Jump to content

2014 General MLB Thread


nmigliore
 Share

Recommended Posts

I really think the MLB Hall of Fame writers should set up some kind of process where a player that suspects he is not being admitted because of steroids can submit to questions under oath, which you can do outside of a court or Congressional setting.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Honestly the selective imaginary justice is kind of dumb.  Especially since they've already likely put in at least one HOF'er that juiced (Canseco said three I think at one point, wouldn't surprise me if one of them was someone who played with Canseco in Oakland and also on both NY teams).  The minute some guy who's already in the HOF gets outed as a roid user then they won't have a leg to stand on as far as keeping the Piazzas of the world out due to speculation and 'stuff they know but can't print'.

 

But yeah like CR said they have other issues apart from even acting like the DEA.  The only difference between Smoltz and Schilling as players (besides the two-three years closing for Smoltz out of neccesity) is the fact maybe Schilling is looked on as a bit of a mercenary given all the different teams he's been on while Smoltz was a Brave almost his entire career.  Not saying that should matter but the writers can be a bit full of themselves at times in applying criteria.  Jeff Kent was a better offensive player than Craig Biggio but he'll seemingly never get in because of his 'defense', which is more or less code for we don't like the guy and everyone loved Biggio.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly the selective imaginary justice is kind of dumb.  Especially since they've already likely put in at least one HOF'er that juiced (Canseco said three I think at one point, wouldn't surprise me if one of them was someone who played with Canseco in Oakland and also on both NY teams).  The minute some guy who's already in the HOF gets outed as a roid user then they won't have a leg to stand on as far as keeping the Piazzas of the world out due to speculation and 'stuff they know but can't print'.

 

But yeah like CR said they have other issues apart from even acting like the DEA.  The only difference between Smoltz and Schilling as players (besides the two-three years closing for Smoltz out of neccesity) is the fact maybe Schilling is looked on as a bit of a mercenary given all the different teams he's been on while Smoltz was a Brave almost his entire career.  Not saying that should matter but the writers can be a bit full of themselves at times in applying criteria.  Jeff Kent was a better offensive player than Craig Biggio but he'll seemingly never get in because of his 'defense', which is more or less code for we don't like the guy and everyone loved Biggio.

 

I think Kent might be a suspected juicer also, but might be wrong on that.

 

Francessa was saying that a reason why certain players get far fewer votes than they should (like Pedro) is that more writers than you think will vote for people just to stay on the ballot, and figure that the other writers will pick up the slack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Kent might be a suspected juicer also, but might be wrong on that.

 

Francessa was saying that a reason why certain players get far fewer votes than they should (like Pedro) is that more writers than you think will vote for people just to stay on the ballot, and figure that the other writers will pick up the slack.

 

Would it shock me if Kent juiced...absolutely not.  Especially with Bonds' trainer running around the clubhouse with unfettered access.  But then again aside from maybe a handful of players almost nobody from that era would shock me as a juicer.  There's still no smoking gun vis-a-vis Kent.  Hell for all we know maybe they suspect Schilling as a juicer too.

 

And nobody's ever going to get a unanimous vote for the baseball HOF, Babe Ruth wasn't unanimous.  Writers have a weird fetish for not wanting to give anyone a 100% rating since nobody's ever gotten it before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would it shock me if Kent juiced...absolutely not. Especially with Bonds' trainer running around the clubhouse with unfettered access. But then again aside from maybe a handful of players almost nobody from that era would shock me as a juicer. There's still no smoking gun vis-a-vis Kent. Hell for all we know maybe they suspect Schilling as a juicer too.

And nobody's ever going to get a unanimous vote for the baseball HOF, Babe Ruth wasn't unanimous. Writers have a weird fetish for not wanting to give anyone a 100% rating since nobody's ever gotten it before.

Kent might also be held back by the fact that he doesn't have those magic career numbers, 3000 hits or 500 home runs. Kind of like Tim Raines. Biggio's 3000 hits is why he made it. Relatedly, I think for the foreseeable future 3,000 hits will be seen as a bigger accomplishment than 500 home runs, as the latter almost automatically makes you suspicious.

Re no unanimous votes, there are a few of those writers who never vote for someone on the first ballot just to keep the tradition alive. But the fact that Pedro was only at around 90 percent has a lot to do with the phenomenon I was talking about.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's going on with Kent is absurd.  A bunch of geeky always-the-last-ones-picked-to-play writers are basically collectively sticking it to Kent because he has a reputation as being a complete jerk.  Just look at his numbers from 1997-2005...he should probably sail into the friggin' Hall on those alone...those offensive numbers are beastly for a second baseman (and he's never been linked to steroids so far as I can tell...he's been very public about speaking out against them).  His detractors will point to his meh defense, but it's not like every damned player in the HOF is a golden glove.  If Kent was a swell cuddly guy who was great with the media, he'd be getting a lot more votes than he's getting now.  I can understand his not getting in right away, or getting 55-60% of the vote, but less than 15% shows me that the writers are just being a bunch of self-righteous douchebags.        


Kent might also be held back by the fact that he doesn't have those magic career numbers, 3000 hits or 500 home runs. Kind of like Tim Raines. Biggio's 3000 hits is why he made it. Relatedly, I think for the foreseeable future 3,000 hits will be seen as a bigger accomplishment than 500 home runs, as the latter almost automatically makes you suspicious.

Re no unanimous votes, there are a few of those writers who never vote for someone on the first ballot just to keep the tradition alive. But the fact that Pedro was only at around 90 percent has a lot to do with the phenomenon I was talking about.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

I never expect anyone to be unanimous, and no one ever will be.  But Pedro should been over 95% easily. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Kent thing also has to do with Bonds, as Kents career really never took off until he got to bat behind Bonds in SF. It's similar in a way to the folks who wanted to keep Steve Shutt out of the Hall of Fame thinking he was a Lafleur creation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Kent thing also has to do with Bonds, as Kents career really never took off until he got to bat behind Bonds in SF. It's similar in a way to the folks who wanted to keep Steve Shutt out of the Hall of Fame thinking he was a Lafleur creation

 

I'm sure that has something to do with it, but Kent's Astro and Dodger numbers weren't far off from his SF numbers (especially 2003-05).  His offensive numbers are what they are, and from all indications, he didn't cheat his way into putting them up.  I don't want to sound like I'm some big Jeff Kent fan, but it seems like he's being punished by voters for the following:

 

1) Being unlikable/hard to deal with (he's hardly alone in that category)

2) Playing in the Steroid Era even though he doesn't seem to be one of the culprits

3) Being in a lineup with a guy who clearly did cheat big-time (and supposedly, Barry didn't really go crazy with the 'roids until 1999, when he became jealous of all of the attention McGwire and Sosa got in 1998, despite the fact that Bonds was clearly better than both players).

 

Kent might be a guy who doesn't get in until the latter phase of his eligibility, which is fine, but he's just getting flat-out snubbed, mostly for reasons that are out of his control, and rather unfair. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought it was Kent that was liked by the media but hated by his peers, which was the opposite of Bonds who was liked by his teammates and hated by the Media.

 

There's something going on there.  He's being docked for something.  Looked up some stuff online and apparently he was one of those guys who 90% of the time just didn't want to bother with anyone at all...just wanted to show up and play ball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.