Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ORIOLE33

Does The Cheating Scandal Keep Altuve Out Of The Hall Of Fame?

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Philip said:

That was an unsubstantiated accusation, unless some hard evidence has surfaced. In the absence of any solid evidence, He gets benefit of doubt. But that’s irrelevant to the point though, Which is that known cheaters(with plenty of hard evidence) are literally being unpunished.

Actually, when you are trying to restore a good name,  solid evidence is not even close to the criteria.  Proof that  reformed life has been consistent is the only thing that stands as platform. Prior bad acts and all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, weams said:

Actually, when you are trying to restore a good name,  solid evidence is not even close to the criteria.  Proof that  reformed life has been consistent is the only thing that stands as platform. Prior bad acts and all. 

Oh, I don’t disagree with that at all. Reform is shown with modern behavior.

But it is terribly wrong to use an unsubstantiated claim against somebody,  especially with as much confidence as was implied here. 

Personally, I do not think Pete Rose should be reinstated, or Palmero either. However it is entirely valid for Rose to say, “well you’re not punishing these acknowledged cheaters, so you should let me back in.”

I mention it to illustrate Manfred’s disgusting non-logic, and not as an effort to get rose reinstated

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Philip said:

Oh, I don’t disagree with that at all. Reform is shown with modern behavior.

But it is terribly wrong to use an unsubstantiated claim against somebody,  especially with as much confidence as was implied here. 

Personally, I do not think Pete Rose should be reinstated, or Palmero either. However it is entirely valid for Rose to say, “well you’re not punishing these acknowledged cheaters, so you should let me back in.”

I mention it to illustrate Manfred’s disgusting non-logic, and not as an effort to get rose reinstated

I'm ok with this. But if someone accuses Pete of poor behavior without much evidence, I'm likely to believe it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/18/2020 at 12:52 PM, Can_of_corn said:

I think it hurts his chances but by how much is anyone's guess at this point.  He's so early in his career that he might not be Hall worthy in the first place.

 

On 2/18/2020 at 2:13 PM, atomic said:

He is old and isn’t at Hall of Fame level yet.  I doubt he gets in.

There are about 150 or so Hall of Fame position players.  Through Altuve's age (29) the median WAR value of those players is about 37.  Altuve's career to date has been worth 38 wins. 

There have been 74 players with 35-41 wins through age 29.  About 12 are still active, with a handful of others retired but not yet HOF eligible.  Of the remaining 60 or so about 28 are in the Hall. 

So I'd say just on merit he has a better than even chance of eventually going in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Philip said:

Oh, I don’t disagree with that at all. Reform is shown with modern behavior.

But it is terribly wrong to use an unsubstantiated claim against somebody,  especially with as much confidence as was implied here. 

Personally, I do not think Pete Rose should be reinstated, or Palmero either. However it is entirely valid for Rose to say, “well you’re not punishing these acknowledged cheaters, so you should let me back in.”

I mention it to illustrate Manfred’s disgusting non-logic, and not as an effort to get rose reinstated

Rose didn't cheat, he bet on baseball games that he was involved in.  Cheating is being dishonest to gain an advantage.  Rose was breaking the rules for his own personal gain.  Making decisions based on bets usually is detrimental to the team, either in the short or long term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/19/2020 at 10:22 PM, Mr. Chewbacca Jr. said:

Pre-scandal, he was a major part of the core of a baseball dynasty that won a Championship, went to Game 7 in another, and has the talent to go back again. He had an MVP, multiple All-Star appearances, and was over halfway to 3,000 hits. He's only 29.

It's still early, but if he keeps up his level of production for five+ seasons - he'd be in consideration. I think this scandal hurts him, but if he stays out of controversy from here on out, I think most people will be pretty forgiving in ten to fifteen years when he is eligible.

Not to mention the nearly infinite period of time he'll be eligible for some form of Vet's Committee to select him.  Deacon White died in 1939 and was inducted into the Hall in 2013.  That would be like inducting Altuve in the year 2156.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Rose didn't cheat, he bet on baseball games that he was involved in.  Cheating is being dishonest to gain an advantage.  Rose was breaking the rules for his own personal gain.  Making decisions based on bets usually is detrimental to the team, either in the short or long term.

Is there any data on this?  How usual is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Rose didn't cheat, he bet on baseball games that he was involved in.  Cheating is being dishonest to gain an advantage.  Rose was breaking the rules for his own personal gain.  Making decisions based on bets usually is detrimental to the team, either in the short or long term.

 I agree that cheating is different than gambling, but the point remains valid. Besides, Rose was betting on his team, and not against his team. He was doing everything he can to win and betting on victory. The point remains valid not because the two situations are comparable, but because cheating is so much worse. The guys who cheated, who everybody knows who cheated, because all you Gotta do is go listen for a trashcan during an at bat, And they suffered no punishment at all. Nothing, and Manfred is threatening anybody who throws at them during the season, so not only are they not getting any punishment, they are getting extra protection. How awful is that? Damned awful, if you ask me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Philip said:

 I agree that cheating is different than gambling, but the point remains valid. Besides, Rose was betting on his team, and not against his team. He was doing everything he can to win and betting on victory. The point remains valid not because the two situations are comparable, but because cheating is so much worse. The guys who cheated, who everybody knows who cheated, because all you Gotta do is go listen for a trashcan during an at bat, And they suffered no punishment at all. Nothing, and Manfred is threatening anybody who throws at them during the season, so not only are they not getting any punishment, they are getting extra protection. How awful is that? Damned awful, if you ask me.

When Jeter lied to the ump about getting hit by a pitch he was cheating.

Should he have been excluded from the Hall of Fame?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

When Jeter lied to the ump about getting hit by a pitch he was cheating.

Should he have been excluded from the Hall of Fame?

Yes, but I never liked him. So, what do I care?

Seriously? No and no. That is, this is getting blown up into all levels of exaggeration. Altuve should be in. 

They’re gonna keep a guy out of the Hall who never knew it was a clear violation of league rules?

I have another question: How long does Manfred get a pass on his handling of the situation? And I mean prior to any “cheating” by the Astros.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Il BuonO said:

Yes, but I never liked him. So, what do I care?

Seriously? No and no. That is, this is getting blown up into all levels of exaggeration. Altuve should be in. 

They’re gonna keep a guy out of the Hall who never knew it was a clear violation of league rules?

I have another question: How long does Manfred get a pass on his handling of the situation? And I mean prior to any “cheating” by the Astros.

Until the owners think he's more of a liability than an asset.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Philip said:

The point remains valid not because the two situations are comparable, but because cheating is so much worse.

Stealing signs with a video camera is worse than betting on your team's games?  I'm going to disagree there.  A lot. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Il BuonO said:

Yes, but I never liked him. So, what do I care?

Seriously? No and no. That is, this is getting blown up into all levels of exaggeration. Altuve should be in. 

They’re gonna keep a guy out of the Hall who never knew it was a clear violation of league rules?

I have another question: How long does Manfred get a pass on his handling of the situation? And I mean prior to any “cheating” by the Astros.

I have to assume that Manfred wasn't in a sealed chamber coming up with the Astros and Red Sox punishments all by himself.  The other owners almost certainly nodded their heads in approval.  In the Selig days nothing happened without 28 owners giving a thumbs up and the other two agreeing to keep their mouths shut.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Number5 said:

Is there any data on this?  How usual is it?

Pretty hard to find data because we only know of a few instances.  But we can certainly see negative impacts of the 1919 White Sox and the 1877 Louisville team.  And it's logically sound to assume betting on your team to win as a manager would cause you to pick short-term strategies that risk negative impacts over the rest of the season.  Such as using your closer on short rest, or pinch hitting someone who needs a couple days to rest an injury. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

Orioles Information


Orioles News and Information

Daily Organizational Boxscores
News

Tony's Takes

Orioles Roster Resource

Orioles Prospect Information

2020 Top 30 Prospects List

Prospect Scouting Reports

Statistics

2020 Orioles Stats

2019 Orioles Minor League Stats

Baseball Savant Stats






  • Posts

    • Holt and Akin were tonight's guests. Roch before the interview segments on crowded OF I did notice the tone of certainty in his banter about Santander going at trade deadline. Holt describing Valdez said it is as simple as he "does what he's good at a bunch", which reminded me of Earl's book and his observation almost nobody is good at everything.   I think I heard him ruling out 6-man rotation when he got that question, saying the extra rest too disruptive to pitcher's rhythms.  I am guessing we will more skip starts, or shorten seasons to manage that. Akin gave a "trust the process" quote about marching orders from Holt at AAA to use sliders and change-ups when normally he wouldn't, even if walks ensued.   He said he and DL Hall talk all the time.   Asked about the 60 to 162 part of this year's challenge, he shared a bit from a conversation with Kremer, where Kremer said he simulated 50-60 innings between Spring Training 1 and Spring Training 2, and that he also was generally working like that last April/May/June too.
    • You left out Sceroler and Wells. And Mattson too for that matter.
    • I don't know Frobby.  I am guessing the performance of the NRIs is irrelevant.   I think they have a plan for Lowther, Wells, and Baumann.  I dont know exacrly what it is, and wouldn't be surprised if it was more conservative than a lot of us want. But I don't think it will be changed by what the NRIs do in the spring.  If The Plan is for any of the 3 guys to be here at the start or early in the season, they will be here.  If, more likely, The Plan is to slow play them, then I think they will be slow played.  And if all the MRI possibilities look awful, we'll either pick up someone on waivers or just go with the slightly less awful of the NRIs and suffer.  I don't think the development of Zac Lowther will be affected in any way by whether Felix Hernandez has totally lost it or if he still has something left   
    • o   CYNTHIA LENNON   o
    • This guy is claiming they are at #25 & #65 ...In a later tweet he specifically mentions not getting credit for the tweet when its announced. I dont know him or anything about him so take it for what its worth! I'd be happy with this but really happy if somebody else steps up and they have to up it to #25 and #45        
    • They don't need rosters spots.  They might earn roster spots.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...