The National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum MMXV

A_B · Post by **A_B** » Tue Jan 06, 2015 3:15 pm

L-Jam3 wrote:Maybe I'm nuts, but I think there's really only 6 CFs in history undoubtedly better than Edmonds: Mays, Cobb/Mantle, Di Maggio, Griffey, and Speaker. I'd think he's close to a 1st ballot guy myself.

It's a surprisingly thin position for sure.

Giff · Post by **Giff** » Tue Jan 06, 2015 3:19 pm

brian wrote:Trammell should have hung around for three extra years past his prime to pad his counting stats. Dumb.

Based on his last five years, it would've taken about another decade to get to 3,000.

It's really too bad neither of them played on the Yankees. Then we'd have never heard the end of how awesome and amazing they are, nor would they ever be tainted by steroid accusations even if they played with three of the all-time biggest PED users in baseball history.

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Tue Jan 06, 2015 3:20 pm

Trout.

(But I'd probably put Andruw above Edmonds as well. Not clearly above, but above. Late career Fat Andruw seems to blur the insanity of early career short-fielder-with-range-back-to-the-wall Andruw.)

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Tue Jan 06, 2015 3:23 pm

Giff wrote:It's really too bad neither of them played on the Yankees. Then we'd have never heard the end of how awesome and amazing they are, nor would they ever be tainted by steroid accusations even if they played with three of the all-time biggest PED users in baseball history.

Or Bagwell would have been caught.

Post by **brian** » Tue Jan 06, 2015 3:29 pm

I just think it's hysterical that Whitaker and Trammell have a combined 145 bWAR and neither is going to make the HoF without the Veterans Committee.

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Tue Jan 06, 2015 3:31 pm

Which they will, probably together, and I'm torn whether that'll be really cool or seem like a gimmick that undercuts how good they were individually.

Giff · Post by **Giff** » Tue Jan 06, 2015 3:33 pm

mister d wrote:
Giff wrote:It's really too bad neither of them played on the Yankees. Then we'd have never heard the end of how awesome and amazing they are, nor would they ever be tainted by steroid accusations even if they played with three of the all-time biggest PED users in baseball history.
Or Bagwell would have been caught.

He was a shitty PED user if he was one.

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Tue Jan 06, 2015 3:34 pm

Post by **brian** » Tue Jan 06, 2015 3:49 pm

mister d wrote:Which they will, probably together, and I'm torn whether that'll be really cool or seem like a gimmick that undercuts how good they were individually.

Personally as a Tigers fan, I think it will be pretty cool. For better or worse they were paired together their entire lives and careers. They probably deserve to go in together. If they somehow get elected separately (or not at all), then I'll be the first in line at Cooperstown Torch and Pitchfork Inc.

Giff · Post by **Giff** » Tue Jan 06, 2015 3:52 pm

Considering he was a weight-room junkie, I would imagine if he was a PED user, his power totals would be a lot higher. He had three seasons of 40+ and none more than 50. He seems to be the only guy with HOF credentials who is dismissed because a) he was suspected of being a PED user and b) he didn't get to the magical 500 HR number. I'm not a PED expert, so I'm sure there's a rebuttal somewhere that PED doesn't just affect power numbers, but at that point, everyone from the 90s should be suspect and no one should get it.

The only connection ever established between Bagwell and steroids is Caminiti. Even though Caminiti, IIRC, didn't start using until he was traded to San Diego.

Gunpowder · Post by **Gunpowder** » Tue Jan 06, 2015 3:53 pm

PEDs don't work that way. I don't see any evidence either but PEDs just don't make you a 60 hr hitter.

Gunpowder · Post by **Gunpowder** » Tue Jan 06, 2015 3:54 pm

PEDs certainly affect power numbers. But they can take you from 20 to 30 or 45 to 50 or 55 to 70 or 10 to 30. They don't just make you a historic slugger. A lot of people were using PEDs and only 3 hit 60 HRs.

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Tue Jan 06, 2015 3:59 pm

I would imagine most PED users are weight room junkies since the two sort of go hand in hand. And if you believe in tangible statistical signs of PED use, Bagwell is pretty much the ideal pick with isoPs over his first four seasons of .143, .171, .196 and .383.

(I think he did, but that's because I think most everyone from that era did.)

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Tue Jan 06, 2015 4:01 pm

What SL said. Its possible Bagwell's "true" self was an elite hitter, but one with more gap-to-gap doubles power than one who goes for 30+ HRs 9 times.

Post by **brian** » Tue Jan 06, 2015 4:09 pm

mister d wrote:I would imagine most PED users are weight room junkies since the two sort of go hand in hand. And if you believe in tangible statistical signs of PED use, Bagwell is pretty much the ideal pick with isoPs over his first four seasons of .143, .171, .196 and .383.

(I think he did, but that's because I think most everyone from that era did.)

Curious if you think Griffey did too. For whatever reason, he seems to be the one guy from that era with gaudy power numbers who no one ever seems to think juiced.

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Tue Jan 06, 2015 4:10 pm

Sure, just like anyone else. I don't pretend to know at an individual level but I "know" it was rampant so I just assume yes on everyone.

If there's anything the suspended players and leaked names have taught, its that the eyeball test doesn't work. And even if you want to say Griffey was clean because he was a natural with such a beautiful swing ... what's Palmeiro?

L-Jam3 · Post by **L-Jam3** » Tue Jan 06, 2015 4:10 pm

If he did, it sure as hell didn't help in his injury recovery time once he got to Cincy.

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Tue Jan 06, 2015 4:11 pm

Or it could have led to injuries, like the presumption is with Ruben Sierra.

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Tue Jan 06, 2015 4:12 pm

11 players have ever jumped 150 points of isoP from one 300+ PA season to the next over the last 40 seasons ...

Javy Lopez: .221 (2003)
Jeff Bagwell: .187 (1994)
Jose Bautista: .184 (2010)
Carlos Beltran: .172 (2006)
Bobby Grich: .165 (1979)
Brady Anderson: .158 (1996)
Dusty Baker: .156 (1977)
Barry Bonds: .155 (2001)
Kevin Mitchell: .154 (1989)
Phil Plantier: .153 (1993)
Gary Carter: .151 (1977)

L-Jam3 · Post by **L-Jam3** » Tue Jan 06, 2015 4:17 pm

Phil Plantier. I fucking knew it.

Gunpowder · Post by **Gunpowder** » Tue Jan 06, 2015 4:19 pm

Ken Griffey had all kinds of muscle pulls and strains throughout his career. I'm with Delaware in that while I don't think every player was juicing, I also don't assume that any player wasn't juicing.

Gunpowder · Post by **Gunpowder** » Tue Jan 06, 2015 4:19 pm

Frank Thomas was outspoken about his cleanness, so he was assumed to be clean. Yet...so was Palmeiro.

Post by **brian** » Tue Jan 06, 2015 4:25 pm

I don't have a dog in that fight, I was just curious. I tend to agree with you guys. I think it also renders null the argument that you shouldn't vote in Bonds and Clemens, et al on their merits if you're just assuming on other guys. It's bullshit.

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Tue Jan 06, 2015 4:27 pm

Don't forget in like 2007(?) there was that rumor that a few MAJOR names were about to come out and then it just sort of went away. And there were names attached at the time, not just "some players". For some reason I had Scott Van Pelt's email address back then and I asked who, he said he couldn't say, I said "just say its not Jeter or Rivera" and he said it wasn't. I remember Damon being one of the whispery whispers.

Which is to say: I have zero doubt MLB would pick and choose who gets dinged by whether or not fans (writers) would be devastated or get the blood they craved. Griffey and Thomas seemed pretty nice and would hurt as presumed clean stars now nailed. Clemens, Bonds, Manny ... they were all dicks. Palmeiro ended up seeming like a pretty huge dick too. A-Rod's a douche. Braun comes off as a douche now, although he's the best debate in terms of taking a star down.

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Tue Jan 06, 2015 4:29 pm

brian wrote:I don't have a dog in that fight, I was just curious. I tend to agree with you guys. I think it also renders null the argument that you shouldn't vote in Bonds and Clemens, et al on their merits if you're just assuming on other guys. It's bullshit.

Exactly. The worst ballots to me aren't the ones who won't vote for Bonds or Clemens, who are technically attached, or the ones who won't vote for anyone inside "the PED era". Those are dumb, but my real hatred is for those who won't vote for Piazza or Bagwell while putting other guys on. It either means they're playing amateur detective or it means they know something for fact but are inside the coverup while acting above it.

A_B · Post by **A_B** » Tue Jan 06, 2015 4:33 pm

mister d wrote:Sure, just like anyone else. I don't pretend to know at an individual level but I "know" it was rampant so I just assume yes on everyone.

If there's anything the suspended players and leaked names have taught, its that the eyeball test doesn't work. And even if you want to say Griffey was clean because he was a natural with such a beautiful swing ... what's Palmeiro?

I give Griffey benefit of the doubt because his overall progression is more in line with what we expect.

Gunpowder · Post by **Gunpowder** » Tue Jan 06, 2015 4:33 pm

brian wrote:I don't have a dog in that fight, I was just curious. I tend to agree with you guys. I think it also renders null the argument that you shouldn't vote in Bonds and Clemens, et al on their merits if you're just assuming on other guys. It's bullshit.

It truly is like the bullest of shit.

A_B · Post by **A_B** » Tue Jan 06, 2015 4:35 pm

mister d wrote:
brian wrote:I don't have a dog in that fight, I was just curious. I tend to agree with you guys. I think it also renders null the argument that you shouldn't vote in Bonds and Clemens, et al on their merits if you're just assuming on other guys. It's bullshit.
Exactly. The worst ballots to me aren't the ones who won't vote for Bonds or Clemens, who are technically attached, or the ones who won't vote for anyone inside "the PED era". Those are dumb, but my real hatred is for those who won't vote for Piazza or Bagwell while putting other guys on. It either means they're playing amateur detective or it means they know something for fact but are inside the coverup while acting above it.

I don't think this can be discounted lightly. I blame the writers as much or more than anyone for all of this.

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Tue Jan 06, 2015 4:38 pm

AB_skin_test wrote:I give Griffey benefit of the doubt because his overall progression is more in line with what we expect.

Is it? He was on pace to be (and projected to be) one of the best players in MLB history, then he got traded* and then he was effectively done as a star at 30.

* And the trade nearly didn't happen because the Reds wouldn't cave on Pokey Goddamn Reese

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Tue Jan 06, 2015 4:40 pm

AB_skin_test wrote:I don't think this can be discounted lightly. I blame the writers as much or more than anyone for all of this.

Yup. Either it was a big enough deal that a journalist should have been blowing the whistle or it wasn't a big deal then so don't act like its a big deal now, Buster Olney, you fucking dick.

A_B · Post by **A_B** » Tue Jan 06, 2015 4:42 pm

mister d wrote:
AB_skin_test wrote:I give Griffey benefit of the doubt because his overall progression is more in line with what we expect.
Is it? He was on pace to be (and projected to be) one of the best players in MLB history, then he got traded* and then he was effectively done as a star at 30.

* And the trade nearly didn't happen because the Reds wouldn't cave on Pokey Goddamn Reese

He came in at 19, struggled power wise, found his stroke, then injuries played a role in his demise, but he still had a three year stretch of decent power numbers with the reds despite injuries. Peaked in his 26-30 seasons, as one does, then fought to be in the lineup enough but was fairly productive until he was 37 when he was able to play. His curve is pretty natural for an elite power hitter.

Just checked...Palmeiro had an 8 HR season in a year that he played 156 games at age 24. Then 14 in 154 the next season. Griffey had an 8 HR season a year he only played 70 games and that was at age 32 coming off an injury season. I don't think Palmeiro can compare to Griffey in any meaningful way for a steroid discussion.

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Tue Jan 06, 2015 4:46 pm

But wasn't his path supposed to be athletic 5 tool superfreak more than Mister Homerun?

(That's a question of perception, not a comment. I was a bit young when Griffey the prodigy was a thing.)

A_B · Post by **A_B** » Tue Jan 06, 2015 4:50 pm

mister d wrote:But wasn't his path supposed to be athletic 5 tool superfreak more than Mister Homerun?

(That's a question of perception, not a comment. I was a bit young when Griffey the prodigy was a thing.)

He was a plus across the board, yes. Injuries and playing one of the toughest positions on the field took a toll on the defensive and baserunning metrics. But I do think people expected him to hit a lot of homeruns, a la Teddy Ballgame in regards to just having a swing that could do it.

Gunpowder · Post by **Gunpowder** » Tue Jan 06, 2015 4:51 pm

I get AB's point - falling off at 30 is a natural progression for some. A steroid cycle would presumably extend that.

But...who the fuck knows who did and didn't. I would have, 100% not even a question.

A_B · Post by **A_B** » Tue Jan 06, 2015 4:57 pm

I should make clear that I am an all in or all out guy. Dont' pick and choose. Ignore the era completely or treat everyone the same.

L-Jam3 · Post by **L-Jam3** » Tue Jan 06, 2015 5:03 pm

All those years running on the green concrete at the Kingdome could have had an effect that only manifested itself later.

degenerasian · Post by **degenerasian** » Tue Jan 06, 2015 5:15 pm

yeah it's crazy how players played on that shit. I remember being at an Expos game in 96 and you could hear the ball bounce off the 'turf'. Course there were only 8000 fans.

Gunpowder · Post by **Gunpowder** » Tue Jan 06, 2015 5:16 pm

Perhaps, though Griffey had hamstring tears, not knee problems. That's a very steroidy injury.

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Tue Jan 06, 2015 5:21 pm

Which means there's one of two questions to ask: "Did PEDs contribute to Griffey's injuries?" or "why the fuck didn't Griffey use PEDs to recover from his injuries?" He seems to just get a pass altogether.

Post by **Shirley** » Tue Jan 06, 2015 6:12 pm

Griffey sure seemed to put on a lot of muscle weight over the years. He went from a really skinny kid to a barrel-chested slugger. Given that body change and the time period ... I'm gonna say I'm 95% convinced.