Great players but not acceptable to HOF

[Appling]

Some of the greatest players to play the game are now being excluded from most voter lists:
* Joe Jackson -- great natural hitter but blacklisted for 1919 Series
* Pete Rose -- Most career hits of all time -- but "I never bet on baseball"
* Barry Bonds -- Most homeruns of all time -- but "I didn't know it was steroidsj"
* Roger Clemens -- No. 8 in career wins -- but in trouble for suspected steroids (and lying to congressional committee)

Are all four out forever?
Or will one of them someday make it to Cooperstown?

[jalbright]

I don't know whether it's most or many voter lists, but the point is well taken. You could certainly include Palmeiro and McGwire, at least in HOF terms.

[whoisonit]

Sosa as well.

[Go get em Tigers]

I guess Miguel Tejada belongs on the list too.

But isn't it really unfair to ban the top names that have been mentioned, when SO MANY other ball players used the juice? What about Pudge Rodriguez, his name was mentioned? How many juicers will enter the HOF under the radar?

[NJMetfan4life]

In one season, Jackon had more triples than strikeouts.

[Appling]

But isn't it really unfair to ban the top names that have been mentioned, when SO MANY other ball players used the juice? What about Pudge Rodriguez, his name was mentioned? How many juicers will enter the HOF under the radar?

I agree. The PED suspect list seems to be focused on players who otherwise might be first-ballot Hall of Famers. This is just a terrible period for baseball but how can we continue this cherry-picking process? Why not forgive or forget steroid use in the past but strictly enforce the rules in the future, using all possible technology to get this runaway train stopped?

I have no confidence that anyone is "clean". It seems more like the "caught" vs. the "uncaught". If Clemens had stayed retired the first time he might have entered the HOF before his honesty was seriously questioned.

[bob]

Rose and jackson have no chance, theyve been banned and nobody is going to overturn it.
I personally believe that Pete Rose is treated unfairly. Yes he broke the rules, but theres a clear difference between betting on your team to win and match fixing. You cant fix a game so that you win, not without paying huge sums of money to the opposition, which would never be kept quiet and most of his winnings would go on bribes.

Bonds and clemens still have a shot, although a slim one, especially if Mcguire's first HOF vote last year is anything to go by. If clemens retired a year ago, or just kept his damn mouth shut over the winter he probably would have got in ok, but now it seems every time something new comes up it is more bad news for him.

[willshad]

this my sound ridiculous, but I think that NOT being in the hall of fame actually made these guys MORE famous. Think about it..if Rose, and especially Joe Jackson, had not gotten into trouble they likely would have gotten voted in, then been forgotten about...Jackson would have just been lumped in with all the high average guys of his era, and Rose would have been seen as just a decent player who played forever. By not being elected, they are talked about much more than they would have been. Im not saying the same may happen with Bonds and Clemens, but its possible.

[NJMetfan4life]

Rose and jackson have no chance, theyve been banned and nobody is going to overturn it.


Banned for life. Jackson is dead, and didn't fix the series, it was Cicotte and Gandil along with Runstein who planned it(I think those are the names). Look at Joe's record and tell me he was fixin it!!! .

[willshad]

here's a question...disregarding the fixing, did Joe jackson do enough in his career to be considered a hall of famer?

[brett]

Bonds was a slam-dunk by '98.

McGwire would not have been in HOF territory if he had put up a career on par with '87-'92 probably. He hit 217 home runs in those 6 years. If he had played 15 like that he could have gotten to 540, but the injuries of '93 and '94 made that pretty unlikely. I could still put McGwire in, but his lawyer stated that some day he would be able to tell the "whole story". I'll wait for that. If he's waiting until he gets in, I won't be for him.

Sosa is borderline (by today's standards) as it is.

Rose would be in if he really wanted to do what's necessary-full and complete apology.

Palmero would not have made it.

Tejada is not there anyway.

Clemens was in in my book after '92! It was the top 7 year pitching run in decades.

The biggest question mark for me is Sheffield.

[brett]

here's a question...disregarding the fixing, did Joe jackson do enough in his career to be considered a hall of famer?

He was one of 10 20th century players with .330 batting, .400 on-base and .500 slugging with the qualifying total of 5000 at bats (or would be if he went 0-fer the rest of the way).

Ruth,
Williams,
Gehrig,
Cobb,
Musial,
Heilman,
Delehanty,
Speaker,
Hornsby and
J.J.

I believe.

[willshad]

you have pretty high hall of fame standards if you dont think Palmeiro and Sosa are hall of famers disregarding the steroids. They are 5th and 10th all time in home runs...Palmeiro also has 3000 hits, and Sosa has one of the all time great peaks. Who do you think from the steroid era SHOULD go in?

[willshad]

He was one of 10 20th century players with .330 batting, .400 on-base and .500 slugging with the qualifying total of 5000 at bats (or would be if he went 0-fer the rest of the way).

Ruth,
Williams,
Gehrig,
Cobb,
Musial,
Heilman,
Delehanty,
Speaker,
Hornsby and
J.J.

I believe.


he also only had 1772 hits..would this be the lowest total ever for a hall of famer?

[Skin & Bones]

Bonds was a slam-dunk by '98.

McGwire would not have been in HOF territory if he had put up a career on par with '87-'92 probably. He hit 217 home runs in those 6 years. If he had played 15 like that he could have gotten to 540, but the injuries of '93 and '94 made that pretty unlikely. I could still put McGwire in, but his lawyer stated that some day he would be able to tell the "whole story". I'll wait for that. If he's waiting until he gets in, I won't be for him.

Sosa is borderline (by today's standards) as it is.

Rose would be in if he really wanted to do what's necessary-full and complete apology.

Palmero would not have made it.

Tejada is not there anyway.

Clemens was in in my book after '92! It was the top 7 year pitching run in decades.

The biggest question mark for me is Sheffield.


Sheffield is an interesting case. The only evidence we have on Sheffield is that he used steroids in 2002 for injuries. He very well could be lying, but if he's not, his numbers rank him as one of the 50 best players that ever lived, IMO.

[brett]

he also only had 1772 hits..would this be the lowest total ever for a hall of famer?

No. I'm pretty sure that the lowest is just over 1500 by a catcher. I'll try to find it.

[brett]

you have pretty high hall of fame standards if you dont think Palmeiro and Sosa are hall of famers disregarding the steroids. They are 5th and 10th all time in home runs...Palmeiro also has 3000 hits, and Sosa has one of the all time great peaks. Who do you think from the steroid era SHOULD go in?

I didn't mean Palmero wasn't when disregarding steroids. His stats should have put him in. I meant he wouldn't have made it without them.

Sosa has about a 128 OPS+ and just under 10,000 plate appearances. Fred McGriff was 134 for over 10,000 so put him in first. Dawson was 119 for almost 11,000 with more additional plusses as a baserunner and fielder. I wouldn't quite put him in. Rusty Staub was 124 for over 11,000

[philkid3]

this my sound ridiculous, but I think that NOT being in the hall of fame actually made these guys MORE famous.

No, that doesn't sound ridiculous at all. It's true.

[willshad]

does anyone know when Palmeiro suposedly started taking steroids?

[willshad]

I didn't mean Palmero wasn't when disregarding steroids. His stats should have put him in. I meant he wouldn't have made it without them.

Sosa has about a 128 OPS+ and just under 10,000 plate appearances. Fred McGriff was 134 for over 10,000 so put him in first. Dawson was 119 for almost 11,000 with more additional plusses as a baserunner and fielder. I wouldn't quite put him in. Rusty Staub was 124 for over 11,000

having the fifth highest home run total ever (and over 60 3 times) doesnt nudge him above those guys?

[CTaka]

he also only had 1772 hits..would this be the lowest total ever for a hall of famer?


I'm sure there are quite a few actually with less. Jackie Robinson, Elmer Flick, Buck Ewing, Fred Lindstrom, Travis Jackson, Chick Hafey, Ralph Kiner, Roy Campanella, Roger Bresnahan (OK, I won't pick on any more catchers!), Tommy McCarthy, Hack Wilson, Ross Youngs, Johnny Evers, Joe Tinker, Frank Chance, and Hugh Jennings all had fewer hits than Jackson. There may well be more - I just got tired!

[Paul Wendt]

I'm sure there are quite a few actually with less. Jackie Robinson, Elmer Flick, Buck Ewing, Fred Lindstrom, Travis Jackson, Chick Hafey, Ralph Kiner, Roy Campanella, Roger Bresnahan (OK, I won't pick on any more catchers!), Tommy McCarthy, Hack Wilson, Ross Youngs, Johnny Evers, Joe Tinker, Frank Chance, and Hugh Jennings all had fewer hits than Jackson. There may well be more - I just got tired!

Joe Jackson played only nine full season plus tidbits, but they were 154-game seasons (except 1919) and he garnered two 1st, two 2nd, and two 3rd in the league in hits. Four players more than doubled him but he is #360 all-time.

Visit the Top 1000 Lifetime Base Hits at baseball-reference (http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/H_career.shtml) and you can count the HOF members (marked '+') who rank #361-1000. Of course there are HOF members outside the Top 1000.

[Buzzaldrin]

Nobody who topped .400 in the 20th c isn't in the hall. Nobody who topped .380 three times ever isn't in the hall (not counting the National Association). If Jackson had hypothetically played four more years and hit, say, .250 each of them with loads of at bats, how about going 150 for 600 each year (+600 hits and plus 2400 ab), he still would hit .321 lifetime- that's including pretty much the worst and most sudden decline phase ever, which would have happened in the high average 20s. The real downer about Joe is that he missed out on the 20s- look how that kept up Cobb, Speaker, and Collins' averages. 30 years old and coming off a fabulous season- Jackson is pure Hall material. And 13 years is plenty for the hall- they set the requirement at ten for a reason, even 11 is more than enough to judge a player. Hank Greenberg only played 13 and had fewer hits than Jackson, and you can't possibly say he wasn't a Hall of Famer.

[DoubleX]

Banned for life. Jackson is dead, and didn't fix the series, it was Cicotte and Gandil along with Runstein who planned it(I think those are the names). Look at Joe's record and tell me he was fixin it!!! .

How do you know Jackson didn't help further the fix with his play? You have to look at how he performed in the games where the fix was on, not the series as a whole. He struckout just 10 times the entire season, yet twice in the 8 game series, which would expand to about 40 over a full season. What kind of situations did he strike out in? There are also some reports that there were some balls that dropped in for hits in front of him that he normally would have caught. Did Jackson take an extra base as often as he could in the games where the fix was on? Did he generally field as hard in those games? Contributions towards throwing a game can be very subtle, especially when Cicotte and Lefty Williams are doing most of the work for you anyway.

Finally, and most damning, he took money and admitted under oath that he was part of the conspiracy, and then admitted that he confronted Gandil with dismay when he wasn't paid more as promised. Jackson was very much a part of the conspiracy and he willingly took the money offered and then complained when there wasn't more. I actually think it's worse if Jackson took the money as part of the conspiracy but played hard anyway - it's like he wanted to have his cake and eat it too. Some will say he was just a rube and got roped into everything. To this, it's worth noting that he had success later in life running his own business, and at the heart of the matter, he surely knew the difference between right and wrong. As Herm Edwards said, "you play to win the game" and Jackson surely knew that to be a part of something seeking to intentionally lose the game, particularly in the championship series, was wrong.

Jackson's place outside the Hall is well deserved, IMO.

[fenrir]

none will ever get in.

[Eastvanmungo]

Rose... after he's dead.

[steveironcity]

How do you know Jackson didn't help further the fix with his play? You have to look at how he performed in the games where the fix was on, not the series as a whole. He struckout just 10 times the entire season, yet twice in the 8 game series, which would expand to about 40 over a full season. What kind of situations did he strike out in? There are also some reports that there were some balls that dropped in for hits in front of him that he normally would have caught. Did Jackson take an extra base as often as he could in the games where the fix was on? Did he generally field as hard in those games? Contributions towards throwing a game can be very subtle, especially when Cicotte and Lefty Williams are doing most of the work for you anyway.

Finally, and most damning, he took money and admitted under oath that he was part of the conspiracy, and then admitted that he confronted Gandil with dismay when he wasn't paid more as promised. Jackson was very much a part of the conspiracy and he willingly took the money offered and then complained when there wasn't more. I actually think it's worse if Jackson took the money as part of the conspiracy but played hard anyway - it's like he wanted to have his cake and eat it too. Some will say he was just a rube and got roped into everything. To this, it's worth noting that he had success later in life running his own business, and at the heart of the matter, he surely knew the difference between right and wrong. As Herm Edwards said, "you play to win the game" and Jackson surely knew that to be a part of something seeking to intentionally lose the game, particularly in the championship series, was wrong.

Jackson's place outside the Hall is well deserved, IMO.


Its not hard to find the source of peoples love affairs with the likes of Jackson and Rose. Especially after the modern medias portrayal of Jackson. Instead of being treated as the unhonorable, crooked person he was, he is treated as a misundestood hick who was bullied into and/or incapable of throwing the series. After anyone watches feild of dreams for instance, a newcomer to baseball might think that "The Christian Gentleman" was Jacksons nickname.

[AG2004]

he also only had 1772 hits..would this be the lowest total ever for a hall of famer?

Not by a long shot. There's actually a tie for fewest career hits by a Hall of Fame player.

Bruce Sutter and Goose Gossage both recorded 9 hits during their career.

[2Chance]

I think that eventually Clemens and Bonds will make it, and picked the Rocket first because he's not likely to play again. (Tired of the negative media exposure.) Bonds still has a chance.

Both players could have been inducted if they had retired before giving any reason to be suspected of using.

[Brooklyn]

I personally believe that Pete Rose is treated unfairly. Yes he broke the rules, but theres a clear difference between betting on your team to win and match fixing. You cant fix a game so that you win, not without paying huge sums of money to the opposition, which would never be kept quiet and most of his winnings would go on bribes.



You are correct that you can't guarantee you are going to win. But there are many things you can do to help win. Let's say Rose was planning on betting on a Saturday game. As manager, he could rest a starter an extra day to move him from Friday to Saturday. Pitch a stater on short rest to move him from Sunday to Saturday. Or, more subtetly, he could give his best relievers the night off on Friday so they are rested for action on Saturday. Or he can pitch his best relievers in a game on Thursday, then rest them on Friday, for example, if he believes they pitch best with exactly one day off.

He might overwork a reliever that should be due for a day off.

Most baseball games are bet on the money line and not a run spread, but he may have bet on his team with a run spread. Assume the line is a run and a half, and he is tied in the ninth with a runner on first. He might swing away going for the home run / big inning rather then bunting to get the one run over. Up by two in the same situation, he might be managing to try to prevent 1 run to score, rather then managing to prevent 2 runs to score.

There are a lot of subtle things he can do during the game or prior games that will certainly not guarantee his team winning, but could give him a marginally better chance to win that game at the potential expense of other games.


I think that eventually Clemens and Bonds will make it, and picked the Rocket first because he's not likely to play again. (Tired of the negative media exposure.) Bonds still has a chance.



I completley agree, I think they will both get in. I also picked the Rocket because he is the less likely of the two to play again

[Go get em Tigers]

Palmero would not have made it.

[/B]


I think the numbers show that Palmeiro would have made the hall, maybe even on the first ballot. His career numbers compare very favorably to Frank Robinson, Eddie Murray, Dave Winfield, and Reggie. Pretty good company.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/friv/scomp.cgi?I=palmera01:Rafael+Palmeiro&st=career

[baseball junkie]

I voted for Rose because he's finally came clean and admitted everything he did.

In addition, Rose has paid his penance -- something like two full decades.

Bonds and Clemens will get the McGwire treatment, IMO. To my knowledge Jackson never admitted his guilt in the Black Sox scandal. If he had, I think he'd have been in the HOF forty or fifty years ago.

[Westlake]

Whoever voted for Jackson is kidding themselves.

[Defense Counts!]

You are correct that you can't guarantee you are going to win. But there are many things you can do to help win. Let's say Rose was planning on betting on a Saturday game. As manager, he could rest a starter an extra day to move him from Friday to Saturday. Pitch a stater on short rest to move him from Sunday to Saturday. Or, more subtetly, he could give his best relievers the night off on Friday so they are rested for action on Saturday. Or he can pitch his best relievers in a game on Thursday, then rest them on Friday, for example, if he believes they pitch best with exactly one day off.

He might overwork a reliever that should be due for a day off.

Most baseball games are bet on the money line and not a run spread, but he may have bet on his team with a run spread. Assume the line is a run and a half, and he is tied in the ninth with a runner on first. He might swing away going for the home run / big inning rather then bunting to get the one run over. Up by two in the same situation, he might be managing to try to prevent 1 run to score, rather then managing to prevent 2 runs to score.

There are a lot of subtle things he can do during the game or prior games that will certainly not guarantee his team winning, but could give him a marginally better chance to win that game at the potential expense of other games.


You make a lot of good points, Brooklyn. Does this mean that Rose would be in a much better position if he had bet on EVERY Red's game?