Three new members of the Baseball HOF

[Vandal]

Greg Maddux
Tom Glavine
Frank Thomas

Craig Biggio falls short.

SI article here

[Bob78164]

Greg Maddux
Tom Glavine
Frank Thomas

Craig Biggio falls short.

SI article here

Biggio missed by 2 votes. I imagine he'll make it next year, notwithstanding the ridiculously crowded ballot.

Morris is gone, having failed to make it in his 15th and final year on the ballot. He'll be eligible for consideration by the Veterans' Committee in 2017. Finger-wagging Palmeiro dropped off the ballot, having dropped below 5% of the vote. --Bob

[silvercamaro]

Finger-wagging Palmeiro dropped off the ballot, having dropped below 5% of the vote. --Bob

Darn. And I had been so willing to take him under my wing to rehabilitate him -- purely for the sake of baseball, of course.

[BackInTex]

Biggio missed by 2 votes. I imagine he'll make it next year, notwithstanding the ridiculously crowded ballot.

He should have gone 1st year eligible.


However, any sports hall of fame that doesn't have their Pete Rose inducted is a sham.

[flockofseagulls104]

My residence in Atlanta corresponded with the Braves Dynasty. Every year I lived there they won their division (well, strike year not included).

Their pitchers were fantastic, and Smoltz needs to make it when he's eligible.

Tommy Glavine lost some of his luster when he went to the Mets. Smoltz should have retired as a Brave. Maddux, I think, started and ended as a Cub, but he will always be a Brave. They all should have done what Chipper did, retire as a Brave.

Congrats to both to Tom and Greg (and John in advance). It was a pleasure watching you guys.

[lilyvonschtupp26]

31 rocks. I'm so happy for him

[littlebeast13]

Three down, about 15 more Hall worthy players on the ballot to go......

lb13

[Pastor Fireball]

However, any sports hall of fame that doesn't have their Pete Rose inducted is a sham.

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?"

[ToLiveIsToFly]

However, any sports hall of fame that doesn't have their Pete Rose inducted is a sham.

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?"

Oh, horseshit.

There is a large material difference between cheating to try to win and cheating to intentionally lose. And there's a large material difference between betting on baseball and throwing the World Series. I agree that Rose deserves induction. I think Jackson was on a career path that would have eventually (and soon) led to him deserving induction if he hadn't gotten himself kicked out of baseball. And I can see an argument that he was close enough to round up to induction, but I don't agree with it. That said, saying that Bonds, Clemens, etc deserve induction and Rose/Jackson don't isn't hypocrisy.

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.

[silverscreenselect]

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.

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]

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.

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.

1. Reese was a solidly-average Hall of Fame shortstop, Rizzuto is way below average. Their careers are not even close.
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.

[ToLiveIsToFly]

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.

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.

1. Reese was a solidly-average Hall of Fame shortstop, Rizzuto is way below average. Their careers are not even close.
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.

Also, here are all the shortstops inducted since Rizzuto:
George Davis
Willie Wells
Robin Yount
Ozzie Smith
Cal Ripken, Jr
Barry Larkin

So, yeah, every other moderately decent shortstop can argue that he belongs in the Hall of Fame, too. But it doesn't seem to be getting them in.

[littlebeast13]

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.

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.

Damn... is this how those political threads work? Quickly and subtly change the subject to avoid arguing the point? What the hell does this discussion have to do with marginal Hall of Famers?

If anyone ever gets banned from the game for life for using steroids, HGH, amphetamines, Red Bull, etc., then by golly, they should never get into the Hall of Fame for doing something they knew would lead to those consequences, with a clear precedent in place for it. Until then, what right does anyone not associated with MLB have saying who is a "cheater" and who doesn't deserve to be considered for the Hall for some act or alleged act they committed that did not carry such punishment at the time, and in fact, was silently condoned by the sport itself?

I guess ex post facto only applies to the Constitution...

lb13