RealGM

This is an issue I have been thinking about for some time and has kind of come to a head this week with the Clemens hearing. If the baseball writers follow through on their present path of not voting for HOF worthy players because of their suspicions of steroid use the HOF will lose its relevance.

While the issues are certainly debatable the purpose of the HOF is to honor the great players in the history of the game. Many of those enshrined are not great people but they were great players. More importantly about the last group of people to judge character in this world is an organization of sports writers.

Beyond the concept that what the Baseball Writers Association and the sports media in general want to do is turn speeding into a fellony and then go back and prosecute all of the people caught speeding over the last 15-20 years as fellons, is that much like baseball umpires somewhere along the line they forgot they aren't the show.

It is easy now for people to accept the idea of a HOF without McGwire, Bonds, and Clemens but as time goes on it will seem more and more ridiculous, even more so as the list grows. Worse than that is the idea that there are not guys in the HOF right now who have used PED. Steroids have been prevelant in sports since the late 70's, and substance abuse and baseball have been intertwined since the games inception.

When the time comes and we find out a Nolan Ryan or a Cal Ripken used something that now is considered a banned substance will the writers vote to remove that player?

Every sport has a shameful era so to speak, basketball in the 70's the NFL in the 80's, those leagues focused on cleaning up their sport and not scapegoating their icons, mostly because their HOF are controlled by those that were part of the game.

While PED gave players a competitive advantage over their predecesors, so does Tommy John and knee surgery. I am not even saying steriod use shouldn't be a factor in deciding whether a guy should be in or out, but it shouldn't exclude a player who should obviously be in. Somewhere between 40-80% over the last 20-30 years has used something that would now be considered PED. Also notice that the only things that are considered to be a sin against baseball are the ones that huge companies didn't find a way to make a buck on. Ephedrine killed people but is a non issue.

I am not defending steroid use I am just making a point about reality. Obviously they should be taken out of the game and it would be best for all players to be honest about what they have done. But the door should be wide for them to do so. What has happened has happened and it needs to be accepted for what it is and not made into something that attempts to change history, let it be.

Beyond that about the last two organizations in the world I need to hear tell me about morality and ethics is the Baseball Writers Association and Congress why don't we make these two groups pee in a cup as well. Throw in the Players Association and a bunch of lawyers and they will do more damage to baseball than steriods ever could.

I hardly think this is the end of the HOF.

For McGwire, I think the main issue is, without using PED's, would he be a HOFer? The answer is debateable, but I think it's no. Look at his stats from '96 on. Without PED's, his HR's and OBP (the 2 stats that would put him in the HOF) are vastly different.

As for Bonds or Clemens, I think both of these players were HOFers before a needle ever hit their bodies and I think sportswriters will think the same way.

Steroids may keep players like Palmeiro, Sosa, Bagwell and Sheffield out, but how could you deny entrance for Henderson, Maddux, Randy Johnson, Jeter, etc??

The HOF is a joke anyway, so no big loss. Just look at all the players who are in there who just weren't good baseball players and look at all the guys who are just **** slamdunk first-ballot type players that are on the fence looking in.

You can't pretend to have the Hall of Fame mean something without Bert Blyleven or Dwight Evans. It's **** absurd.

I predict Rickey Henderson will not get in on the first ballot. Just a feeling. Top-10 baseball player of all time and people will debate whether he's worth or not. Watch.

Kill yourself, Baseball Writers of America.

I think many will get in.

I do think some may never get in.

Clemens and Bonds were HOF worthy before their second careers.

I agree that the HOF will lose some of it's luster down the road. It's a shame that all of this has transpired the way it has.

Ownership remains the "clown" during baseball's history.

brewguru wrote:For McGwire, I think the main issue is, without using PED's, would he be a HOFer? The answer is debateable, but I think it's no. Look at his stats from '96 on. Without PED's, his HR's and OBP (the 2 stats that would put him in the HOF) are vastly different.

I don't think its debatable at all. He isn't HOF if hes not on the juice.

VinnyTheMick wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



I don't think its debatable at all. He isn't HOF if hes not on the juice.

I would have to agree with that.

HOF has become a jole anyway,so who really cares.

Bleeding Green wrote:
You can't pretend to have the Hall of Fame mean something without Bert Blyleven or Dwight Evans. It's **** absurd.

What's a joke is you thinking Dwight Evans should be in the HOF. Now, Dewey was one of my favorite players growing up, but he's not a HOFer. You are the first person in my life who thinks that Evans should be a no-doubt-about-it HOFer.

My point is that NO ONE talks about him but they talk about Jim Rice. Evans had a better career and it's not particularly close. Dwight Evans is comfortably a Hall of Famer in my mind. Others feel this way as well.

brewguru wrote:What's a joke is you thinking Dwight Evans should be in the HOF. Now, Dewey was one of my favorite players growing up, but he's not a HOFer. You are the first person in my life who thinks that Evans should be a no-doubt-about-it HOFer.

One of the top 5 or so defensive rightfielders in baseball history + one of the top 10 or so hitters of the 1980's = just like BG said, a comfortable HOFer. Except that he never received as much national acclaim as a briefly dominant hitter like Rice.

sully00 wrote:
This is an issue I have been thinking about for some time

It is easy now for people to accept the idea of a HOF without McGwire, Bonds, and Clemens but as time goes on it will seem more and more ridiculous, even more so as the list grows. Worse than that is the idea that there are not guys in the HOF right now who have used PED. Steroids have been prevelant in sports since the late 70's, and substance abuse and baseball have been intertwined since the games inception.

Sully00,

Very well put together and thought out post. I agree completely with what you're saying here!
.

wigglestrue wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



One of the top 5 or so defensive rightfielders in baseball history + one of the top 10 or so hitters of the 1980's = just like BG said, a comfortable HOFer. Except that he never received as much national acclaim as a briefly dominant hitter like Rice.

Mike Schmidt
George Brett
Eddie Murray
Cal Ripken
Dave Winfield
Robin Yount
Gary Carter
Paul Molitor
Wade Boggs
Tony Gwynn
Dale Murphy
Andre Dawson

Yeah, he's in the "or so" category. Maybe top 20 hitters of the '80s.

A comfortable Hall of Famer who was off the ballot in 3 years. OK.

brewguru wrote:

wigglestrue wrote:One of the top 5 or so defensive rightfielders in baseball history + one of the top 10 or so hitters of the 1980's = just like BG said, a comfortable HOFer. Except that he never received as much national acclaim as a briefly dominant hitter like Rice.

Mike Schmidt
George Brett
Eddie Murray
Cal Ripken
Dave Winfield
Robin Yount
Gary Carter
Paul Molitor
Wade Boggs
Tony Gwynn
Dale Murphy
Andre Dawson

Yeah, he's in the "or so" category. Maybe top 20 hitters of the '80s.

A comfortable Hall of Famer who was off the ballot in 3 years. OK.

Cal Ripken????? Robin Yount??????? Gary ****ing Carter?????

Dude, as hitters, they are not nearly as good as Dwight Evans was. If you want to talk about them as overall players, or their value to a team based on their positions or whatever, that's a different subject.

I would also say that as a hitter, Dewey was better than Dawson and Molitor and Murphy, too. Murphy had a more solid 4-5 year peak, that's about it. Winfield was more or less as good as Dewey. It's debatable anyway. Here's what your list should have looked like:

Better than Dewey:
Mike Schmidt
George Brett
Eddie Murray
Wade Boggs
Tony Gwynn
Rickey Henderson

Debatable:
Tim Raines
Dave Winfield
Paul Molitor
Dale Murphy
Andre Dawson

For more information on why you're wrong, see the following:

http://www.thebaseballpage.com/stats/de ... atting.php

Runs - 3rd
----------------------------
Rickey Henderson... 1122
Robin Yount... 957
Dwight Evans... 956
Dale Murphy... 938
Tim Raines... 866
Eddie Murray... 858
Willie Wilson... 845
Mike Schmidt... 832
Paul Molitor... 828
Wade Boggs... 823

Hits - 10th
----------------------
Robin Yount... 1731
Eddie Murray... 1642
Willie Wilson... 1639
Wade Boggs... 1597
Dale Murphy... 1553
Harold Baines... 1547
Andre Dawson... 1539
Rickey Henderson... 1507
Alan Trammell... 1504
Dwight Evans... 1497

Home Runs - 4th
----------------------
Mike Schmidt... 313
Dale Murphy... 308
Eddie Murray... 274
Dwight Evans... 256
Andre Dawson... 250
Darrell Evans... 230
Tony Armas... 225
Lance Parrish... 225
Dave Winfield... 223
Jack Clark... 216

Runs Batted In - 4th
-------------------------
Eddie Murray... 996
Dale Murphy... 929
Mike Schmidt... 929
Dwight Evans... 900
Dave Winfield... 899
Andre Dawson... 895
Jim Rice... 868
George Brett... 851
Harold Baines... 835
Robin Yount... 821

Total Bases - 5th
-----------------------
Dale Murphy... 2796
Eddie Murray... 2791
Robin Yount... 2756
Andre Dawson... 2685
Dwight Evans... 2657
Mike Schmidt... 2507
Harold Baines... 2478
Dave Winfield... 2450
George Brett... 2422
Jim Rice... 2390

Doubles - 3rd
------------------------
Robin Yount... 337
Wade Boggs... 314
Dwight Evans... 306
George Brett... 303
Bill Buckner... 290
Andre Dawson... 290
Eddie Murray... 289
Frank White... 283
Harold Baines... 276
Keith Hernandez... 273

Bases on Balls - 2nd
------------------------------
Rickey Henderson... 962
Dwight Evans... 919
Jack Clark... 835
Mike Schmidt... 818
Dale Murphy... 784
Willie Randolph... 777
Darrell Evans... 776
Wade Boggs... 754
Eddie Murray... 754
Keith Hernandez... 742

Slugging Percentage - 7th
--------------------------------
Mike Schmidt... .540
Don Mattingly... .521
George Brett... .521
Pedro Guerrero... .506
Andre Dawson... .497
Eddie Murray... .497
Dwight Evans... .497
Kent Hrbek... .496
Dave Winfield... .492
Dale Murphy... .491

On-Base Percentage - 8th
------------------------------
Wade Boggs... .443
Rickey Henderson... .403
George Brett... .392
Tim Raines... .391
Keith Hernandez... .390
Jack Clark... .389
Tony Gwynn... .389
Dwight Evans... .385
Mike Schmidt... .385
Pedro Guerrero... .383

OPS (OBP + SLG) - 6th
----------------------------
Mike Schmidt... .925
Wade Boggs... .922
George Brett... .913
Don Mattingly... .889
Pedro Guerrero... .888
Dwight Evans... .882
Jack Clark... .873
Eddie Murray... .872
Kent Hrbek... .864
Dale Murphy... .852

Total Average - 6th
-------------------------------
Rickey Henderson... .990
Mike Schmidt... .967
Wade Boggs... .953
Tim Raines... .949
George Brett... .937
Dwight Evans... .905
Jack Clark... .899
Pedro Guerrero... .892
Eddie Murray... .870
Don Mattingly... .855

Runs Created - 2nd
---------------------------
Eddie Murray... 1042.6
Dwight Evans... 1015.1
Robin Yount... 990.7
Dale Murphy... 984.5
Wade Boggs... 957.9
Mike Schmidt... 949.6
George Brett... 943.2
Dave Winfield... 863.3
Andre Dawson... 854.9
Harold Baines... 842.1

LOL

It's funny when you get owned, isn't it?

wigglestrue wrote:-= original quote snipped =-
For more information on why you're wrong, see the following:

http://www.thebaseballpage.com/stats/de...atting.php

Oh lord, haven't enough people dispensed with this kind of "reasoning" when going over Jack Morris's candidacy? Yeah Evans ranked among the leaders over an arbitrary 10-year period that happened to coincide with a decade. No one is impressed.

Bottom line: Evans career season-adjusted, park-adjusted OPS+ = 127 = very good, not great.

Others with comparable OPS+: Rickey Henderson, Bob Horner, Don Mattingly, Jimmy Winn, Joe Torre. All very good players, but no future HOFers among them, except of course Henderson, whose all-time records in steals, walks and runs scored obviously help. (To whoever said Henderson won't get in on the first ballot: mark my words, he will compete for the all-time record for most votes on the first ballot.)

#1 comp for Evans on the similarity scale: Luis Gonzalez. #2: Chili Davis. Some HOFers crack the top 10 (Billy Williams, Tony Perez, Al Kaline), all based on stats that were accumulated in the pitching-dominated 1960s.

Evans had 399 homers in baseball's most extreme hitters' park during basically a neutral era. He batted .297/.376/.480. This is very good. And of course, he was a great defensive right fielder. If he were a great defensive shortstop or a great defensive catcher, he'd be a lock. (Actually, if he were a lousy defensive shortstop, he'd still be a lock: see Jeter, Derek.) Hall-worthy? Meh.

Evans' candidacy is better than Jim Rice's. It's better than Mattingly's candidacy because of longevity. But it's not better than those of, say, Alan Trammell or Lou Whittaker. Maybe it's on a par with some of those third basemen who didn't get in: Cey, Nettles, Bando. He certainly would not disgrace the institution by being voted in. But a lock? Someone whose absence disgraces the institution? That's just some crazy talk right there.

hippie wrote:Oh lord, haven't enough people dispensed with this kind of "reasoning" when going over Jack Morris's candidacy? Yeah Evans ranked among the leaders over an arbitrary 10-year period that happened to coincide with a decade. No one is impressed.

It happens to not be an arbitrary period in terms of Dewey's career, it's the period after Walt Hriniak helped reshape his swing in 1980. And seriously, you're not impressed by his rankings in that 10 year period, no matter how arbitrary?

Bottom line: Evans career season-adjusted, park-adjusted OPS+ = 127 = very good, not great.

That's the problem with Evans, his hitting career can be split into two periods, the pre-Hriniak and post-Hriniak eras. He was a mediocre hitter pre-Hriniak, and a great hitter post-Hriniak.

Others with comparable OPS+: Rickey Henderson, Bob Horner, Don Mattingly, Jimmy Winn, Joe Torre. All very good players, but no future HOFers among them, except of course Henderson, whose all-time records in steals, walks and runs scored obviously help. (To whoever said Henderson won't get in on the first ballot: mark my words, he will compete for the all-time record for most votes on the first ballot.)

Mattingly's career was shortened, but he was certainly on his way to becoming a HOFer. Torre might make it someday via the Vet committee. Anyway, it's Dewey's defense that sets him apart from his hitting comparables.

#1 comp for Evans on the similarity scale: Luis Gonzalez. #2: Chili Davis. Some HOFers crack the top 10 (Billy Williams, Tony Perez, Al Kaline), all based on stats that were accumulated in the pitching-dominated 1960s.

Kaline is a pretty good comparison, IMO.

Evans had 399 homers in baseball's most extreme hitters' park during basically a neutral era.

According to BP's translated stats, he'd have had over 500 HR.

He batted .297/.376/.480. This is very good. And of course, he was a great defensive right fielder. If he were a great defensive shortstop or a great defensive catcher, he'd be a lock. (Actually, if he were a lousy defensive shortstop, he'd still be a lock: see Jeter, Derek.) Hall-worthy? Meh.

He played the most difficult right field in baseball.

Evans' candidacy is better than Jim Rice's. It's better than Mattingly's candidacy because of longevity. But it's not better than those of, say, Alan Trammell or Lou Whittaker. Maybe it's on a par with some of those third basemen who didn't get in: Cey, Nettles, Bando. He certainly would not disgrace the institution by being voted in. But a lock? Someone whose absence disgraces the institution? That's just some crazy talk right there.

Not better than Whitaker, but since Whitaker should comfortably be in the HOF too, then I'd say having an equal case to Whitaker's is a damn good thing.

Fenway is not an extreme HR hitting park. It suppressed them like crazy. Probably the hardest place to hit HR in baseball. It inflates doubles like crazy, though.

Bleeding Green wrote:Fenway is not an extreme HR hitting park. It suppressed them like crazy. Probably the hardest place to hit HR in baseball. It inflates doubles like crazy, though.

The hardest place to hit a HR in baseball? Seriously? Pop flys to deep left center at places like say, Yankee Stadium are Home Runs at Fenway...plus the pesky pole. Come on, hardest in baseball? Its not like its 420 to Right center with a wind blowing in off the water like San Fran. Its not like its 380+ to all the gaps like San Diego...lets be real here.

Best and Worst Home Run Parks:
2001:
Best: Progressive Field
Worst: Minute Maid Park

2002:
Best: Coors Field
Worst: Chase Field

2003:
Best: Olympic Stadium
Worst: Turner Field

2004:
Best: U.S. Cellular Field
Worst: Petco Park/Bithorn Stadium (Puerto Rico)

2005:
Best: U.S. Cellular Field
Worst: Petco Park

2006:
Best: Chase Field
Worst: AT&T Park

2007:
Best: Citizens Bank Park
Worst: RFK Stadium

I don't really understand how they get these but here is the link:
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/par ... eason=2007