Ortiz gets HOF call, Bonds, Clemens shut out -- HOF a Joke

Mmm...Ortiz was always much more well-liked by HOF voters. Tangible steroid usage in the Mitchel report, but VERY weirdly MLB has downplayed that. Bonds and Clemens were far superior players -- compare their SOM cards to any Ortiz season -- and they never tested positive in MLB testing. Sure, we all know many of these players during that time took steroids, and circumstantial evidence says all three of the above did so. So why ignore the best two of the three, and put the lesser player in? Media voter bias, MLB cronyism is the answer. They hate Bonds and Clemens -- fans do not necessarily. I think it makes the HOF a farce, sham. After all, Harold Baines got in recently?? Gimme a break, what a joke. I'm not condoning steroid usage, i think it's bad, but the rules in MLB at the time Bonds and Clemens played were VERY ambiguous, only a federal issue, but never written into the MLB code with legal credibility -- frankly, the owners allowed it to happen, lots of homers were good TV ratings. Now they (the institutions that are MLB and the HOF) penalize their players. WRONG!

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=650916

AMEN Hack.

I understand that Bonds, Clemens, et al were kept out of the HOF because of the steroid allegations which cast a shadow on their character and sportsmanship, and for this their legacies have been tainted, and the recognition of their achievements diminished. Nonetheless I think they deserve to be in the Hall because of their accomplishments and the fact that they epitomize a particular era of the game, the Steroid era. Their plaques should describe their deeds, both good and bad. Same for Pete Rose

What bothers me is that their cheating was not punished when they were playing the game (ie ejected, suspended, or fined). The games they played counted -- no games were forfeited, statistics crossed out, standings adjusted, or revenues refunded. Aren't umpires and league officials supposed to make sure the games are played fairly? They are of course, but when the game is played in the context of a unique era, it can take time to react and change the rules. They played within the rules of the game at the time and should be recognized accordingly.

agree Hack

David Ortiz had a career WAR of 55, which puts him tied for 244th all-time. He was a poor DH in Minnesota and didn't become a good hitter until he moved to the hitting paradise that is Fenway Park, and likely started juicing (anyone who thinks a player can have his third best season ever at age 40 without chemical assistance is just putting their head in the sand IMO). He was slow and couldn't field a position even as a young man. Putting him in while leaving out Bonds and Clemens is just silly. Personally I'd leave them all out but including Ortiz, who only cracked 6 WAR once in his career, while excluding players that were truly great before juicing is nonsensical.

That really puts it in perspective gamiam.
I admit I am biased against hitters who don't play a position very well, unless they are some kind of one trick pony without equal for a particular skill. Ortiz wasn't. Many players look like the Ortiz skillset.

But Bonds and Clemens had few look-a-likes in their generation.

I'll preface this by saying I'm all for dropping the steroid ban and putting that era's players into the HOF where they belong, but...

Anyone who thinks Ortiz doesn't belong in the HOF didn't experience the 14 years where he transformed the Red Sox from the punchline of every Yankee fan to the winningest team in the 21st century.

They have yet to come up with the stat that captures his full impact on that franchise and that city. I doubt they ever will, and I hope they never try. Some things can't be measured, they just are.

Bonds and Clemens were rock-solid HOFers before they juiced. The additional monster seasons by Bonds placed him right near the tip top of the GOAT list. Thanks to his juiced effectiveness during a time when he should have been winding down, Clemens’s numbers put him near the tiptop as well. But really, think about how incredibly good Bonds has to be without the chemistry. I mean, assuming his performance was truly enhanced, what other hitter, similarly enhanced would have matched what Bonds did. People literally stopped pitching to him, and he STILL nailed the few pitches he got. No one else compares. With Clemens, not sure where he’d have been without the extended effectiveness. One of the best, yeah. But without the additional wins and Cy Youngs, but I don’t know that he’s be in the conversation for the greatest of modern era pitchers (though I personally like Maddux). And A-Rod is simply one of the best to ever lace them up.

They’ll all be in eventually. And when they are in, there will be some folks as angry about their induction as others were about Ortiz. It’s sorta the subjective nature of the Hall. (I still can’t figure out the Baines selection-I always liked the guy, but come on).

Different subject, but Posnaski’s book (I may have misspelled his name) about baseball’s 100 has a great article on the Pete Rose fiasco (one of his own making, to be sure). (And the chapter over Mays…it’s just beautiful.

Willie Horton is just as HOF worthy as Ortiz (probably more so given he play decent OF until his knees gave out).