Winfield Tony Perez Jim Rice Kirby Puckett Lou Brock
|
|
|
Post by billyw on Dec 8, 2020 7:26:28 GMT -5
Sadly- the Vet Committee that probably would have endorsed him this year, decided not hold their vote because they couldn't do it in person. Not sure why they couldn't have done a zoom meeting like the rest of the world! They would have met a couple of weeks ago. He could have passed knowing he was a HOFamer.
|
|
|
Post by billyw on Dec 8, 2020 7:41:42 GMT -5
Ted Williams claimed that Bob lemon was the best pitcher he ever faced, not Bob Feller....sorry too many typos in earlier post.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,977
|
Post by jimoh on Dec 9, 2020 11:29:35 GMT -5
Comparing Allen to Jim Rice is bracing. Allen was as good as people think Jim Rice was. Imagine Rice with 30 more walks a year and a lot fewer GIDP.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 9, 2020 12:17:18 GMT -5
Comparing Allen to Jim Rice is bracing. Allen was as good as people think Jim Rice was. Imagine Rice with 30 more walks a year and a lot fewer GIDP. This plus he also dominated in a pitcher's era and didn't have the advantage of calling Fenway home for 81 games/year. Allen put up those numbers in Philly, St. Louis for a season, LA Dodgers for a season, and the White Sox, and none of those were extreme hitters' parks. The opposite actually. Man, I really missed the boat on Allen. When you stop comparing him to guys with 500 plus HRs in the steroids era and look at the era he played in, his numbers really do smack you in the face. He should have been in the HOF a while ago.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Dec 10, 2020 10:21:04 GMT -5
From the vote tracking, Scott Rolen and Todd Helton have both gained six votes among returning voters, while losing none. Clearly Larry Walker’s election has changed some folks minds about Helton. Curt schilling meanwhile has only picked up one new returning voter, while losing two returning voters. No one is tracking at 75% yet.
It’s very early still, with less than ten percent of the vote known.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Dec 16, 2020 8:55:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rminns10 on Dec 16, 2020 9:13:38 GMT -5
some people will still vote for him over schilling
|
|
|
Post by costpet on Dec 16, 2020 11:54:25 GMT -5
I wouldn't mind Shilling getting in. But, you have to ask yourself, was Bonds and Clemens HOF material before they got on the juice? Bonds was clearly not. His head and feet grew when he was in his 30's. Then he took off. Clemens I'm not sure. Steroids extended his career, but I think he was borderline before he met Canseco. Sosa was decent, but certainly not HOF before he discovered meds. So, I guess Shilling yes, Clemens maybe, and Bonds and Sosa a big NO.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 16, 2020 12:13:04 GMT -5
I wouldn't mind Shilling getting in. But, you have to ask yourself, was Bonds and Clemens HOF material before they got on the juice? Bonds was clearly not. His head and feet grew when he was in his 30's. Then he took off. Clemens I'm not sure. Steroids extended his career, but I think he was borderline before he met Canseco. Sosa was decent, but certainly not HOF before he discovered meds. So, I guess Shilling yes, Clemens maybe, and Bonds and Sosa a big NO. No offense but what are you talking about? Bonds was a 3 time MVP by 28.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 16, 2020 12:14:45 GMT -5
I wouldn't mind Shilling getting in. But, you have to ask yourself, was Bonds and Clemens HOF material before they got on the juice? Bonds was clearly not. His head and feet grew when he was in his 30's. Then he took off. Clemens I'm not sure. Steroids extended his career, but I think he was borderline before he met Canseco. Sosa was decent, but certainly not HOF before he discovered meds. So, I guess Shilling yes, Clemens maybe, and Bonds and Sosa a big NO. What are you talking about? Bonds won the MVP 3 times in 4 years in the early 90s before he got on steroids in the late 1990s. He was a slam dunk HOFer before he cheated. And so was Clemens who won 3 Cy Youngs before he started (and should have won the Cy Young in 1990 when the voters were blinded by Bob Welch's 27 wins). Bonds is a big YES, not a NO. To borrow a line from Clemens, you are misremembering!
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 16, 2020 13:23:12 GMT -5
Am I the only one who has an issue with leaving guys out of the HOF because of steroid use when:
1. Baseball basically encouraged and profited off these players using steroids
2. Basically, the vast majority of players in the era were on them we just know about a small percentage of them. You can be on steroids and not look like it.
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Dec 16, 2020 14:21:03 GMT -5
I wouldn't mind Shilling getting in. But, you have to ask yourself, was Bonds and Clemens HOF material before they got on the juice? Bonds was clearly not. His head and feet grew when he was in his 30's. Then he took off. Clemens I'm not sure. Steroids extended his career, but I think he was borderline before he met Canseco. Sosa was decent, but certainly not HOF before he discovered meds. So, I guess Shilling yes, Clemens maybe, and Bonds and Sosa a big NO. I think there's a fairly legitimate case that Bonds was better pre-steroids (although I'm not sure I'd make it). So, yeah, going to agree with the others questioning what you're saying.
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Dec 16, 2020 14:58:14 GMT -5
Am I the only one who has an issue with leaving guys out of the HOF because of steroid use when: 1. Baseball basically encouraged and profited off these players using steroids 2. Basically, the vast majority of players in the era were on them we just know about a small percentage of them. You can be on steroids and not look like it. It's at least the two of us.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,835
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Dec 16, 2020 16:17:02 GMT -5
Am I the only one who has an issue with leaving guys out of the HOF because of steroid use when: 1. Baseball basically encouraged and profited off these players using steroids 2. Basically, the vast majority of players in the era were on them we just know about a small percentage of them. You can be on steroids and not look like it. 1. We don't know this. Yes, the HR barrage generated media and fan buzz. We don't know whether revenues and net income would have been lower without it. We have no evidence that BB management "encouraged" players to juice. Management looked the other way but that's different than "encouraged. " 2. We don't know this. We have evidence about certain players. We can't judge those for whom we don't have evidence. My own standard for steroids and the HOF is that if a I think steroids were a significant part of a guy's career, I wouldn't vote for him. That eliminates Clemens, Bonds, Sosa, McGuire to name a few. But I don't go to the extreme of saying I wouldn't vote for guys based just on rumors. I'm Ok with Biggio, Bagwell and Piazza being in. There's no perfect standard and we're deep into reasonable-people-can-disagree territory here.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Dec 16, 2020 16:38:23 GMT -5
Am I the only one who has an issue with leaving guys out of the HOF because of steroid use when: 1. Baseball basically encouraged and profited off these players using steroids 2. Basically, the vast majority of players in the era were on them we just know about a small percentage of them. You can be on steroids and not look like it. It's at least the two of us. Bonds and Clemens have been getting about 60% in the HOF ballots, so it's safe to say this is the majority opinion.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 16, 2020 16:53:59 GMT -5
Am I the only one who has an issue with leaving guys out of the HOF because of steroid use when: 1. Baseball basically encouraged and profited off these players using steroids 2. Basically, the vast majority of players in the era were on them we just know about a small percentage of them. You can be on steroids and not look like it. 1. We don't know this. Yes, the HR barrage generated media and fan buzz. We don't know whether revenues and net income would have been lower without it. We have no evidence that BB management "encouraged" players to juice. Management looked the other way but that's different than "encouraged. " 2. We don't know this. We have evidence about certain players. We can't judge those for whom we don't have evidence. My own standard for steroids and the HOF is that if a I think steroids were a significant part of a guy's career, I wouldn't vote for him. That eliminates Clemens, Bonds, Sosa, McGuire to name a few. But I don't go to the extreme of saying I wouldn't vote for guys based just on rumors. I'm Ok with Biggio, Bagwell and Piazza being in. There's no perfect standard and we're deep into reasonable-people-can-disagree territory here. I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that the steroid era exactly coincided with an explosion in revenue, fan interest and franchise value. “Looked the other way” or “encouraged” I won’t argue semantics on that issue. Either way to look the other way to profit then black mark players later is pretty bogus. I’m not judging individual players but we’ve heard enough from different former players to know there were a lot of players on steroids - most likely at least half. Maybe the term “vast majority” is too much, but this wast a handful of individuals. And yes, we can disagree
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,835
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Dec 16, 2020 17:24:42 GMT -5
some people will still vote for him over schilling I don't have the access to read the story from The Athletic that Phils posted. But I tend to give HOF candidates a wide berth when it comes to being scummy people. If I thought Omar was a worthy candidate, I wouldn't change my mind because of the apparent domestic abuse. I do think Schilling is a worthy candidate and his lack of character doesn't disqualify him in my mind. Both these guys (along with Cobb and many other enshrined moral degenerates I could name) had authentic on-the-field accomplishments.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 16, 2020 17:46:22 GMT -5
some people will still vote for him over schilling I don't have the access to read the story from The Athletic that Phils posted. But I tend to give HOF candidates a wide berth when it comes to being scummy people. If I thought Omar was a worthy candidate, I wouldn't change my mind because of the apparent domestic abuse. I do think Schilling is a worthy candidate and his lack of character doesn't disqualify him in my mind. Both these guys (along with Cobb and many other enshrined moral degenerates I could name) had authentic on-the-field accomplishments. Cobb was not a moral degenerate. He was the victim of a smear campaign by an unscrupulous writer. I think his name was Al Stump. Cobb was pro-integration for the record. I have trouble voting for Vizquel now. Schilling I'd still vote for despite my strong disagreement with his "politics". If he stuck a woman, then I'd change my mind. I don't expect angels for HOFers, but there are some tough lines to cross and everybody's lines to cross vary as far as willing to vote for the HOF. I mean, if OJ Simpson was up for the HOF in 1995 rather than when he was enshrined do you vote for him? Personally I couldn't do it.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 16, 2020 18:40:57 GMT -5
I don't have the access to read the story from The Athletic that Phils posted. But I tend to give HOF candidates a wide berth when it comes to being scummy people. If I thought Omar was a worthy candidate, I wouldn't change my mind because of the apparent domestic abuse. I do think Schilling is a worthy candidate and his lack of character doesn't disqualify him in my mind. Both these guys (along with Cobb and many other enshrined moral degenerates I could name) had authentic on-the-field accomplishments. Cobb was not a moral degenerate. He was the victim of a smear campaign by an unscrupulous writer. I think his name was Al Stump. Cobb was pro-integration for the record. I have trouble voting for Vizquel now. Schilling I'd still vote for despite my strong disagreement with his "politics". If he stuck a woman, then I'd change my mind. I don't expect angels for HOFers, but there are some tough lines to cross and everybody's lines to cross vary as far as willing to vote for the HOF. I mean, if OJ Simpson was up for the HOF in 1995 rather than when he was enshrined do you vote for him? Personally I couldn't do it. OJ Simpson was found not to be guilty. Killer is still at large.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Dec 16, 2020 18:49:53 GMT -5
I don't have the access to read the story from The Athletic that Phils posted. But I tend to give HOF candidates a wide berth when it comes to being scummy people. If I thought Omar was a worthy candidate, I wouldn't change my mind because of the apparent domestic abuse. I do think Schilling is a worthy candidate and his lack of character doesn't disqualify him in my mind. Both these guys (along with Cobb and many other enshrined moral degenerates I could name) had authentic on-the-field accomplishments. Cobb was not a moral degenerate. He was the victim of a smear campaign by an unscrupulous writer. I think his name was Al Stump. Cobb was pro-integration for the record. I have trouble voting for Vizquel now. Schilling I'd still vote for despite my strong disagreement with his "politics". If he stuck a woman, then I'd change my mind. I don't expect angels for HOFers, but there are some tough lines to cross and everybody's lines to cross vary as far as willing to vote for the HOF. I mean, if OJ Simpson was up for the HOF in 1995 rather than when he was enshrined do you vote for him? Personally I couldn't do it. It goes to show the weirdness of incorporating moral judgement into the HOF criteria. Like, I'd vote for Schilling but not Vizquel irrespective of such judgements, but I'm close on Vizquel, and if he were just a little better I might not vote him in if I read an article about him beating his wife; but Schilling is good enough that I'd overlook his moral offenses which might be worse. (And then, like, do we have to debate the scale of relative moral infractions to decide who is Hall-worthy? Very weird.)
Which is why I wish it were just unambiguously a question of which players were best at baseball. Then we could have the Hall of Fame as a place to represent the best players, and if we really wanted to we could have this other conversation where we rated their moral qualities.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 17, 2020 13:39:49 GMT -5
Cobb was not a moral degenerate. He was the victim of a smear campaign by an unscrupulous writer. I think his name was Al Stump. Cobb was pro-integration for the record. I have trouble voting for Vizquel now. Schilling I'd still vote for despite my strong disagreement with his "politics". If he stuck a woman, then I'd change my mind. I don't expect angels for HOFers, but there are some tough lines to cross and everybody's lines to cross vary as far as willing to vote for the HOF. I mean, if OJ Simpson was up for the HOF in 1995 rather than when he was enshrined do you vote for him? Personally I couldn't do it. It goes to show the weirdness of incorporating moral judgement into the HOF criteria. Like, I'd vote for Schilling but not Vizquel irrespective of such judgements, but I'm close on Vizquel, and if he were just a little better I might not vote him in if I read an article about him beating his wife; but Schilling is good enough that I'd overlook his moral offenses which might be worse. (And then, like, do we have to debate the scale of relative moral infractions to decide who is Hall-worthy? Very weird.)
Which is why I wish it were just unambiguously a question of which players were best at baseball. Then we could have the Hall of Fame as a place to represent the best players, and if we really wanted to we could have this other conversation where we rated their moral qualities.
Yea the morality clause is dumb
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 17, 2020 15:16:11 GMT -5
Cobb was not a moral degenerate. He was the victim of a smear campaign by an unscrupulous writer. I think his name was Al Stump. Cobb was pro-integration for the record. I have trouble voting for Vizquel now. Schilling I'd still vote for despite my strong disagreement with his "politics". If he stuck a woman, then I'd change my mind. I don't expect angels for HOFers, but there are some tough lines to cross and everybody's lines to cross vary as far as willing to vote for the HOF. I mean, if OJ Simpson was up for the HOF in 1995 rather than when he was enshrined do you vote for him? Personally I couldn't do it. OJ Simpson was found not to be guilty. Killer is still at large. Yup, if the glove don't fit you must acquit.
|
|
|
Post by costpet on Dec 19, 2020 9:02:02 GMT -5
I wonder if no one get in this year. No slam dunk yet.
|
|
|