MLB OFFSEASON (Maybe soon???)

[supremebve]

30 minutes ago, SirFozzie said:

I'd start a "You deserve it" chant for Big Papi, but it's obvious I'd be shouted down.

As for the "CONFIRMED STEROID USER!!ONE!", try a different tactic. He tested positive for "something", but even MLB said "It's quite possible that it was for a substance that wasn't banned".

 

[b]According to reports, Ortiz failed a PED survey test in 2003. As Jay Jaffe of FanGraphs explored in much greater detail last month, however, MLB later suggested some players named in the survey test — which had been intended to remain anonymous — likely appeared on the list for substances that weren’t banned at the time. Ortiz was not named in the Mitchell Report, nor he was ever suspended for PED use during his career.[/b]

 

As opposed to say, Bonds or Clemens.

I don't think anyone here is saying that Papi isn't a hall of fame worthy player, he's just neither the best hitter or best pitcher of any of our lifetimes.  Putting Papi in the hall is fine and dandy, but this is like putting Jim Kelly in the Hall of Fame and leaving out Emmitt Smith, Tom Brady, and Jerry Rice.

[Raziel]

At this point, pro sports are so entrenched in gambling that it's fucking criminal that Rose isn't allowed in.  I don't even like Bonds, but not having him in but Ortiz instead is fucking dumb as hell.

[The Man Known as Dan]

21 minutes ago, SirFozzie said:

I'd start a "You deserve it" chant for Big Papi, but it's obvious I'd be shouted down.

As for the "CONFIRMED STEROID USER!!ONE!", try a different tactic. He tested positive for "something", but even MLB said "It's quite possible that it was for a substance that wasn't banned".

 

[b]According to reports, Ortiz failed a PED survey test in 2003. As Jay Jaffe of FanGraphs explored in much greater detail last month, however, MLB later suggested some players named in the survey test — which had been intended to remain anonymous — likely appeared on the list for substances that weren’t banned at the time. Ortiz was not named in the Mitchell Report, nor he was ever suspended for PED use during his career.[/b]

 

As opposed to say, Bonds or Clemens.

Honestly, I don’t have a problem with Ortiz getting in overall. He’s an iffy candidate, and wouldn’t even be in my top 5 candidates that are currently on the ballot, but I’m fine with him getting in. Him getting in on 1st ballot when Edgar Martinez almost missed even though Edgar was the better player is a discussion, but not the one I’m interested in at the moment.

 

I just have a problem with the absolute hypocritical standards. You use the “opposed to Bonds” who obviously used, but never actually tested positive. 
 

Basically, whether or not the Ortiz thing was legitimate or not, there isn’t anything there saying he didn’t use, it’s simply saying “it might not have been, and Ortiz and MLB basically are silent on the matter.” And since neither have given any indication of what it was since then, there is no reason not to take what it is at face value.

 

But really, I don’t care about this past the point past it showing the voters pick favorites and there arguments are inconsistent at best, and blatant self serving bullshit at most. Ortiz has red flags to having the same concerns that have kept players far better then him from getting in. So why is he in? He played in Boston and was a media darling, we’re as Bonds, Clemens, and Rodriguez were dicks. That’s the long and short, and it’s stupid.

[SirFozzie]

13 minutes ago, Niners Fan in CT said:

What?  There's no test on Bonds..

But he IS in the Mitchell Report.

[piranesi]

Does anyone else feel like they just don't know anymore what a "hall of fame" should be and therefore just can't make up their mind right now who should be in or out?  I feel like I was pretty confident 5 or 10 years ago in my opinions on this but am completely stumped now as to what I even think a Hall of fame is. a Hall of great people who played baseball? of great players who also didn't cross a few certain lines of assholery otherwise? Or just people who did important things on the field regardless?

For awhile I was pretty solid on the "no cheaters" and then I moved also to "no cheaters and no asshole nazis" So I guess I was in group no. 2 (great players who didn't cross a few certain lines of assholery otherwise).

But the idea that only admirable people should be in seems so antiquated somehow to a time when we knew less about famous people so that we could mythologize them as great guys just because it made us feel good. I feel like our current sense of celebrity is both more nuanced right now (as in we mostly acknowledge that no one is perfect or always admirable) and less nuanced (in that we jump on any shitty thing they do or say as an excuse to disappear them from the entirety of history).

Until we make up our minds, or I guess I make up my mind...it just seems like a really weird museum that is partially a museum of old wide-eyed Americana style hagiography and partly just covering up the past.

But at the same time do i want a hall of fame that makes me feel shitty? The past sucked and so every museum should probably make you feel shitty. But good luck getting much enthusiasm for that.

[supremebve]

24 minutes ago, piranesi said:

Does anyone else feel like they just don't know anymore what a "hall of fame" should be and therefore just can't make up their mind right now who should be in or out?  I feel like I was pretty confident 5 or 10 years ago in my opinions on this but am completely stumped now as to what I even think a Hall of fame is. a Hall of great people who played baseball? of great players who also didn't cross a few certain lines of assholery otherwise? Or just people who did important things on the field regardless?

 

I see what you're getting at, but I'm 100% sure in my mind what a hall of fame should be.  I personally don't think anybody who topped out as very good should be in a hall of fame.  You shouldn't get extra credit for winning championships.  Longevity doesn't mean as much as how good you were at your peak.  The only criteria should be if you were one of the greatest players in your sport during your career.  Bonds and Clemens were the best hitter and pitcher of my life and should be in, because that's the only reason the building exists.  Frank Gore was a very good player, who played for a long time, and is 3rd in all time rushing yards.  He has 1 season where he finished in the top 5 in rushing.  He was really good, but there are probably 10 running backs who played during his career that you'd rather have in your backfield.  He's not a hall of famer to me, he was just really good.  At their best if you called the Chiefs and asked to trade Frank Gore for Jamaal Charles straight up, no one on earth would make that trade.  No one would put Jamaal Charles in the hall of fame, but he was better than Frank Gore who everyone seems to think should be in the hall of fame.  If you look at the top 25 rushers of all time, you wouldn't trade any of them for Frank Gore and that's OK.  He had a career worthy of being proud of, but there is no way whatsoever that I'd vote for him for the hall of fame.  

[Death From Above]

3 hours ago, supremebve said:

I don't think anyone here is saying that Papi isn't a hall of fame worthy player

I am absolutely saying that. The idea there should be unanimous approval for a guy that only snuck in based on old writer politics is not a revision I'm interested in being a part of.

Fuck, he was the third best Red Sox player on this ballot. Maybe fourth.

[Dolfan in NYC]

9 hours ago, Death From Above said:

Fuck, he was the third best Red Sox player on this ballot. Maybe fourth.

HALL OF FAMER. FIGHT ME.

 

[supremebve]

9 hours ago, Death From Above said:

I am absolutely saying that. The idea there should be unanimous approval for a guy that only snuck in based on old writer politics is not a revision I'm interested in being a part of.

Fuck, he was the third best Red Sox player on this ballot. Maybe fourth.

I can't dispute anything that you're saying, but 500+ HRs is still something that should get you into the hall.  He's nowhere near the best person on the ballot, which is the problem, but he's someone who I think should be inducted.  Ortiz getting in before Manny pisses me off.  Manny was better than him at everything he was good at.  

[Kuetsar]

Looking at the advanced stat measurements on baseball reference,(black ink, gray ink, etc.) Ortiz is right on the lower part of the HOF qualifiers.  Harold Baines is the one that who induction was a war crime. I think Bonds greatest "crime" that the writers hold against him, in not just being a prick, but breaking Aarons' record. I used to be a hardcore, don't let 'em in, but now, its like just put the fuckers in so we don't have to talk about it anymore. Clemens, Bonds, Arod and Manny. I think Schilling was borderline anyway, so it doesn't make sad that the Nazi ain't going in.

[Craig H]

15 hours ago, Raziel said:

At this point, pro sports are so entrenched in gambling that it's fucking criminal that Rose isn't allowed in.  I don't even like Bonds, but not having him in but Ortiz instead is fucking dumb as hell.

No shit. I'm not sure about every team, but the Cubs now have a fucking sports book ON THE BALLPARK PROPERTY. I'd imagine that's probably similar to other teams. 

[odessasteps]

Pervasive is prob an understatement to describe sports and gambling now, even worse if you add in crypto/NFT crap to the equation  

[Death From Above]

25 minutes ago, Craig H said:

No shit. I'm not sure about every team, but the Cubs now have a fucking sports book ON THE BALLPARK PROPERTY. I'd imagine that's probably similar to other teams. 

Here's a historical laugher: I believe the White Sox were the first club to do this.

[Kuetsar]

4 minutes ago, Death From Above said:

Here's a historical laugher: I believe the White Sox were the first club to do this.

Irony is a harsh mistress. . .

[Travis Sheldon]

Anybody wanna buy my Shoeless Joe NFT?

Letting it go for a song.

[Dolfan in NYC]

20 hours ago, Raziel said:

At this point, pro sports are so entrenched in gambling that it's fucking criminal that Rose isn't allowed in.  

Circling back to this for a sec. I think there are two main reasons Rose will never get in (while he's alive):

1) He lied to the investigators, Giamatti, and Ueberroth about betting. Selig Tagliabue kept his word that he wouldn't let him back into baseball, and it's a self-perpetuating pettiness thing at this point. 

2) I don't think it's ever been proven, but the heavy, heavy implication has always been... yes he bet on the games. Yes, he bet on his team.  And yes, he threw games based on those bets.  I think if that's even remotely true, he won't ever see the Hall.   Betting is one thing, affecting the integrity of the game is something else entirely.  

Does he deserve it based on his stats alone?  Absolutely.  But if he threw games?  Then he's an absolute hard no. 

[elizium]

14 minutes ago, Dolfan in NYC said:

1) He lied to the investigators, Giamatti, and Ueberroth about betting. Tagliabue kept his word that he wouldn't let him back into baseball, and it's a self-perpetuating pettiness thing at this point. 

 

I don't know why Paul Tagliabue had to say that, Pete's chances of making the Football Hall of Fame was already pretty slim

[Dolfan in NYC]

8 minutes ago, elizium said:

I don't know why Paul Tagliabue had to say that, Pete's chances of making the Football Hall of Fame was already pretty slim

Bah.  I meant Selig.   

[Tabe]

1 hour ago, elizium said:

I don't know why Paul Tagliabue had to say that, Pete's chances of making the Football Hall of Fame was already pretty slim

And yet still better than his current chances at the baseball HOF.

[Kuetsar]

1 hour ago, Dolfan in NYC said:

Circling back to this for a sec. I think there are two main reasons Rose will never get in (while he's alive):

1) He lied to the investigators, Giamatti, and Ueberroth about betting. Selig Tagliabue kept his word that he wouldn't let him back into baseball, and it's a self-perpetuating pettiness thing at this point. 

2) I don't think it's ever been proven, but the heavy, heavy implication has always been... yes he bet on the games. Yes, he bet on his team.  And yes, he threw games based on those bets.  I think if that's even remotely true, he won't ever see the Hall.   Betting is one thing, affecting the integrity of the game is something else entirely.  

Does he deserve it based on his stats alone?  Absolutely.  But if he threw games?  Then he's an absolute hard no. 

Since he was a player-manager, and admitted that he bet as a player, I think those are logical assumptions. Rose being a POS doesn't help his case either. . .

[elizium]

1 hour ago, Dolfan in NYC said:

Bah.  I meant Selig.   

One crusty old stick in the mud is pretty indistinguishable from any other

[odessasteps]

Good thing he still in the wwf hof. 

[RIPPA]

1 minute ago, odessasteps said:

Good thing he still in the wwf hof. 

I thought you were saying Tags was in the WWE HOF and I was like "Okay - I don't watch WWE anymore but I feel like I would have heard about THAT"

[Travis Sheldon]

5 hours ago, RIPPA said:

I thought you were saying Tags was in the WWE HOF and I was like "Okay - I don't watch WWE anymore but I feel like I would have heard about THAT"

Tagliabiue is a scheisskopf that I would have liked to see the Dudley Boyz put through a flaming table.

[RIPPA]

MLBPA would still have to agree to that

Also for some context

Quote

It isn’t uncommon for the FMCS to become involved in sports-related work stoppages, as federal mediators all played roles in the NFL’s 2011 lockout, the NBA’s 2011 lockout, and the 2012-13 NHL lockout.  In addition, Bill Shaikin of the Los Angeles Times noted that former FMCS director William Usery was appointed by President Bill Clinton to try and help baseball’s owners and players come to an agreement that would end the 1994-95 players’ strike.

Results were mixed, as FMCS involvement didn’t do much in the NFL’s case, nor did Usery’s involvement help bring the 1994-95 strike any closer to an end.  It is worth underscoring that a federal mediator is there only to help facilitate talks between the two sides, and cannot force either party to accept a deal.