A home for the weary.
https://www.wwtbambored.com/
Biggio missed by 2 votes. I imagine he'll make it next year, notwithstanding the ridiculously crowded ballot.
Darn. And I had been so willing to take him under my wing to rehabilitate him -- purely for the sake of baseball, of course.Bob78164 wrote: Finger-wagging Palmeiro dropped off the ballot, having dropped below 5% of the vote. --Bob
He should have gone 1st year eligible.Biggio missed by 2 votes. I imagine he'll make it next year, notwithstanding the ridiculously crowded ballot.
I'll tell everybody here what I told everybody at Golden-Road.net after last year's voting. If the baseball writers ever vote players like Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Mark McGwire, and Sammy Sosa into the Hall of Fame, then the people who administrate the Hall of Fame will have to allow Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe Jackson onto the following year's ballot or else they will come off as massive hypocrites. Either that or they have to eliminate that rule put in place in 1946 that says "integrity, sportsmanship, [and] character" must be considered for induction. To those administrators who keep Bonds and Clemens on the ballot and to those writers who vote for Bonds and Clemens, both for the BS reason that "they were Hall of Fame players before they started taking steroids", I say, "Rose was a Hall of Fame player before he bet on baseball and Jackson was a Hall of Fame player before he allegedly contributed to throwing the World Series. What's your point?"BackInTex wrote:However, any sports hall of fame that doesn't have their Pete Rose inducted is a sham.
Oh, horseshit.Pastor Fireball wrote:I'll tell everybody here what I told everybody at Golden-Road.net after last year's voting. If the baseball writers ever vote players like Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Mark McGwire, and Sammy Sosa into the Hall of Fame, then the people who administrate the Hall of Fame will have to allow Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe Jackson onto the following year's ballot or else they will come off as massive hypocrites. Either that or they have to eliminate that rule put in place in 1946 that says "integrity, sportsmanship, [and] character" must be considered for induction. To those administrators who keep Bonds and Clemens on the ballot and to those writers who vote for Bonds and Clemens, both for the BS reason that "they were Hall of Fame players before they started taking steroids", I say, "Rose was a Hall of Fame player before he bet on baseball and Jackson was a Hall of Fame player before he allegedly contributed to throwing the World Series. What's your point?"BackInTex wrote:However, any sports hall of fame that doesn't have their Pete Rose inducted is a sham.
No, it's not. It's called drawing a line at some point. Otherwise you get in the Phil RIzzuto/Pee Wee Reese situation, where, after Pee Wee got into the Hall of Fame, Phil's backers kept comparing his stats to Reese's and saying he belonged if Pee Wee was in. They eventually got their way and you now have two unworthy Hall of Famers, whose only real qualifications were being well liked, nice guys who were pretty good broadcasters. And every other moderately decent shortstop can argue that he now belongs in the Hall of Fame as well.ToLiveIsToFly wrote: On the other hand, saying that players of the 60s and 70s who took amphetamines deserve induction and players of the 90s and 2000s who took steroids don't? THAT is hypocrisy.
1. Reese was a solidly-average Hall of Fame shortstop, Rizzuto is way below average. Their careers are not even close.silverscreenselect wrote:No, it's not. It's called drawing a line at some point. Otherwise you get in the Phil RIzzuto/Pee Wee Reese situation, where, after Pee Wee got into the Hall of Fame, Phil's backers kept comparing his stats to Reese's and saying he belonged if Pee Wee was in. They eventually got their way and you now have two unworthy Hall of Famers, whose only real qualifications were being well liked, nice guys who were pretty good broadcasters. And every other moderately decent shortstop can argue that he now belongs in the Hall of Fame as well.ToLiveIsToFly wrote: On the other hand, saying that players of the 60s and 70s who took amphetamines deserve induction and players of the 90s and 2000s who took steroids don't? THAT is hypocrisy.
Also, here are all the shortstops inducted since Rizzuto:ToLiveIsToFly wrote:1. Reese was a solidly-average Hall of Fame shortstop, Rizzuto is way below average. Their careers are not even close.silverscreenselect wrote:No, it's not. It's called drawing a line at some point. Otherwise you get in the Phil RIzzuto/Pee Wee Reese situation, where, after Pee Wee got into the Hall of Fame, Phil's backers kept comparing his stats to Reese's and saying he belonged if Pee Wee was in. They eventually got their way and you now have two unworthy Hall of Famers, whose only real qualifications were being well liked, nice guys who were pretty good broadcasters. And every other moderately decent shortstop can argue that he now belongs in the Hall of Fame as well.ToLiveIsToFly wrote: On the other hand, saying that players of the 60s and 70s who took amphetamines deserve induction and players of the 90s and 2000s who took steroids don't? THAT is hypocrisy.
2. I'm not sure whether you're saying "Willie Mays, Mike Schmidt, Willie Stargell, etc, shouldn't be in the HoF either, but at least we should keep the next wave of cheaters out" or "there's compelling evidence that steroids had a bigger effect on producing player performance than amphetamines"? I disagree with you on both.
silverscreenselect wrote:No, it's not. It's called drawing a line at some point. Otherwise you get in the Phil RIzzuto/Pee Wee Reese situation, where, after Pee Wee got into the Hall of Fame, Phil's backers kept comparing his stats to Reese's and saying he belonged if Pee Wee was in. They eventually got their way and you now have two unworthy Hall of Famers, whose only real qualifications were being well liked, nice guys who were pretty good broadcasters. And every other moderately decent shortstop can argue that he now belongs in the Hall of Fame as well.ToLiveIsToFly wrote: On the other hand, saying that players of the 60s and 70s who took amphetamines deserve induction and players of the 90s and 2000s who took steroids don't? THAT is hypocrisy.