• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

MLB General Discussion (Official Thread)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
Jake said:
MLB's all time hits leader and all-time home run leader are not in it's Hall of Fame.

I wonder how they identify the leaders in those categories in the facility? Do they just pretend they don't exist?
Click to expand...

Good question. I'd assume they take the stance of recognizing who the actual statistical leader is and then acknowledge that the two people in question aren't in the HOF due to their own actions.

Doesn't seem that hard to me but who knows?
 
Upvote 0
5 STAR U-G-A said:
Didn't Ortiz also juice? Or PED's of some sort?

Bonds would've been a HOF'er even if he had never got on the sauce (yes, I know, but he did...).
Click to expand...

Ortiz was on the original Mitchell report. He was also a primarily doubles hitter up until 2003, which is when he popped hot for the report.

Ortiz got in primarily because of his postseason performances and because the baseball writers could get an interview with him at any time whereas Bonds, and at times Clemens, were at war with the media.

Same with Schilling. He was a horse on the days he pitched and a horse's ass the 4 other days. His credentials are HOF worthy in literally any era except the information (my designation) era.
 
Upvote 0
5 STAR U-G-A said:
Didn't Ortiz also juice? Or PED's of some sort?

Bonds would've been a HOF'er even if he had never got on the sauce (yes, I know, but he did...).
Click to expand...

If you want another example, compare ManRam to David Ortiz. And certainly Fred McGriff to Ortiz.

Fred McGriff might be the biggest omission in the entire thing. While almost exactly the same hitter, McGriff at least played a position and was above league average in his peak. Ortiz was awful at 1st and never played the field unless in a National League stadium in the playoffs.
 
Upvote 0
Jaxbuck said:
Good question. I'd assume they take the stance of recognizing who the actual statistical leader is and then acknowledge that the two people in question aren't in the HOF due to their own actions.

Doesn't seem that hard to me but who knows?
Click to expand...

Meanwhile, David Ortiz went from a ho-hum hitter in Minny - never hit more than 20 homers - to becoming ten-time 30+ homer guy in Boston. At age 40 he hit 38 homers.

But he's well-liked, and now a member of the media, so it's overlooked in his case.

Cooperstown voters pick and choose who they want to convict who they give a pass, and it tends to have next to nothing to do with baseball.
 
Upvote 0
Jake said:
Meanwhile, David Ortiz went from a ho-hum hitter in Minny - never hit more than 20 homers - to becoming ten-time 30+ homer guy in Boston. At age 40 he hit 38 homers.

But he's well-liked, and now a member of the media, so it's overlooked in his case.

Cooperstown voters pick and choose who they want to convict who they give a pass, and it tends to have next to nothing to do with baseball.
Click to expand...

Next to nothing to do with baseball isn't accurate. The guys have to have some impressive numbers to get into the next phase of the debate.

As far as baseball writers being fuckheads and picking people for somewhat arbitrary reasons, there is no doubt that happens. That has nothing to do with the earlier question of why the HR king and hit king aren't in the HOF.

Those two dumbasses hung themselves.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top