The 2015 Class will be announced today at 2 pm. Who gets in?

 

Guys that I think get in: Randy Johnson, John Smoltz, Pedro Martinez, Craig Biggio, Mike Piazza

 

Guys that I think should get in (in addition to the 5 mentioned above): Jeff Bagwell, Tim Raines, Curt Schilling, Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens

If Piazza doesn't get in, nail the doors shut to the hall. He's the greatest offensive catcher of all time.

Outside of Randy Johnson and Tim Raines this is probably the least likable class to come through in a while for me personally. I liked Clemens as well but he doesn't have a snowballs chance.

 

I'm not saying other don't deserve to get in, but I just never was a fan of any of them.

The 2015 Class will be announced today at 2 pm. Who gets in?

 

Guys that I think get in: Randy Johnson, John Smoltz, Pedro Martinez, Craig Biggio, Mike Piazza

 

Guys that I think should get in (in addition to the 5 mentioned above): Jeff Bagwell, Tim Raines, Curt Schilling, Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens

 

Those 5 may be deserving, but it would be almost unprecedented for 5 guys to get elected in the same year. It's only happened once, and that was in the first election class. 4 men have been elected only twice, and not since 1955. That being said, I think Johnson, Martinez and Biggio are pretty close to locks.

Those 5 may be deserving, but it would be almost unprecedented for 5 guys to get elected in the same year. It's only happened once, and that was in the first election class. 4 men have been elected only twice, and not since 1955. That being said, I think Johnson, Martinez and Biggio are pretty close to locks.

 

Thanks for the info. I was wondering about that.

 

Is Bagwell included in the steroid talk? I don't specifically recall his name being mentioned, but cannot recall.

If Piazza doesn't get in, nail the doors shut to the hall. He's the greatest offensive catcher of all time.

 

He hit the most homers, but you could make arguments for Ivan Rodriguez and Johnny Bench as best "offensive" catchers. But being the best in just one aspect doesn't always get you in, or even mean you are deserving. In Piazza's case, I do think he is deserving, but I have no issues if he has to wait a few more years.

He hit the most homers, but you could make arguments for Ivan Rodriguez and Johnny Bench as best "offensive" catchers. But being the best in just one aspect doesn't always get you in, or even mean you are deserving. In Piazza's case, I do think he is deserving, but I have no issues if he has to wait a few more years.

 

What changes in a few years? Will his #'s change?

On Bonds and Clemens, and all other cheaters, my view is you have to separate pre-cheating from post-cheating. Then you have to try and decide, would this guy be a HOF'er without cheating.

 

Bonds - I see his cheating as starting at his age 34. Without cheating, he probably still would have hit 500 HR's and would have 3 MVP's. His other stats would have made him a HOF'er so I am inclined to vote for him. However, has Bonds ever admitted he cheated? Has he ever come clean like McGwire? Until he does that, I could not vote for him.

 

Clemens - Roger Clemens is not nearly as sure a HOF'er as Bonds was pre-cheating. I see his cheating as also starting at his age 34. He had less than 200 wins at that point. He had less than 2500 strikeouts. He idd have 3 Cy Youngs and an MVP, which makes a very strong case for HOF. But at that point in his career, he was a little more than Dwight Gooden. Or perhaps Bob Welch or Vida Blue? Does that make him a HOF'er? I would have to think long and hard about Clemens. Without doing all the research on him and add in his lack of admission of his cheating, I don't vote for Clemens.

 

The other thing that really causes me to not want to vote for the cheaters is thinking about their speech. I envision either of these two on the podium crying, saying thank you and it makes me a little sick to my stomach.

Thanks for the info. I was wondering about that.

 

Is Bagwell included in the steroid talk? I don't specifically recall his name being mentioned, but cannot recall.

 

Not specifically. But he was active during that time period, and had a sudden increase in size and power early in his career. He played with and was good friends with Ken Caminiti. He was very big during his playing career, broke down fairly quickly at the end, and now doesn't look like he ever lifted a weight. And the Astro's were known as a hotbed for 'roids in the 90's. His name has never appeared on any list, but I think there's enough smoke out there, that many voters believe he was a user.

On Bonds and Clemens, and all other cheaters, my view is you have to separate pre-cheating from post-cheating. Then you have to try and decide, would this guy be a HOF'er without cheating.

 

Bonds - I see his cheating as starting at his age 34. Without cheating, he probably still would have hit 500 HR's and would have 3 MVP's. His other stats would have made him a HOF'er so I am inclined to vote for him. However, has Bonds ever admitted he cheated? Has he ever come clean like McGwire? Until he does that, I could not vote for him.

 

Clemens - Roger Clemens is not nearly as sure a HOF'er as Bonds was pre-cheating. I see his cheating as also starting at his age 34. He had less than 200 wins at that point. He had less than 2500 strikeouts. He idd have 3 Cy Youngs and an MVP, which makes a very strong case for HOF. But at that point in his career, he was a little more than Dwight Gooden. Or perhaps Bob Welch or Vida Blue? Does that make him a HOF'er? I would have to think long and hard about Clemens. Without doing all the research on him and add in his lack of admission of his cheating, I don't vote for Clemens.

 

The other thing that really causes me to not want to vote for the cheaters is thinking about their speech. I envision either of these two on the podium crying, saying thank you and it makes me a little sick to my stomach.

 

 

Neither of them would get my vote. Whether they admitted it or not, they both cheated, IMO.

Not specifically. But he was active during that time period, and had a sudden increase in size and power early in his career. He played with and was good friends with Ken Caminiti. He was very big during his playing career, broke down fairly quickly at the end, and now doesn't look like he ever lifted a weight. And the Astro's were known as a hotbed for 'roids in the 90's. His name has never appeared on any list, but I think there's enough smoke out there, that many voters believe he was a user.

 

Most guys lose a lot of their muscle mass after their career ends. Why wouldn't they? They stop working out every single day.

On Bonds and Clemens, and all other cheaters, my view is you have to separate pre-cheating from post-cheating. Then you have to try and decide, would this guy be a HOF'er without cheating.

 

Bonds - I see his cheating as starting at his age 34. Without cheating, he probably still would have hit 500 HR's and would have 3 MVP's. His other stats would have made him a HOF'er so I am inclined to vote for him. However, has Bonds ever admitted he cheated? Has he ever come clean like McGwire? Until he does that, I could not vote for him.

 

Clemens - Roger Clemens is not nearly as sure a HOF'er as Bonds was pre-cheating. I see his cheating as also starting at his age 34. He had less than 200 wins at that point. He had less than 2500 strikeouts. He idd have 3 Cy Youngs and an MVP, which makes a very strong case for HOF. But at that point in his career, he was a little more than Dwight Gooden. Or perhaps Bob Welch or Vida Blue? Does that make him a HOF'er? I would have to think long and hard about Clemens. Without doing all the research on him and add in his lack of admission of his cheating, I don't vote for Clemens.

 

The other thing that really causes me to not want to vote for the cheaters is thinking about their speech. I envision either of these two on the podium crying, saying thank you and it makes me a little sick to my stomach.

 

Neither of them would get my vote. Whether they admitted it or not, they both cheated, IMO.

 

Here's what kills me about this mindset....Most people who feel this way (not sure if you two do or not) are adamant that Pete Rose should be in. Completely hypocritical IMO.

Here's what kills me about this mindset....Most people who feel this way (not sure if you two do or not) are adamant that Pete Rose should be in. Completely hypocritical IMO.

 

Nothing hypocritical for me. Rose was a HOF'er before he ever did one thing wrong and he has admitted his wrong doing (regardless of how long it took and how botched the confession was).

What changes in a few years? Will his #'s change?

 

Nothing changes. I just think there are more deserving players this year, as there have been in his previous years of eligibility. More deserving players siphon votes and make it tougher for others to get in. Especially considering it's rare that more than 2 players get voted in (although others make through the Veterans Commitee). He'll get his call in a year when the ballots are a little thinner.

Nothing hypocritical for me. Rose was a HOF'er before he ever did one thing wrong and he has admitted his wrong doing (regardless of how long it took and how botched the confession was).

 

So was Clemens, yet you exclude him. Hypocritical.