Most deserving players not in the Baseball Hall of Fame

I like your list. If the suggested list above yours is inducted I think that the HOF has to put Pete Rose in. He did get it done on the field without cheating unlike McGwire.

 

Do you have a list of those who are "deserving of everything they've got coming to them"?

Ed

 

Add Rickey Henderson, But I suspect that, he was doing steroid during breaking steal base record in 1980 or 1981. I can see his body show muscles. I believe he was doing steroid.

I feel that both Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire are not deserve to be in the Hall of Fame, because of cheat and steriod.

There are too many players involved steriods in the past.

Also, we should forgive Pete Rose and forget the past what he has done with gambling. Looking at his records. His records impress me. He should be deserve to be in the Hall of Fame.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

My list will be forthcoming. Let me just echo that I love the new MLB network. Great channel. I love DirecTV :thumbsup:

 

Keith Hernandez:

Unfortunately because people look for giant power numbers from first base he is unlikely to get in. However for those that watched the man play every day, there was so much more to his game. He was by far the best first baseman I have ever seen. Additionally he was the best field "general" and natural leader I have ever seen on a baseball field. He should be in.

 

As a fellow sports fan I knew you would like DirectTV better than Dish, that's why I suggested it when you were choosing. Did you sign up for the baseball packadge? I usually get the BB one and football one.

 

Rickey was voted into the Hall in January.

Maybe so, but you're going to have to do better than "he looks muscular" for your proof.

Interesting double standard. Pete Rose violated long-standing rules about gambling on baseball and he should be in, but Bonds and McGwire violated rules about using performance enhancing drugs and they should be out. If you put Rose in, how do you keep Bonds and McGwire out? If you put Bonds and McGwire in, how do you keep Rose out? I'm not arguing for or against their inclusion, but I don't understand why one rule is ignored and the other one isn't.

Recently, on this very board, I wrote about this. Whether you think Rose, Bonds, et. al. should be in the Hall depends on what you think the Hall should be about. If you think it should be a museum of the game, then Rose, Bonds and McGwire should be in, with their transgressions clearly noted. If the Hall of Fame should also be the Hall of Morality, then those guys shouldn't be there.

 

My list would include Joe Torre, Pete Rose and Andre Dawson.

 

No need. I got the sports pack, and with that comes Fox Sports Cincinnati. But even without that I'd get a lot of the games I think. The Reds are on Fox Sports TN and SportSouth, which are part of the package I got anyway. If that proves to be the case I may drop the sports pack.

 

I hope you can get them, with baseball's crazy black out rules many times even though you might have access to the channel the game will still be blacked out. Hopefully where you live the games will be open broadcasts for you. That was why I got the BB package it opens them all up for you.

 

We are in Cincinnati's local market, so that shouldn't happen

 

FTR, there is no credible evidence, at least as of yet, that Mark McGwire used any substance that was banned by baseball, I do not believe. He openly admitted to the usage of substances that have since been banned, however. I, for one, do not believe it proper or becomes baseball for those sitting in some 'ivory tower' writing cubicle to use this as any excuse to keep from voting McGwire into the Hall of Fame. One can make any and every argument about his BA, fielding Avg, and any other stat, properly, however, as to whether or not he makes the Hall. However, I would also add that he hit HRs at a high clip for an entire career, not just his one or two outstanding years (Would any disparage the character of Roger Maris, George Foster, J.R.Richard, Brett Saberhagen, or Bob Gibson, just because every year did not match up to their best ones?), and hit 49 in his first full year in the majors at the age of 23, for cryin' out loud. In fact, his 3 highest BAs and 3 of his 4 highest OBP were achieved, in two years in which he was injured, for at least some of the time, and could not (or did not) "swing for the fences" as he did when presumed healthy. His BBs also were generally up in those years, as well.

The on-field exploits may or may not 'qualify' "Big Mac" for the HOF.

At the same time, unfounded speculation, hearsay, suspicions and innuendo should certainly not DISqualify him, IMO.

Ed

 

The last sentence is a very fair point. My distinction lies here: Pete Rose was not proven (to the best of my knowledge) to have ever done anything that upset the competitive balance of the game. He never fixed games. He never bet on a game where he was a participant. Keith Olbermann's accusation that Rose "passive-aggressively 'fixed'" games as a manger by trying harder to win games where he had a bet riding, more so than the games where he did not, is unfounded, unproven, and illogical. It can be argued that Bonds and McGwire deliberately upset the competitive balance of the game by gaining an advantage that directly affected play on the field.

So goes the argument. I promise my list is coming soon. I know you're all anxiously awaiting it. :laugh:

 

Personally, I find this thread almost unbelievable, as to some of the 'judging' via hearsay, implications, and innuendo (read slander) that is going on, here. Here are a few examples.

Mostly not true! There is one factual statement here, namely that Barry Bonds has been shown to have used illegal steroids, by some other evidence, apart from tests, hence it is accurate to allege this. Neither Ricky Henderson nor Mark McGwire have been or were ever shown to have cheated or used any illegal steroids, despite your personal opinion that there were many who did, in fact, do these things.

ccrobinson noted some of this, but even he misses on this implication.

I'll agree with his characterization of 'Bonds' as having transgressions, but not Mark McGwire. That has never been credibly demonstrated anywhere, regardless of your, my, or another's personal opinion about what someone "MAY" have done. I spoke of this earlier as unfounded suspicion. And one cannot "cheat" or "transgress" a non-existent rule, to begin with, such as the non-existent rules against the substances Mark McGwire openly admitted using.

TomVols also gets a small part of it, but still misses on another important part.

No, this cannot be argued, at least in any legitimate fashion.

Once again, Mark McGwire is being made to be "guilty by opinion" as opposed to being shown as "guilty by any evidence." We have covered Barry Bonds, previously. And whether or not Pete Rose ever managed to gain any, or gained any advantage, or upset any balance of a competitive game, the fact remains that he, just as did Barry Bonds, violated an extant rule (in Pete's case, one that had been around for more than 50 years, against gambling on baseball, for one involved with the professional sport, at any level). That was certainly not the case with Mark McGwire or Ricky Henderson, and I, for one, resent any attempt to "back legislate" something to punish a player for some supposed transgression(s).

So it cannot be argued, in any legitimate sense, that either Mark McGwire or Rickey Henderson is guilty of what has been implied in the blue above.

But why let such little annoying details like facts get in the way of a good "mud-slingin'?"

It appears that far too often, IMO, mud-slinging is the preferred Baptist way. :tear:

Ed

 

Non-existent rule? I beg to differ.

I did a quick search and found this page on espn.com about the Mitchell report. In a sidebar, we find the following statement.

Are you suggesting that since a specific performance enhancing drug wasn't specifically mentioned on the banned substance list that it wasn't understood to be banned?

 

You are mostly correct, and I did not adequately spell out what I should have. Obviously, Bonds is in a class by himself (well, maybe one with Clemens). McGwire has no smoking gun. His biggest transgression was his testimony (or failure to testify by invoking a self-incrimination/"advice of lawyers" posture). He is indeed guilty only by association.

I was merely pointing out that anyone who has used steroids has indeed gained a bit of an advantage that upsets competitive balance and I'm frankly stymied by the fact that you'd argue that steroid users did not gain an advantage through their usage (or use the alleged label if you like as to the perps).

I don't deny this. I simply argue that a gambler who fixed games has sinned against the very nature of the competitive balance of the game by removing it. A shooter has upset the competitve balance of the game by using an illegal, banned substance to gain an edge against someone who is playing by the rules that puts the rules breaker at an advantage over the rules observer. This is on a different plane than someone who comitted infractions Pete was accused of. Entirely my opinion.

Donte Stallworth today was deemed to have been driving drunk Sat in Miami when he hit the pedestrian with his car. Is he guilty of breaking the law? Yes. Did a person die due to his actions? Yes, perhaps if only partially. But was his intent to take the life of another human? This cannot be proven. I know this is a tenuous analogy, but it does fit somewhat. Pete was never proven to have intentionally tried to do anything to gain an advantage that a non-gambler would not have had. the same simply cannot be said for Bonds, et.al.

 

Maybe I'm just to old to keep up, but I disagree with your view. As far as I know Rose as a player, no one questions his work or giving a 100% to win. As a manager he is questioned about his gambling. On the others performance enhancing drugs do have an effect on one's play on the field.

I don't believe I would like Pete Rose, going on his action off the field, down here in Florida in spring training. I don't think I would have cared for Ty Cobb but his play was HOF play and he got in.

There are many players in the HOF that I don't think should be in there, it should be the best of the best, even if it was for a short amount of time, such as Dizzy Dean. Untill he got hurt he was the best.

On who should be in on this list from above;

15) Tie - Tommy John Yes, for a amount of time he was the best.
and Don Mattingly, good but no!!
14) Dwight Evans, No.
13) Steve Garvey, No, above average player.
12) Dave Parker, No.
11) Vada Pinson Maybe, I enjoyed his play but an above average player.
10) Joe Torre, Board line.
9) Keith Hernandez, No
8) Lou Whitaker, No
7) Lee Smith, No
6) Alan Trammell, No
5) Tim Raines, No
4) Jack Morris, I can go either with him but I would say no.
3) Ron Santo, Maybe, in his day he was one of the best at what he did.
2) Andre Dawson, Questionable
1) Bert Blyleven, I enjoyed his play and would like to see him in but if he gets in will it be like Don Sutton, on the amount of years he played?

Most of the players are what used to be called good players but not great, today everyone is called great. I guess it is all about how high up the latter one needs to be to get in.

 

Tom, I have to agree with you here. I didn't like the Reds and didn't care for Pete Rose, but as a player he was all about winning. Any team made up of folks with the mind set on the field of Pete Rose would win, or that is my view.

 

Differ if you like, I guess. However, baseball admitted that androstenedione, which Mark McGwire admitted using (It was at that time, a muscle enhancement product that anyone could buy over-the-counter, for crying out loud, fully legal under US law, and for use in MLB.) was not a prohibited substance.

I do believe it has since been banned by baseball, and also by specific statue in the US, in an over-the-counter form, after it was artificially (and unscientifically) legislatively defined to be a steroid, hence subject to the strict narcotics laws of such controlled substances. Like testosterone and HGH, this is also a naturally occurring substance in the body, and not some artificial steroid.

FTR, I have twice received steroids, after surgery. Were I to be a baseball player, I would be in violation of even a doctor's care, now were I to be tested.

Ed