12/03/24
March 25, 2005
Is The Hall Of Fame Out Of The Question For Mark McGwire?: Because of all this talk of steroids and McGwire's bad showing in court, Mark McGwire could very well be out of the Hall of Fame forever. Some people think that the Hall of Fame is for players with the best numbers. Some people think that the Hall of Fame is for players who are good role models. And other people think that the Hall of Fame is for both players with the best numbers, and for players with good morals and don't cheat. Until someone can prove, or McGwire personally anounces, that he used steroids, it's going to be hard to keep him off the ballots. And if he's on the ballot, it's going to be hard for people not to vote for him.
Let him be on the ballot, I still don't think he's a Hall of Fame player. Just because he held the season home run record for a while, everyone thinks he's such a fantastic all-around player? Let's assume he DID use steroids. Without them, he's not even in the game more than a few years. He only batted .263 for his career with 1, 626 hits, 1,414 RBI and struck out 1,596 times. By comparison, a so-called "joke" of a player like Dave Kingman finished his career with 1,575 hits and 1,210 RBI. Consider Kingman for the Hall and you'd be wrapped up in a straight jacket! How about Dave Parker? 2,712 hits, 1,493 RBI, a .290 career average. No Hall for him. I need a bit more to go on from people who think McGwire actually deserves to BE IN the Hall of Fame, juice or no juice.
posted by dyams at 05:19 PM on March 25, 2005
Great point dyams! Steroids notwithstanding, how do you vote in McGwire before a Dave Parker? As I see it, McGwire would get in on the same terms that Gary Carter got in. Quality players with subpar numbers in most areas but were good for the game and loved by the media. The one guy in the Hall I'd compare McGwire to is Harmon Killebrew. Killebrew was a great power hitter especially for his time but barely merited admission to the hall otherwise. And his numbers are generally better than McGwire's overall. McGwire is not a 1st ballot guy by any stretch. I'm sure he'll get in eventually. But now the wait will be longer.
posted by bluesdog at 06:34 PM on March 25, 2005
It's interesting that while trying to prove that McGwire ISN'T a HOF candidate, no one wants to mention the most obvious reasons he SHOULD be a candidate: Home Runs McGwire - 583 Parker - 339 Kingman - 442 Killebrew - 573 Career Slugging (SLG) McGwire - .588 Parker - .471 Kingman - .478 Killebrew - .509 Career Batting Eye (OBP) McGwire - .394 Parker - .339 Kingman - .302 Killebrew - .376 Overall Career Production (compared to the league - OPS+) McGwire - 163 Parker - 121 Kingman - 115 Killebrew - 143 There is no true comparison to Parker and Kingman. It's like saying Ty Cobb shouldn't be in the HOF because he doesn't have as many HR as Vince DiMaggio. That's not what Cobb was about, the same as getting simple hits is not what McGwire was about. Based on statistics alone, McGwire is a first-ballot HOF'er. If some writers don't want to vote for him because of this steroid scandal, then they have that right. These are the same writers who fawned over him and announced how he (and Sosa) "saved baseball" back in 1998 with his assault on the record books. But to seriously suggest that he doesn't get into the HOF because his stats are sub-par? That's just letting the anger of the steroid scandal cloud your judgement.
posted by grum@work at 10:54 PM on March 25, 2005
Big Mac belongs in the HOF It will be a toss up if he makes it in of the first ballot--But he will get in. The voters can be very fickle. It took Harmon the Killer--to the fourth ballot to get in when many felt he was a lst ballot guy. Juice or no Juice Mac and Bonds should be in the Hall.. Just like I think Rose should be there for what he did on the field. There are other ways to make a statemnt regarding the use of Steroids. One more thing about Killebrew. He was a very good above average athlete. He was hitting homers during the era of the dominant pitchers. Aaron, Killer, mays, Mantle etc are examples of just plain good hitting. Thier accomplishments during this era often get over looked.
posted by daddisamm at 12:39 AM on March 26, 2005
I realize the Kingman comparison was ridiculous, and that's why I made it. Yes, McGwire DOES have some decent stats other than just the home runs, but that will be all he'll ever be considered: a home run hitter, RBI man. The OBP was inflated due to pitchers pitching around him many times, like they do Bonds. Plus, I think it's agreed, if the steroids ARE a big part of McGwire's past, home runs are the one statistical category that benefits most from juicing. Bonds, on the other hand, has done everything (avg., baserunning, OBP, slugging avg., homers, RBI, fielding) in his career. Like mentioned above, McGwire happended to come into the spotlight (for his homers) at a time when baseball needed a shot in the arm, and the interest he and Sosa brought, I believe, is the biggest thing working in McGwire's favor as he tries to overcome his embarrassing appearance before Congress.
posted by dyams at 07:11 AM on March 26, 2005
We shouldnt be so quick to blame Mac's recent PR problems entirely on his visit to coongress. Granted, he didnt help himself,but there has been more and stories coming out about him and his ivolvemnet with the drugs. He could have helped himself at the hearings-but he chose not too.....
posted by daddisamm at 08:50 AM on March 26, 2005
grum -- good points all around. dyams -- the fact that pitchers pitched around McGwire does not make his OBP any less valuable. The fact is, he made a lot fewer outs than those with lower OBPs, and that he did so due to intentional walks or not getting pitches to hit does not dampen the impact of his high OBP.
posted by holden at 11:15 AM on March 26, 2005
Statistaically he's a Hall of Famer in the same mode as Reggie Jackson. I agree entierly with Grum, his numbers dwarf those of Kingman and Parker (though I think Parker has been given the old Richie Allen treatment - he has some great numbers).
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 11:34 AM on March 26, 2005
Is The Hall Of Fame Out Of The Question For Mark McGwire? I certainly hope so. He refused to deny that he broke one of sport's most storied records on juice. In my opinion, the black eye he gave the game is significantly worse than Pete Rose betting on his own team.
posted by rcade at 12:33 PM on March 26, 2005
Come on guys. Some of you make some good points to why he should and why he should not be allowed into the Hall. However, then you come out and weaken your arguement by excusing the OBP. I don't care how you get on base, it still counts. Both Bonds and McGwire earned the walks that they received later on in their career. I would have preferred you mention that McGwire had the protection of Mr. "Juiced" himself earlier in his career. Let's clean house. We should become more strict on steroid testing as we did with Pete's gambling; however, we should also crack down on the amount of times we will let athletes snort powder up the nose and still remain professional athletes.
posted by theFan at 01:27 PM on March 26, 2005
I agree that OBP is valid whether earned with good hitting and a good eye or "earned" because pitchers feared someone enough to put them on base intentionally. But receiving entry into MLB'S Hall of Fame is widely considered to be more difficult than any other pro sport. Pure power hitters don't get into the HOF on a first ballot unless they have significant postseason heroics on their resume, which McGwire doesn't have comparitively speaking. It took Killebrew 4 years to get admitted and he was certainly viewed to be as much of a power stud at the time as McGwire is now -- though not as popular in the public eye. McGwire was a ferocious slugger but he was not multi-dimensional and I highly doubt he would get in on a first ballot, roids or no roids. He and Sosa helped get the game back on its feet and that would probably push some writers on the fence to give him the nod. But unless he's in an especially weak field of nominees, it would take him at least a few years WITHOUT the cloud of a steroid scandal.
posted by bluesdog at 02:21 PM on March 26, 2005
But unless he's in an especially weak field of nominees, it would take him at least a few years WITHOUT the cloud of a steroid scandal. judging by the 2007 list i don't think he gets in on the first ballot.
posted by goddam at 03:11 PM on March 26, 2005
Based on McGwire's stats making him a shoo-in for Cooperstown (even if it's not on the first ballot), then hopefully this will end ALL argument of whether or not Rafael Palmeiro deserves to be in the Hall or not. His numbers dwarf those of McGwire. Their hitting talents are not even close. Believe me, those arguments have already started and will only heat up in the next few years. As someone mentioned earlier, his lack of postseason impact will be the biggest question mark. And it's not that I don't like McGwire, it's just I don't like the baseball's Hall of Fame opening it's doors to a lot of one-dimensional players (especially when that one dimension is under such scrutiny). And for the last time, I wasn't meaning to say Kingman was in the same strata as McGwire, but only pointing out the hitting numbers of a relatively unknown and forgotten player aren't all that far off from McGwire's. Plus I always DID like Kingman.
posted by dyams at 04:12 PM on March 26, 2005
Hey what about Wade Boggs? He hit 24 homers in 87. Does that mean he was juicing and should we remove him from the hall before it's official this july? Simply put there is no formula to judge what effect the steriods had on a given players game. Lets face it McGwire was a big kid when he came into the league in 87 and I don't believe those forty nine homers were a fluke. The seventy might be by-product of chemical engineering but what criteria can be put in place to determine hall elegibiltiy?
posted by bigwhisky at 01:35 AM on March 27, 2005
I am so ripping on coffee as I type this, but my comments in the previous Bonds thread were typed while "clean." So when you consider me for te SpoFi Hall Of Fame, this comment are ineligible for consideration. I figure it's better to come clean about this stuff. McGwire, juice or not, belongs in the Hall, which means that Bonds' inclusion should (should) be a no-brainer.
posted by chicobangs at 01:47 AM on March 27, 2005
There are people at my message forum that seem to have their differences and opinions about this topic too. Take a look at what they said at: http://natsports.proboards42.com/index.cgi -Thanks-
posted by Pickles84 at 01:45 PM on March 27, 2005
there you have it, Chico is on comment enhancing substances... And McGwire and Bonds belong in the HOF. Their numbers might have been inflated by steroids, but I think both would have had HOF type numbers anyway. Other factors besides roids contributed to their stratospheric stats.
posted by chris2sy at 01:52 PM on March 27, 2005
Okay, I thought about that for a second and said to myself: "if you think its okay for Rose to be banned shouldn't you want guys like Bonds and McGwire banned too?" Is the gambling on baseball worse than the roids for the game? Damn, I need some comment-enhancing substances...
posted by chris2sy at 02:02 PM on March 27, 2005
Perhaps anecdotal, but let's examine what steroids can do for a player.... Brett Boone Rich Aurillia Ken Caminiti Brady Anderson
posted by charlatan at 02:28 PM on March 27, 2005
judging by the 2007 list i don't think he gets in on the first ballot. Bold indicates players that have a shot at making the HOF. Harold Baines, Derek Bell, Dante Bichette, Bobby Bonilla, Jeff Brantley, Jay Buhner, Ken Caminiti, Jose Canseco, Eric Davis, Tony Fernandez, Tony Gwynn, Darryl Hamilton, Pete Harnisch, Charlie Hayes, Glenallen Hill, Ken Hill, Stan Javier, Wally Joyner, Ramon Martinez, Mark McGwire, Paul O’Neill, Gregg Olson, Cal Ripken Jr., Bret Saberhagen, Jeff Shaw, Kevin Tapani, Devon White, Bobby Witt Gwynn is a first-ballot guy for sure. Ripken gets in easily as well (but jeez..imagine if HE used steroids...he was awfully big for a shortstop...j/k) McGwire gets in as well, but maybe not with the percentage that Gwynn and Ripken get (say, 81%). Baines makes it in ONLY if there is a sudden shift towards allowing a pure DH to make it in (which is what Baines was for the latter half of his career). Side note: 2006 may be one of the weakest candidate lists I've seen in a while. Will Clark is the only one that even has a HOPE of making it in, and I don't think people would flip out if he didn't make it. And, I didn't realize that Derek Bell had officially retired? I thought he was still in the middle of "Operation Shutdown". Perhaps anecdotal, but let's examine what steroids can do for a player.... Brett Boone Rich Aurillia Ken Caminiti Brady Anderson Has anyone actually said all of these players used steroids? Or are we just looking for fluke seasons (beyond Caminiti)? And if Anderson used them, why didn't he KEEP using them? Sometimes a fluke is just a fluke...
posted by grum@work at 06:04 PM on March 27, 2005
Their hitting talents are not even close. Palmeiro. McGwire. You're right about one thing: they're not close.
posted by yerfatma at 07:50 PM on March 27, 2005
Whenever the talk comes around about Rose or McGwire not belonging in the Hall fo Fame because of their behavior or morals, I am reminded of Ty Cobb who was, by many accounts, mean, vindictive, selfish, vain, paranoid, a bully, and a racist. Undeniably, a great baseball player, but not a role model by any stretch of the imagination. I'm also reminded of the many baseball greats who were heavy drinkers, womanizers or just plain asshats. Great players belong in the Hall whether they were great human beings or not.
posted by Joey Michaels at 02:16 AM on March 28, 2005
I don't want to drag this into a pete rose debate. It's kind of like arguing politics. No one's mind is going to be changed. But that comparison has flaws. McGwire using steroids affects the game, his statistics, everything. And if 75 percent of the rest of the players are not using steroids, he has an advantage. How much, who knows. Is that cheating? Rose bet on baseball, the golden rule. And betting can have an affect on baseball. What if Rose lost so much money he would only make it up by throwing a game? Didn't happen, but it could have. Ty Cobb may have been the worse guy in the world, but none of those facts have anything to do with baseball on the field.
posted by justgary at 09:24 AM on March 28, 2005
McGwire using steroids affects the game, his statistics, everything. Did he use them? Do we know that for sure? I know it looks bad...but no proof has been offered. The thing that bothers me about this topic is that McGwire has not admitted and nobody has proved that he did steroids. This thread and every sports-chat (radio, tv, web) has taken the leap that he did use them and has run with it. His comments to congress were correct...admit use and get burned...don't admit use and get burned. He is screwed whether he did or didn't do them. MLB, the HOF, baseball writers...and all the pundits have taken such a 'holier than thou' attitude on this. This thread and topic represent some of the worst aspects of our media driven society (I am as guilty as anyone). By all accounts prior to the last few weeks McGwire is a great person who loved the game and played it the 'right way'. Throw in a steroid rumor and all of a sudden he doesn't belong in the Hall? PS...I think he did use them...along with a lot of other pro athletes that 'came up' in the late 70's and most of the 80's. While taking steroids was wrong and illegal...it wasn't against the rules as defined by MLB. It is time to stop blaming players (current and retired) and start putting responsibility on MLB for looking the other way while other sports (NFL primarily) addressed the issue. McGwire belongs in the hall.
posted by stofer71 at 11:20 AM on March 28, 2005
Did he use them? Do we know that for sure? I know it looks bad...but no proof has been offered. But this isn't a court of law. And there's nothing wrong with this thread. Baseball, and the players, brought this on themselves. Discussion on a sports site dedicated to sports discussion isn't going to ignore the negative. McGwire got a lot of attention for breaking the home run mark, now for supposed steroid abuses. You can't take the good without taking the bad. I don't know for sure that McGwire used steroids, but it doesn't look good, and if there was a betting line on the topic I'd be in Las Vegas right now. (and I agree with your thoughts on it not being illegal, I just don't agree that there's any reasonable doubt he did them)
posted by justgary at 12:09 PM on March 28, 2005
So we went from Maris hitting 61 homers in 1961 up until 1998 for the next person to hit over sixty...but its not just one its McGwire with 70 and Sosa with 66. Then THE NEXT YEAR, Sosa hits 63 and McGwire hits 65. Okay it could be a fluke, right. But in 2001, Bonds hits 73 and Sosa hits 64...at that point I think you pretty much have to call bullshit on the whole deal. Could it be the best homerun hitters of all time all at once, better than any in the 37 years after Maris hit 61? Maybe. Could it be the shittiest pitching ever? Maybe. But you know something is fucked up there and that is just based on the homerun totals. The top six individual homerun seasons of all time have been since 1998. That nutrition is kicking some ass I guess. And if you look here, then you will notice what you probably already realized, that the of the top 36 homerun seasons EVER in baseball, 18 have happened since 1995. And McGwire has had seasons of 70, 65, 58, and 52 within that same time period. You can certainly draw your own conclusions regarding that stuff, but I think steroids is a good possibility. Also, look at the seasons where McGwire got injured and couldn't play...we're not talking football here, don't you think that is suspicious?
posted by chris2sy at 12:27 PM on March 28, 2005
Gwynn is a first-ballot guy for sure. Ripken gets in easily as well (but jeez..imagine if HE used steroids...he was awfully big for a shortstop...j/k) McGwire gets in as well, but maybe not with the percentage that Gwynn and Ripken get (say, 81%). Baines makes it in ONLY if there is a sudden shift towards allowing a pure DH to make it in (which is what Baines was for the latter half of his career). In the modern age, it is extremely rare that 3 guys get in on a first ballot. '99 is the only time it has happened in recent memory and there was zero question that Brett, Ryan and Yount were getting in. It was a fluke those three guys happened to be up it for the same year. Gwynn and Ripken are obvious. And I tend to agree with you about Baines. He won't get in the first try -- may not for a very long time, if at all. But he will also take votes away from McGwire because the writers are stingy that way. McGwire will not get in first ballot. Won't happen. Based on what I've read, enough voters are now sufficiently turned off by McGwire's testimony to make that a certainty. They may give it to him eventually -- and I believe they will -- but they will not give him carte blanche. PS Will Clark will not get in either. I'd love it if he did but nope.
posted by bluesdog at 12:48 PM on March 28, 2005
The thing that bothers me about this topic is that McGwire has not admitted and nobody has proved that he did steroids. The Hall of Fame should have a higher standard than innocent until proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. His evasiveness disgraced his career and the game of baseball. I don't like a lifetime ban for Pete Rose, so I would leave the door open for McGwire to eventually redeem himself with time and candor. But for now, I'm glad the guy's weasel act in D.C. appears to have done significant damage to his Hall hopes.
posted by rcade at 01:02 PM on March 28, 2005
Conventional wisdom says that McGwire used 'roids. Sosa has surely been implicated over the years as well (and let's remember that he is a proven cheater...cork). So by the standards being held here and everywhere else...if McGwire had denied use before Congress we wouldn't be questioning his Hall credentials now? Are Sosa's credentials questioned? Bonds? No...everyone is piling on Big Mac. justgary, you are right that there isn't anything wrong with this thread...I guess my point is that I don't think the standards and discussion as applied to McGwire are matched with any other player right now. Focusing on one guy...and burrying him without hard proof...while ignoring all the implications (of the same quality) to other players seems wrong to me. SpoFi is a great place for debate on sports issues...and funny sports stories (still laughing about the rugby butt poker). That is why I love it...lots of different opinions and views (all wrong but mine of course) LOL! chris2sy's point is right on...take a look at those numbers and we shouldn't just question McGwire's cred's but every player from this era. rcade...I too was unimpressed with McGwire's performance in DC...but I can hardly blame the guy, he was screwed no matter what he said. A denial would be discredited (and maybe even proven to be a lie)...admission was a sure death sentence...saying nothing was, apperantly, both.
posted by stofer71 at 01:58 PM on March 28, 2005
stofer, I'd say Bonds' credentials are being questioned pretty extensively at this point.
posted by chicobangs at 01:59 PM on March 28, 2005
How come noone wants to point out that some Pitchers were on the Roids as well... 'Cmon, Babe Ruth never had to face Schilling and a full tank of Anaerobics...
posted by LostInDaJungle at 03:17 PM on March 28, 2005
If I were the Baseball Czar, I'd change the HOF voting rules:
- Automatic induction for reaching certain statistical milestones:
- 500 HR
- 3000 Hits
- 300 Wins
- 2500 Pitching Strikeouts
- 1500 RBI
- 1500 Runs
- 600 Stolen Bases
- Automatic induction for winning certain awards:
- 3 MVP
- 3 Cy Young
- 10 Gold Gloves
- 5 Batting Titles
- 5 ERA Titles
- 10 Silver Slugger Awards
- 10 All-Star Appearances
- Automatic induction into "Memorable Moments" area of HOF for any of the following:
- Throwing 3 No-Hitters in a Career
- Throwing Back-to-Back No Hitters
- Throwing a Perfect Game
- 4+ HR in a Game
- 18+ Pitching Strikeouts in a GameBreaking a recognized single-season or career record (as determined by the BBWAA).
Induction to the "Memorable Moments" wing occurs during the year that the feat is accomplished and does not preclude future induction to the regular HOF area. - All BBWAA voters must be active writers. If a writer retires, they give up their voting privilege. No more old fogeys that talk about how great the game was 50 years ago. If they aren't able to keep a job as a writer, they should be allowed to vote.
- All BBWAA voters must publicize their votes (after they've been announced) and explain their choices. It's a secret ballot for the vote, but each vote should be explained to avoid the "decided to give my buddy Player X a freebie" debacle that sees Otis Nixon get votes for the HOF.
- If a BBWAA voter goes against 85% or more of his/her colleagues (voting for a player that gets less than 15% of the vote, or not voting for a player that gets more than 85% of the vote), they are put on probation. This will cut down on illogical voting (not voting for Maddux when the time comes because "no one deserves 100% of the vote") and personal agendas against players.
- If the BBWAA voter again differs from 85% of his/her colleagues, then they are suspended from voting for 2 years. If, after reinstatement, they again vote against 85% of their colleagues, they lose their voting privileges for good.
- If a player does not get in on the first ballot, then he will be ineligible for future votes. I've never understood why player X can't get 75% of the vote in year one, but then manages to get 75% 2 years later. His accomplishments haven't changed, so why should the voting be different? As well, it will cut down on the BBWAA guys who say "Not this year, but definitely next year because I don't want him to be a 'first-ballot' HOF'er." Either you vote him in now, or he doesn't get in.
- If a player fails to get in on the original ballot, they are eligible for the "Veterans Committee" after 5 more years.
- The "Veterans Committe" consists of all living HOF'ers (players, executives, broadcasters) who then vote on any player that received at least 50% of the BBWAA votes (or previous "Veterans Committee" votes), 5 years previously. If they fail to vote them in (75%) but still give them at least 50% of the vote, then the player comes up for review again in 5 more years (for a maximum of 3 "Veteran Committee" attempts).
posted by grum@work at 12:04 AM on March 29, 2005
I'd love it if any vote like this was made public. Are Sosa's credentials questioned? Bonds? They will be. Even if Bonds breaks the Aaron record, this steroid scandal will be something he has to overcome to get in.
posted by rcade at 06:47 AM on March 29, 2005
I think I question Sosa the most. Like I said above, if you think its possible for him to hit 243 homeruns in 4 years just by living right, then you probably don't question his credentials. First, Ruth hits 60 HRs in 1927...then, 34 years later Maris hits 61 HRs in 1961...then Sammy Sosa AVERAGES 60.75 HRs per season over four seasons from 1998 to 2001? Yeah, right. Its not proof, but its enough of an anomaly for me to have some serious doubts about him being clean.
posted by chris2sy at 11:08 AM on March 29, 2005
Wow, grum, very impressive.
posted by justgary at 01:02 PM on March 29, 2005
2500 Pitching Strikeouts This made for a good laugh. Not the quantity but that you felt the need to specify pitching. ROFL!
posted by billsaysthis at 03:48 PM on March 29, 2005
First, Ruth hits 60 HRs in 1927...then, 34 years later Maris hits 61 HRs in 1961...then Sammy Sosa AVERAGES 60.75 HRs per season over four seasons from 1998 to 2001? Yeah, right. Just for comparison, Nolan Ryan had 320+ strikeouts in 5 out of 6 seasons (he was injured in the middle), from 1972-1977. Only three other pitchers (Koufax and McDowell in 1965, and Feller in 1948) had 320+ strikeouts in the previous 68 years (since Waddell in 1904), and it would take another 22 years before someone would do it again (Johnson in 1999). So what does that say about what Nolan Ryan was doing in those 6 years? Sometimes (and I'm not saying this is necessarily the case with Sosa), players do rise to an extreme level for an extended period of time. Not all statistical abberations have a foundation in chicanery. ... By the way, I'd like to add another rule to my HOF requirements: 9. Once a player is inducted into the Hall of Fame, they are in it for life. If a player does something after his career that tarnishes his reputation, or admits to doing something that would cast suspicion upon his career, so be it. Amendments to the plaque in the HOF can be made if a vote by the combined Veterans Committee and BBWAA is 75% in agreement to the amendment proposed. An amendment can only be an addition of information, not an alteration or subtraction. "He killed small puppies for fun.", for example, could be tacked on to the (new) plaque. ... 2500 Pitching Strikeouts This made for a good laugh. Not the quantity but that you felt the need to specify pitching. ROFL! I just realized that there is only one batter in history to actually get 2500 strikeouts in a career: Reggie Jackson
posted by grum@work at 03:54 PM on March 29, 2005
That's Hall Of Famer Reggie Jackson to you, bub.
posted by chicobangs at 05:05 PM on March 29, 2005
That's Hall Of Famer Reggie Jackson to you, bub. Naturally. And he'd auto-qualify for mine with his 14 All-Star appearances and his HR/RBI/Run totals. I did a quick check, and the player that seems to come closest to my automatic induction qualifications (without making them) and isn't in the HOF would be this guy.
- almost 400 HR
- over 2000 hits
- 1200+ RBI
- almost 1200 runs
- 2 MVP awards
- 5 Gold Gloves
- 4 Silver Sluggers
- 7 All-Star appearances
posted by grum@work at 11:48 PM on March 29, 2005
Speaking of getting into, or not getting into, the HOF, this question(s) has always been festering in the back of my mind: Say a guy comes up to the bigs and plays for only five seasons and puts up phenomenal offensive numbers and is nearly perfect at defense. Hell, he evens wins the triple crown one of those seasons. But something happens and his career is over. Say he gets shot in a lover's quarrel or is stabbed in a bar fight. Does he make the HOF based on those five seasons, even thought it's not long enough of a career to put up incredible (read: Hall of Fame numbers) career numbers? What about if he pulls a Pat Swilling? Does that change anything? Just curious.
posted by NoMich at 10:52 AM on March 30, 2005
from wiki
- Under special circumstances, certain players may be deemed eligible for induction even though they have not met all requirements. This has resulted in only two inductions, when Lou Gehrig was specially elected shortly after his retirement in 1939, and when Addie Joss was elected in 1978 despite only playing in nine seasons. Additionally, if an otherwise eligible player dies before their fifth year of retirement, then that player may be placed on the ballot at the first election at least six months after their death. Roberto Clemente, who died in a plane crash in 1972, is the only current Hall of Fame member for whom the 5-year minimum was waived.
posted by goddam at 11:32 AM on March 30, 2005
What about if Ichiro was killed in a plane crash tomorrow...look at his four seasons: four gold gloves, 2 batting titles, lead the league in singles four times, 924 hits, MVP & ROTY, etc. Its only four years, but could he get in if it ended today? What if he had a fifth season of the same/similar numbers? He wouldn't have the power/triple crown numbers but he'd have well over 1,000 hits in five seasons. Actually under Grum's criteria his best bet to make sure he automatically got in would be to get three more batting titles or 6 more gold gloves, I think.
posted by chris2sy at 02:58 PM on March 30, 2005
Actually under Grum's criteria his best bet to make sure he automatically got in would be to get three more batting titles or 6 more gold gloves, I think. I'm pretty sure the BBWAA in my version would let him get in automatically for setting the single-season record for hits. (that's the last note in rule #3, that got chewed up by an html error) I also meant to include "Achieving a single-season batting or pitching Triple Crown (HR/RBI/AVG or Wins/K/ERA)"
posted by grum@work at 04:30 PM on March 30, 2005
What does it take to be a Hall of Fame voter? Since the only people quoted in this article were sportswriters, the answer must be.... not much. Both McGwire and Bonds deserve to be in the Hall.