Baseball HOF has 0 inductees this year

[B1GTide]

The problem is the inconsistencies in which "we" decide when morality or lack thereof becomes enough to keep someone out of the HOF.

I am not inconsistent . Maybe you mean that different people apply different criteria from one person to the next, and that may be true. But I don't. I want no steroids users in the HoF, and I want no one that is a garbage human being in the HoF. There are countless ways that one could be classified as a garbage human being, but Schilling qualifies for me. And I can't get into my reasoning on this board.

 

[Bamabuzzard]

I am not inconsistent . Maybe you mean that different people apply different criteria from one person to the next, and that may be true. But I don't. I want no steroids users in the HoF, and I want no one that is a garbage human being in the HoF. There are countless ways that one could be classified as a garbage human being, but Schilling qualifies for me. And I can't get into my reasoning on this board.

People do not view all "sins" as equal and your criteria for someone being a "garbage human being" may not be like someone else's. There are about 400 writers who vote and I can guarantee you not all of them see adultery the same. You'd have some that view it at as no big deal and "it happens all the time". Then you'd have some who view it much harsher and would deem the player a piece of crap for doing it. Who's right?

Take Chipper Jones for example, the guy is BELOVED by Braves fans and is a HOF'er. But read the excerpt from his book that I put at the end of my post. I don't really care for Chipper Jones as a person. Regardless of how many times he apologized, the guy committed adultery god knows how many times on his wife with god knows how many women and one of them ended up pregnant. On my value system that's a big deal and a sorry piece of crap of a man. But I'll let the Lord judge him on that but the guy belongs in the baseball HOF because of his accomplishments on the field. If we start removing pro athletes from the HOF and keeping those out of the HOF who were adulterers, it would damn near be empty.

 

[B1GTide]

People do not view all "sins" as equal and your criteria for someone being a "garbage human being" may not be like someone else's. There are about 400 writers who vote and I can guarantee you not all of them see adultery the same. You'd have some that view it at as no big deal and "it happens all the time". Then you'd have some who view it much harsher and would deem the player a piece of crap for doing it. Who's right?

Take Chipper Jones for example, the guy is BELOVED by Braves fans and is a HOF'er. But read the excerpt from his book that I put at the end of my post. I don't really care for Chipper Jones as a person. Regardless of how many times he apologized, the guy committed adultery god knows how many times on his wife with god knows how many women and one of them ended up pregnant. On my value system that's a big deal and a sorry piece of crap of a man. But I'll let the Lord judge him on that but the guy belongs in the baseball HOF because of his accomplishments on the field. If we start removing pro athletes from the HOF and keeping those out of the HOF who were adulterers, it would damn near be empty.

View attachment 14688

I agree, but we can all have our opinions, right? And they don't have to be the same, or even consistent to be valid for each of us.

 

[Bamabuzzard]

I agree, but we can all have our opinions, right? And they don't have to be the same, or even consistent to be valid for each of us.

No doubt, it's what great discussions are made of, differing view points.

 

[TIDETOWN]

I think some of that statement may have been said tongue and cheek. There's not a pill, shot, or cream in the world that can improve someone's hand eye coordination. God given ability and A LOT of work is required and any player that's made a MLB or even minor league roster didn't do so beause of a pill, shot or cream. It's just not that easy.

I definitely agree with you on this, he made this statement one night after his playing career had ended on ESPN and I thought it was rather humorous on the other hand he was about 35lbs of muscle lighter and McGwire showed up looking like a bean pole in AA ball. My son in law worked at Huntsville Stars stadium and it was well rumored that ped's were making their rounds.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Agreed that his dropoff was HUGE. When he gained weight, he became a bad baseball player and even his defense suffered. But for most of his career he was worth at least one run per game on defense. That is like adding 162 RBIs to his offensive numbers - probably closer to 200.

And I think it's that over the cliff drop that keeps him out of the Hall.

NOW....I would remind everyone, though, that things change dramatically. I don't think we're ever again going to see somebody put together another 20-year major league career ever again (other than some guys who started awhile back perhaps). Owners have the whole game figured out now, and they should be able (barring someone stupid) to make money at this.

I won't go so far as to say NEVER, that's a tad too strong. But we're not going to see a team like the 1983 Phillies, who get to the World Series with a bunch of guys in their late 30s, either. An owner who can sign a 20-year old all-around player of any competent level for 1/2 of the minimum of a 38-year old DH is going to do it.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

You're correct, steroids doesn't improve hand eye coordination. So when Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, Conseco and the rest of the players took them, it didn't improve their already insane ability to hit a baseball.

Steroids allows a player to not only heal faster and get stronger, but basically stay in their prime for 5-6 years longer than they other wise would.

This is truly amazing given that 20 years ago I was told the reason McGwire was breaking down was because of all the steroids he took.

Take a look at Bonds career. Between his rookie year of 1986 and 1999, he only hit 40 hrs 3 times and that was between the age of 27-32 years old. That age range is no doubt, within the natural prime of his career. But then from 2000-2004 (age 35-39) he reels off 5 consecutive years of 40+ homeruns with one year being 73 hrs. Bonds hitting 40 hrs isn't unheard of, he definitely had the skills to do it. But 5 consecutive years of it from 35-39 yrs of age and it doesn't look like any 5 year stretch in the prime of his career?

While there's no question Bonds took steroids (and anyone pretending otherwise probably believes OJ Simpson was also innocent), it's also not unreasonable to see him firing off a stretch of home runs due to other circumstances:

1) the building of so many new hitter-friendly parks, some of which Bonds gained access to (like Globe Life Field) because of inter-league play being added in 1997.

2) the addition of FOUR new franchises (two in 1993, two in 1998) that diluted the already thin MLB pitching (which makes the Braves pitching staff of the 90s all the more a miracle).

3) the rapidly shrinking strike zone

I'm not denying Bonds took steroids.
I'm not even denying there's a reason they're called "performance-enhancing drugs."

But I'm also willing to acknowledge the context of the time in which he played. If folks wish to argue "but Aaron didn't use steroids," I would likewise point out, "He also didn't face pitchers taking them, either." And the bulk of those caught since drug testing have been pitchers.

Aaron still hit 30-40 hrs/year in this same age range. But it looked a lot like what he did throughout his career. He'd hit 30+ for a few years, get a 40+ the next. Drop back down to 30 hrs/year for a few years then get another 40. That's not what Bond's statistical career pattern looks like. You see a pattern, then you see this (the red circled area). I was born at night, just not last night. I want to pose a question to the board. What if Hank Aaron had an additional 5 years in his prime, what would the record had been for Bonds to catch?

View attachment 14649

Ah, the "Hank Aaron was so consistent" fallacy. Let's deal with this in the context of his time.

For starters, Aaron IS - without serious argument - one of the ten best players and five best right fielders to ever play professional baseball. We can argue the stats a tad here and there, but that he is an elite all-time great is without serious question. But his career circumstances create an illusion that he was this incredibly consistent player who missed the decline phase of his career when - in actuality - the context changed multiple times in his career that enabled him to break Ruth's record.

From 1957 to 1961 - playing in one of the worst hitter's parks in baseball - Aaron hit 44, 30, 39, 40, and 34 home runs. But he hit SUBSTANTIALLY MORE of those 187 homers on the road, too, because County Stadium was a great pitchers park but a terrible one for hitters. Aaron was pretty consistent across the years, although by HIS OWN standards his 1958 season was an off-year.

But then three things happened and one stayed the same that helped Aaron out:

1962 - the NL added two franchises, the Colt 45s (now Astros) and the Mets, which diluted the MLB pitching available even more back then than it would today (because the baseball draft that evened things out with the Yankees didn't even exist until 1965). That same year, MLB raised the pitching mound, and the rest of the decade was Sandy Koufax and Bob Gibson throwing a bunch of shutouts.

1966 - the Braves move from one of the hardest home run parks in Milwaukee to the easiest pre-Coors Field park (aka the Launching Pad) in Atlanta, and Aaron jumps from 32 home runs in 1965 to leading the league both of the next two seasons with a combined total of 83.

1969 - MLB lowers the pitching mound, shifting the emphasis from the pitchers back to the hitters. Aaron goes from 29 home runs in 1968 - the Year of the Pitcher (Gibson's 1.12 ERA, McLain's 31 wins, Drysdale's shutout streak) - to 44, 38, and 47 home runs in 1969-71, when he should have begun his downhill slope at age 35 (in 1969). Aaron then adds 74 more home runs to put him at 713 at the end of 1973......and his last 3 seasons (ages 40-42), he hits 42 more (14 per season) to finish with 755.

The other thing one can argue benefited Aaron for much of his career:
a) he faced four-man pitching rotations rather than five-man rotations (this is debatable in terms of its effect)
b) relief specialists - especially the late 70s kind where Gossage and Sutter and Fingers picked up REAL saves with three-inning appearances rather than the Eckersely-Rivera tactic of coming in with a 3-run lead and getting out three guys who have (mostly) been playing for the last 3 hours - did not yet exist.

Nobody should take ANY of what I said above as in any way trashing or impugning Aaron. I loved Hank Aaron (the past tense still bothers me already), and I utterly despised Barry Bonds and was angry as hell that that bozo of all players passed the record. But I'm also forced to acknowledge reality even with the players I love (such as the fact that we don't know how many of Ruth's home runs would be ground rule doubles nowadays since prior to 1930, the ball could bounce over the fence and it was a home run).

If Aaron had played his entire career in ATLANTA rather than Milwaukee, he probably would have hit over 900 home runs and maybe even closed in on 1,000. If he had never left Milwaukee, he never would have had the record. But Aaron also benefited from the fact that Willie Mays - who was probably a better all-around player - was victimized by playing with wind blowing in Candlestick Park during the 1960s.

If I were drafting an all-time team, I'd still draft Aaron over Bonds seven days a week. Barry was a clubhouse cancer and a post-season choke artist who is largely responsible himself for the fact he never won a World Series ring. Aaron had the misfortune of being on the most under-achieving team commensurate to the talent on the team in baseball history (1956-1959 Milwaukee Braves).

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Addressing the "morality clause" of the baseball hof and the sports writers having the power to levy it as a reason to keep someone out. Stephen A Smith said it best in that it is known among those in the business that there are many sportswriters (with HOF votes) that are drunks, drug addicts and "many other things". Yet we allow them to pass moral judgement on others.

Or they're guys like Jay Mariotti, who rant and rave on domestic abuse and then get arrested (and fired by ESPN) for........domestic abuse.....

 

[B1GTide]

While there's no question Bonds took steroids (and anyone pretending otherwise probably believes OJ Simpson was also innocent), it's also not unreasonable to see him firing off a stretch of home runs due to other circumstances:

Science tells us what we need to know. These were small guys who became huge by using steroids, and all of them has admitted it. It did not allow them to hit a baseball - they were all gifted at that before ever touching the steroids. But it allowed them to hit a baseball HARDER because they had more strength and could generate more bat speed.

They could work out longer, recover faster, work out again, recover faster, workout again, etc. - AND they could still get bigger. Try doing that without PEDs. I have - you reach the point of diminished returns very quickly. There is a point when you push yourself beyond the optimal training zone and the result is loss of fitness and strength rather than continued increase. Well, these PEDs change that. They push out your optimal zone so far that it is almost impossible to exceed it. As long as you are willing to put in the extra work, you will continue to get bigger, and stronger, and faster.

Did the smaller parks help their numbers. Yes. 2019 had the most home runs ever hit in a MLB season mostly because of the tiny parks. But that has led to all baseball players hitting more homeruns at a rate predictable per player. What happened in the steroids era was totally different. 20-30 HR per year players suddenly became 50-60 HR per year players, and that has never happened before or since.

The science is clear. And argument of causation is just an attempt to play devil's advocate. The arguments are false.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I am not inconsistent . Maybe you mean that different people apply different criteria from one person to the next, and that may be true. But I don't. I want no steroids users in the HoF, and I want no one that is a garbage human being in the HoF. There are countless ways that one could be classified as a garbage human being, but Schilling qualifies for me. And I can't get into my reasoning on this board.

Let me defend B1G's consistency here because although I'm not always going to agree with his conclusions on things, he IS quite consistent on these things (as I attempt to be).

B1G - if I'm reading him correctly - is saying, "None of them." And let's be frank (or joe or bill or whoever) and say that this is a WHOLE LOT MORE consistent than the people who tell me, "Well, Bonds and Clemens were HOF BEFORE they started using."

I always ask these people, "How do you know when they started using?" And they then give me this whole nonsensical thing about "well Bonds' head got bigger as he got older." Your entire body gets bigger UP TO A POINT as you get older as your fat becomes connective tissue and a permanent part of you and making it so much more difficult to lose weight than in your 20s. Look, I think it's clear Bonds DID use steroids, but it's when people start saying they're against the juicing "but these guys were good enough before they used it."

How the hell can they possibly know this? After all, they disparage Mark McGwire as a steroid user and say, "Well, he wasn't a HOFer without the steroids?"

REALLY? How many of you ever sat down and looked at it???

McGwire is about 9 months older than Bonds, and they came up together in 1986, Bonds for an entire season and McGwire as a late-season try.

In 1987, much of the season story was about the sudden increase in home runs all throughout baseball. McGwire made the All-Star team and was treated for much of the year as a serious contender to break Roger Maris' home run record as he had 33 HRs at the All-Star break. There is zero question that at age 22 in 1987, McGwire was a better baseball player than Bonds was (.289, 49 HRs, 118 RBI vs .261, 25 HRs, 59 RBIs). McGwire was Rookie of the Year, an All-Star, and 6th in the MVP voting - and Bonds was not even in the zip code.

NOBODY.....NOBODY.....said then McGwire was using and even Jose Canseco says the roid use was later.
For the next four seasons (1988-1990), McGwire (playing in cavernous pitcher-friendly Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum) hit 32, 33, and 39 home runs, and he became the first player in MLB history to hit 30 or more home runs in each of his first four seasons as an MBL player. NOBODY did this before McGwire - not Ruth, Mays, Mantle, DiMaggio, Aaron, or Bonds. By McGwire's own admission (in 2010), his first attempt to use was after the 1990 season and then he became a constant user after an injury in 1993 (this is more detail than most admitted steroid users give).

Now that's not to say Barry Bonds was any sort of slouch during this time frame. He had a breakout season in 1990 and won the MVP, although if you had been picking one of them in the draft based on 1987-89, it wouldn't have even been particularly close and you would have taken McGwire. Bonds passed him in 1990 as far as perception although I'm the first to admit Bonds's overall ability was always there. But the idea that McGwire suddenly came out of nowhere as a steroid freak in 1997-2000 is simply ignorant prattle by people who never heard of the guy until the summer of 1998.

Now - no, I don't think McGwire makes the Hall based on 1987-1990 for the same reasons I said regarding Andruw Jones, he just didn't do it enough. But keep in mind although he didn't lead the league in home runs again until 1996, he DID finish 3rd in the AL in 1988 and 1989 and runner-up to Cecil Fielder's 51 in 1990. So McGwire was unloading bombs before the first suspicion was even cast (although he was overshadowed by the "we think he's on steroids" Jose Canseco, who went and lied about it during the 1988 ALCS).


Consistency - to me - is very simple on steroids.

Either they ALL GO IN - including Palmeiro's 3,000 hits and Sosa's 600 home runs and McGwire - or they ALL STAY OUT. None of this "well these guys make it because they were HOFers before they used."

How do you know when they began using????

I take the position similar to that given by Jeff Passan a few days ago - it's a MUSEUM!!! It records the history of the game. Steroids are a part of the history of the game. The end.

But I'll note I've never had a problem with the deniers of entry just so long as they apply it across the board.

 

[B1GTide]

Let me defend B1G's consistency here because although I'm not always going to agree with his conclusions on things, he IS quite consistent on these things (as I attempt to be).

B1G - if I'm reading him correctly - is saying, "None of them." And let's be frank (or joe or bill or whoever) and say that this is a WHOLE LOT MORE consistent than the people who tell me, "Well, Bonds and Clemens were HOF BEFORE they started using."

I always ask these people, "How do you know when they started using?" And they then give me this whole nonsensical thing about "well Bonds' head got bigger as he got older." Your entire body gets bigger UP TO A POINT as you get older as your fat becomes connective tissue and a permanent part of you and making it so much more difficult to lose weight than in your 20s. Look, I think it's clear Bonds DID use steroids, but it's when people start saying they're against the juicing "but these guys were good enough before they used it."

How the hell can they possibly know this? After all, they disparage Mark McGwire as a steroid user and say, "Well, he wasn't a HOFer without the steroids?"

REALLY? How many of you ever sat down and looked at it???

McGwire is about 9 months older than Bonds, and they came up together in 1986, Bonds for an entire season and McGwire as a late-season try.

In 1987, much of the season story was about the sudden increase in home runs all throughout baseball. McGwire made the All-Star team and was treated for much of the year as a serious contender to break Roger Maris' home run record as he had 33 HRs at the All-Star break. There is zero question that at age 22 in 1987, McGwire was a better baseball player than Bonds was (.289, 49 HRs, 118 RBI vs .261, 25 HRs, 59 RBIs). McGwire was Rookie of the Year, an All-Star, and 6th in the MVP voting - and Bonds was not even in the zip code.

NOBODY.....NOBODY.....said then McGwire was using and even Jose Canseco says the roid use was later.
For the next four seasons (1988-1990), McGwire (playing in cavernous pitcher-friendly Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum) hit 32, 33, and 39 home runs, and he became the first player in MLB history to hit 30 or more home runs in each of his first four seasons as an MBL player. NOBODY did this before McGwire - not Ruth, Mays, Mantle, DiMaggio, Aaron, or Bonds. By McGwire's own admission (in 2010), his first attempt to use was after the 1990 season and then he became a constant user after an injury in 1993 (this is more detail than most admitted steroid users give).

Now that's not to say Barry Bonds was any sort of slouch during this time frame. He had a breakout season in 1990 and won the MVP, although if you had been picking one of them in the draft based on 1987-89, it wouldn't have even been particularly close and you would have taken McGwire. Bonds passed him in 1990 as far as perception although I'm the first to admit Bonds's overall ability was always there. But the idea that McGwire suddenly came out of nowhere as a steroid freak in 1997-2000 is simply ignorant prattle by people who never heard of the guy until the summer of 1998.

Now - no, I don't think McGwire makes the Hall based on 1987-1990 for the same reasons I said regarding Andruw Jones, he just didn't do it enough. But keep in mind although he didn't lead the league in home runs again until 1996, he DID finish 3rd in the AL in 1988 and 1989 and runner-up to Cecil Fielder's 51 in 1990. So McGwire was unloading bombs before the first suspicion was even cast (although he was overshadowed by the "we think he's on steroids" Jose Canseco, who went and lied about it during the 1988 ALCS).


Consistency - to me - is very simple on steroids.

Either they ALL GO IN - including Palmeiro's 3,000 hits and Sosa's 600 home runs and McGwire - or they ALL STAY OUT. None of this "well these guys make it because they were HOFers before they used."

How do you know when they began using????

I take the position similar to that given by Jeff Passan a few days ago - it's a MUSEUM!!! It records the history of the game. Steroids are a part of the history of the game. The end.

But I'll note I've never had a problem with the deniers of entry just so long as they apply it across the board.

Great post. I have no doubt that Bonds was on his way to the HoF without the use of PEDs. But would he have made it? How can we know? Earlier we discussed the cliff that Andruw Jones fell off. How can we be sure that a similar fate did not await Bonds or any of these guys had they chosen not to take PEDs?

They made their beds and cashed in. Let them live out their very wealthy lives without tainting the HoF.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Great post. I have no doubt that Bonds was on his way to the HoF without the use of PEDs. But would he have made it? How can we know? Earlier we discussed the cliff that Andruw Jones fell off. How can we be sure that a similar fate did not await Bonds or any of these guys had they chosen not to take PEDs?

They made their beds and cashed in. Let them live out their very wealthy lives without tainting the HoF.

And I absolutely get this and respect this position, too. It was one I held for a very long time, and it was kind of painful in a way because despite Bonds being a third-rate jerk, he WAS fun to watch. Same with Clemens.

And your point about Andruw is exactly my point. McGwire BY HIS OWN ADMISSION would not have been able to play as long as he did without the steroids. McGwire, too, was on his way to a Hall of Fame career until he stopped lifting weights and had an absolutely awful 1991, a year he was so bad that Tony LaRussa held him out of the final A's game of the year just to prevent Big Mac from going below a .200 batting average (he finished at .201). He then had a series of injuries, juiced up, and came back firing rockets at will.

I thought they should have inducted Rose and then not permitted him to give a speech or have his day - or even let him visit the Hall, heh heh. The Rose thing (shifting gears) was personally painful for me and one of those "days I grew up" by learning the world wasn't the one I saw on TV. Pete Rose was - for us kids who started watching ball (but not Archie Griffin) in the 1970s, Dad told us to watch that guy and play like that guy. Hustle, hustle every play, run to first on a walk, keep your head in the game at all times. Had I been wiser and older than 19, I would have known the moment that the accusation came that Rose was guilty simply because compulsive gamblers don't draw lines......because they're compulsive gamblers. I just assumed Rose could compartmentalize and know not to do something illegal. The night he signed his banishment, my Dad and I (who at that point weren't talking about much else) had a conversation about it where Dad said, "Well, he did it." His 44-year old perspective at the time was almost crude intruding into my life like that. But the one thing that my teenage mind kept thinking was...."why would you sign a lifetime ban from your employer UNLESS YOU DID IT?" I mean, plea bargains aren't generally agreed to by innocent folks unless they have lousy lawyers.

So the Rose thing tore me up emotionally.

Steroids? Not only was I not surprised, but we thought that in 1998 even before the finding of the andro bottle in Mac's locker. Where I part on steroids with you, though (I think), is at this point - does anybody here REALLY believe the guys who used steroids were the first people who tried to gain an edge, to cheat, to do whatever subterfuge they could to improve their chances? Of course not. Now - perhaps someone may draw the line at "well this goes TOO far" sorta like saying that "we all know all the colleges cheat at recruiting but there's a difference in breaking the speed limit and doing it while drinking a beer with an underage coed satisfying you driving down the road and giving the middle finger to a cop."

And I'm fine with that. I enjoy the discussion because varying viewpoints sharpen my own whatever direction.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Just a comment being from the Huntsville area where Conseco and McGwire both played AA ball Conseco made a statement after he had admitted to steroid use that without phd's he would not have been a good softball player. I take that comment as to this greatly enhancing is career. As far as Curt Schilling goes his performance as a major league pitcher particularly in playoff circumstances would include him in the hof politics aside.

The thing with Schilling is - he's a BORDERLINE CASE.

He's not Greg Maddux.

His record is 216-146, and his ERA is 3.46.

Yes, he pitched for terrible teams in 1992 and 1994-00 (and a World Series team in 1993), but yes, he was very good all things considered.

Starting in 2001, Schilling played for nothing but contenders (making the playoffs five times in the next seven years and winning three World Series). He was also a rather self-centered drama queen, from putting the towel on his head with Mitch Williams pitching in 1993 and the whole "red sock" thing in 2004.

Go look at the pitchers MOST SIMILAR to Schilling:

Kevin Brown
Zack Greinke
Bob Welch
Justin Verlander
Tim Hudson
Orel Hershiser
Freddie Fitzsimmons
Milt Pappas
Mark Buherle
John Smoltz

So let's see.......Verlander will be in the Hall, Smoltz is in the Hall but not the best comparison because Smoltz was more like Eckersely career-wise than like Schilling. I'm sure Greinke will get some support, but out of his ten most similar players, only ONE is a sure-fire Hall of Famer (Verlander) and the other HOF doesn't really compare head-to-head because of the mid-career switch.

The other guys - ALL good pitchers - are NOT in the Hall of Fame, so more than 1/2 the guys Schilling falls in line with are NOT Hall of Fame pitchers. They're GOOD, but they're not considered GREAT.

In Schilling's case, this whole thing seems to turn on "wow, he was great in the post-season," and I'll admit he was. But for starters - even being in the post-season depends IN PART on being on a good team. Phil Niekro was saddled with some horrible teams and only made the playoffs twice, once when middle career age for most folks and once when he was over 40. Schilling WAS an outstanding post-season pitcher, so I can at least see part of the argument.

But the reality is that when you view his ENTIRE CAREER, he's "maybe, maybe not" already. His mouth has helped push people who see that reality to the "why in the world would I honor this guy" vote.

Curt Schilling never won a Cy Young Award, either. While I would hardly call voting infallible, let's be straight - that means that despite pitching full-time in the big leagues for 17 seasons (and parts of 3 others), there was NOT ONE SINGLE TIME that the voters thought he was the best pitcher in his league. I'll admit that the peer group of the 90s is difficult - Maddux, Clemens, Pedro, Big Unit, Glavine, even Smoltz's 1996. But the reality is that Schilling was never once seen as the best pitcher in his league.

My Hall standards are so high - when taking it in terms of player accomplishment - that Schilling would not make MY Hall of Fame regardless (but then again neither would Don Drysdale, Jack Morris, or Catfish Hunter).

 

[B1GTide]

The thing with Schilling is - he's a BORDERLINE CASE.

My Hall standards are so high - when taking it in terms of player accomplishment - that Schilling would not make MY Hall of Fame regardless (but then again neither would Don Drysdale, Jack Morris, or Catfish Hunter).

I agree - if he were a great human being with borderline stats, he would be in right now. When you are borderline, you really need people to like you to get in. Schilling is one of the most disliked players of all time. His teammates didn't like him, the fans didn't like him, ownership didn't like him - I wonder if his family likes him.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I agree - if he were a great human being with borderline stats, he would be in right now. When you are borderline, you really need people to like you to get in. Schilling is one of the most disliked players of all time. His teammates didn't like him, the fans didn't like him, ownership didn't like him - I wonder if his family likes him.

The funny thing is that this is the application of the Don Drysdale argument.

Despite folks thinking Don Drysdale was some other worldly pitcher in the 60s (and he wasn't), he was a very good but not great pitcher who wound up waiting about 10 ballots or so to make it into the HOF. His record isn't overly substantial - he's Jim Bunning with a better ERA because he played on better teams (which is partly why he went into the Hall several years earlier). Big Don was a handsome fella from Van Nuys, tall, and he had the shutout record for 20 years. He basically was Orel Hershiser without the injury period or steroids era-inflated stats.

But he had three things going for him:
1) he was a teammate of Sandy Koufax, so he got the rub from Sandy's success
2) he stayed on as an ABC broadcaster for many years after he retired
3) he was likable, charismatic personality

Without those 3 things, Drysdale winds up falling short like Milt Pappas, Mickey Lolich, Kevin Brown, or a bunch of pitchers who were similar and some better. In other words, he's a borderline case at best - and in the right circumstances where he's the lead pitcher on the ballot and is warmly remembered, it's enough to nudge him over the line.

Consider the pitchers on the 1984 ballot when Drysdale was elected:
Hoyt Wilhelm (really the first long relief pitcher and a knuckleballer)
Jim Bunning
Lew Burdette
Elroy Face
Don Larsen (who had no damned business beyond the first ballot opportunity)

Only Bunning is really in the Drysdale category of power pitchers on that ballot. But when Drysdale was on the same ballot as Marichal (1982 and 1983) and Bob Gibson (1981), he didn't get elected. (He also had some all-timers on earlier ballots with him - like Aaron and Frank Robinson in 1982, Al Kaline and Duke Snider in 1980, Willie Mays in 1979, and Ernie Banks and Eddie Mathews in earlier years).

Poor Bunning got so close and then found himself on the ballot with Catfish Hunter, Gaylord Perry, Fergie Jenkins, and Jim Palmer - and his eligibility ran out.

But my point being - Drysdale's charisma was enough to push him over the threshold and into the Hall. If Schilling could have kept his mouth shut on the more controversial subjects, he'd have likely been in already. But both are AT BEST "maybe, maybe not" cases.

 

[Bamabuzzard]

This is truly amazing given that 20 years ago I was told the reason McGwire was breaking down was because of all the steroids he took.

Steroids come with a double edge sword. While it helps short term with boosting performance, it begins to damage the body as well, and this isn't uncommon with PED's or even things like over the counter energy supplements sold at GNC. It's not good on the kidneys, liver and other internal body parts that have to process and digest the mess through the system. It's like making a deal with the devil, you get up front benefits but at some point the devil comes to collect. Before Lyle Alzado died, he gave "testimony" of how PED's starting breaking down his body. McGwire was more than likely beginning to experience the same thing.

While there's no question Bonds took steroids (and anyone pretending otherwise probably believes OJ Simpson was also innocent), it's also not unreasonable to see him firing off a stretch of home runs due to other circumstances:

1) the building of so many new hitter-friendly parks, some of which Bonds gained access to (like Globe Life Field) because of inter-league play being added in 1997.

2) the addition of FOUR new franchises (two in 1993, two in 1998) that diluted the already thin MLB pitching (which makes the Braves pitching staff of the 90s all the more a miracle).

3) the rapidly shrinking strike zone

I'm not denying Bonds took steroids.
I'm not even denying there's a reason they're called "performance-enhancing drugs."

But I'm also willing to acknowledge the context of the time in which he played. If folks wish to argue "but Aaron didn't use steroids," I would likewise point out, "He also didn't face pitchers taking them, either." And the bulk of those caught since drug testing have been pitchers.

Certainly those things have to be considered. But again, seeing what PED's do to the body, ask yourself this. Taking into account the context you laid out AND remove the steroids from Bond's body, would Bond's 73 HR's have dropped to 40? Would he had hit five straight years of 40+ hrs at that age or would it have been 30? He only beat Aaron by 7 hrs. Are we suggesting that the impact of the steroids on Bond's hr's was less than 7?
I fall on the side of, if the PED's were not in Bond's body, even with all the other things you laid out, he doesn't catch Aaron. Again, players took them for a reason and it wasn't just a placebo effect. It was extending players' careers and changing what they could do. You could almost go as far and say that for some players it changed the type hitter they were. Brady Anderson says "HI!"

Ah, the "Hank Aaron was so consistent" fallacy. Let's deal with this in the context of his time.

For starters, Aaron IS - without serious argument - one of the ten best players and five best right fielders to ever play professional baseball. We can argue the stats a tad here and there, but that he is an elite all-time great is without serious question. But his career circumstances create an illusion that he was this incredibly consistent player who missed the decline phase of his career when - in actuality - the context changed multiple times in his career that enabled him to break Ruth's record.

From 1957 to 1961 - playing in one of the worst hitter's parks in baseball - Aaron hit 44, 30, 39, 40, and 34 home runs. But he hit SUBSTANTIALLY MORE of those 187 homers on the road, too, because County Stadium was a great pitchers park but a terrible one for hitters. Aaron was pretty consistent across the years, although by HIS OWN standards his 1958 season was an off-year.

But then three things happened and one stayed the same that helped Aaron out:

1962 - the NL added two franchises, the Colt 45s (now Astros) and the Mets, which diluted the MLB pitching available even more back then than it would today (because the baseball draft that evened things out with the Yankees didn't even exist until 1965). That same year, MLB raised the pitching mound, and the rest of the decade was Sandy Koufax and Bob Gibson throwing a bunch of shutouts.

1966 - the Braves move from one of the hardest home run parks in Milwaukee to the easiest pre-Coors Field park (aka the Launching Pad) in Atlanta, and Aaron jumps from 32 home runs in 1965 to leading the league both of the next two seasons with a combined total of 83.

1969 - MLB lowers the pitching mound, shifting the emphasis from the pitchers back to the hitters. Aaron goes from 29 home runs in 1968 - the Year of the Pitcher (Gibson's 1.12 ERA, McLain's 31 wins, Drysdale's shutout streak) - to 44, 38, and 47 home runs in 1969-71, when he should have begun his downhill slope at age 35 (in 1969). Aaron then adds 74 more home runs to put him at 713 at the end of 1973......and his last 3 seasons (ages 40-42), he hits 42 more (14 per season) to finish with 755.

The other thing one can argue benefited Aaron for much of his career:
a) he faced four-man pitching rotations rather than five-man rotations (this is debatable in terms of its effect)
b) relief specialists - especially the late 70s kind where Gossage and Sutter and Fingers picked up REAL saves with three-inning appearances rather than the Eckersely-Rivera tactic of coming in with a 3-run lead and getting out three guys who have (mostly) been playing for the last 3 hours - did not yet exist.

Nobody should take ANY of what I said above as in any way trashing or impugning Aaron. I loved Hank Aaron (the past tense still bothers me already), and I utterly despised Barry Bonds and was angry as hell that that bozo of all players passed the record. But I'm also forced to acknowledge reality even with the players I love (such as the fact that we don't know how many of Ruth's home runs would be ground rule doubles nowadays since prior to 1930, the ball could bounce over the fence and it was a home run).

If Aaron had played his entire career in ATLANTA rather than Milwaukee, he probably would have hit over 900 home runs and maybe even closed in on 1,000. If he had never left Milwaukee, he never would have had the record. But Aaron also benefited from the fact that Willie Mays - who was probably a better all-around player - was victimized by playing with wind blowing in Candlestick Park during the 1960s.

If I were drafting an all-time team, I'd still draft Aaron over Bonds seven days a week. Barry was a clubhouse cancer and a post-season choke artist who is largely responsible himself for the fact he never won a World Series ring. Aaron had the misfortune of being on the most under-achieving team commensurate to the talent on the team in baseball history (1956-1959 Milwaukee Braves).

Selma, it seems you're explaining WHY he was consistent rather than proving he wasn't consistent. After his first 3 seasons in the big leagues, he literally went on a 17 year run where he only hit under 30 hrs TWICE. When that 17 year run was over, he only played three more seasons and was done. Where's the fallacy?

 

[Bamabuzzard]

Let me defend B1G's consistency here because although I'm not always going to agree with his conclusions on things, he IS quite consistent on these things (as I attempt to be).

B1G - if I'm reading him correctly - is saying, "None of them." And let's be frank (or joe or bill or whoever) and say that this is a WHOLE LOT MORE consistent than the people who tell me, "Well, Bonds and Clemens were HOF BEFORE they started using."

We were talking about "consistency" when applying the morality clause. My stance is the morality clause shouldn't even be apart of it because of how different people's moral judgement can be. We're going to let adulterers like Chipper Jones in, who admittedly had multiple affairs on his wife and got one of them pregnant. Yet Schilling political beliefs and persona on social media make him too immoral to be in the hall of fame? Or do we just unload everybody in the HOF who committed adultery, has political beliefs that offend us, and acts a total buttclown on the internet? If we do that we might as well address other sins as well and finally put Bob Uecker in the hof as a player because there will be plenty of room now.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Selma, it seems you're explaining WHY he was consistent rather than proving he wasn't consistent. After his first 3 seasons in the big leagues, he literally went on a 17 year run where he only hit under 30 hrs TWICE. When that 17 year run was over, he only played three more seasons and was done. Where's the fallacy?

You mean exactly the same as you're doing with Bonds????

Barry Bonds never gets to 756 with steroids - true.
Hank Aaron also never gets anywhere close to 755 (or even 715) without the mound alteration, strike zone alteration, and moving to higher altitude hitters park Atlanta.

Now - I'm not saying that morally those are the same thing, I'm just pointing out this whole "well Bonds was consistent but" can be used in more than one circumstnace.

 

[B1GTide]

We were talking about "consistency" when applying the morality clause. My stance is the morality clause shouldn't even be apart of it because of how different people's moral judgement can be.

Yep - and it is okay that you disagree. But we don't put jerks up on a pedestal for a reason. And putting players in the HoF is doing exactly that.

Everyone is going to have a different standard. Having so many different voters helps even that out. But everything should be in play, IMO. Not allowing anything but what happens on the field get weighed is folly, IMO. If Greg Maddux, my favorite player of all time, murdered someone then I would hope that he would get removed from the HoF.

Morality matters - even in sports.

 

[Bamabuzzard]

You mean exactly the same as you're doing with Bonds????

Barry Bonds never gets to 756 with steroids - true.
Hank Aaron also never gets anywhere close to 755 (or even 715) without the mound alteration, strike zone alteration, and moving to higher altitude hitters park Atlanta.

Now - I'm not saying that morally those are the same thing, I'm just pointing out this whole "well Bonds was consistent but" can be used in more than one circumstnace.

One of those were changes made across the game as a whole, which both of us know Aaron had ZERO control over and every player/hitter in the game benefitted. No different than a rule change in football to allow more offense.

Where as Bonds (and the others) made an individual decision that went contrary to the rules of the game. Whether it was enforced or not by MLB is another discussion. But steroids became illegal in MLB in 1991. This is nothing like MLB making a decision to change height of a mound, size of strike zone or anything like that.

There are valid discussions we can have about all the scenarios. But using these two items in this particular discussion doesn't work because one is a change made by the powers that be of MLB and the other is an individual decision to do something that violated a rule of the game that went toward helping him break historical records.