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

[weams]

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. 

[weams]

 

[HowAboutThat]

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

[weams]

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. 

[DrungoHazewood]

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.

[DrungoHazewood]

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.

[DrungoHazewood]

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.

[Number5]

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?

[HowAboutThat]

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.

[Can_of_corn]

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?

[Il BuonO]

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.

[Can_of_corn]

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.

[DrungoHazewood]

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. 

[DrungoHazewood]

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.

[DrungoHazewood]

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.