Ortiz elected to HOF

[jarman86]

52 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

The only reason Ortiz wasn't publicly outed is that the guy that did the report (Mitchell) had connections to the Red Sox.  Funny how the only two teams without players mentioned in the report were the Red Sox and Brewers.

I think part of the problem with Edgar's candidacy is that at least for some of his years on the ballot it was before they culled the inactive writers off the list.  I would say Ortiz getting in more quickly is a mark of progress.

 

I think it was also because the tests were supposed to be anonymous and only came out when leaked to SI in 2009 after Mitchell's report. The Mitchell report and list that Ortiz were on were two different things. 

Edited January 26, 2022 by jarman86

[Sports Guy]

2 minutes ago, jarman86 said:

So....guys not testing positive is okay? Bonds was indicted and convicted of a felony charge in an investigation into a steroid used to avoid detection. Clemens' trainer and best friend both testified to his steroid use. Both guys were faces of the dang thing. Clemens is famous for his "misremember" speech, among others.

I had forgotten about one positive test for Ortiz, and my understanding from folks is that those tests weren't testing only steroids. So we don't even know if Ortiz actually took steroids. Heck Davis popped for ADD medication on those tests. So we know Bonds was taking steroids and HGH, Clemens was taking steroids and HGH. Positive test on Ortiz means he popped positive for an element. No one thinks of him as a face of steroids because he popped once and never again. 

First of all, I don’t care about steroid use.  PEDs have been in the game forever.  Aaron and Mays, to name a few, have admitted to taking greenies, a substance banned today.  
 

Tom House has said steroid were rampant throughout the game in the 60s and 70s.  To think that this is a new problem is a joke and a very “burying your head in the sand” situation.

Ortiz took a banned substance.  Whatever it was, it was illegal and tested positive for it.  That should matter if you have a stance that you don’t vote for PED guys.

Bonds and Clemens already had HOF careers before their expected PED use.

And it doesn’t matter if you are the face of it.  That’s an awful reason.  And to be honest, the face of it is MLB because everyone knew it was happening and no one cared because they were making a sh!t ton of money off of it.  
 

 

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, jarman86 said:

I think it was also because the tests were supposed to be anonymous and only came out when leaked to SI in 2009 after Mitchell's report.

I don't think that changed a single vote.  They might use that as an excuse but I don't buy it.

[jarman86]

2 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Ortiz took a banned substance.  Whatever it was, it was illegal and tested positive for it.  That should matter if you have a stance that you don’t vote for PED guys.

Bonds and Clemens already had HOF careers before their expected PED use.

And it doesn’t matter if you are the face of it.  That’s an awful reason.  And to be honest, the face of it is MLB because everyone knew it was happening and no one cared because they were making a sh!t ton of money off of it.  

I'm telling you it is the reason. The reason, of course, is that both players — and Sammy Sosa, a curious afterthought among voters — are strongly tied to performance-enhancing drugs. Writers are given these guidelines: “Voting shall be based upon the player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.” This is the so-called character clause that has complicated the reckoning of the steroid era and will continue to do so for many years, now that Alex Rodriguez is on the ballot for the first time."

Ortiz's test was also to be conducted anonymously and have no penalties. "a positive test in 2003, when baseball conducted survey testing (without penalties) that was supposed to have remained anonymous." 

You say, it's cause they weren't media darlings, but Alomar has been elected in the past 10 years, and as I recall he wasn't exactly one either. I don't believe Piazza was either. 

Why Bonds, Clemens and Ortiz May Fall Short of Hall of Fame Election - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

[Sports Guy]

12 minutes ago, jarman86 said:

I'm telling you it is the reason. The reason, of course, is that both players — and Sammy Sosa, a curious afterthought among voters — are strongly tied to performance-enhancing drugs. Writers are given these guidelines: “Voting shall be based upon the player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.” This is the so-called character clause that has complicated the reckoning of the steroid era and will continue to do so for many years, now that Alex Rodriguez is on the ballot for the first time."

Ortiz's test was also to be conducted anonymously and have no penalties. "a positive test in 2003, when baseball conducted survey testing (without penalties) that was supposed to have remained anonymous." 

You say, it's cause they weren't media darlings, but Alomar has been elected in the past 10 years, and as I recall he wasn't exactly one either. I don't believe Piazza was either. 

Why Bonds, Clemens and Ortiz May Fall Short of Hall of Fame Election - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

Guys are in that weren't media darlings but when you have other issues, they just need something to make it about them.

There has already been several people around the game and the voting that are saying Ortiz got in because of his persona since he retired.  Its an obvious reason he got in, or at least helped him.  He barely got in, so it only takes a few votes.

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Guys are in that weren't media darlings but when you have other issues, they just need something to make it about them.

There has already been several people around the game and the voting that are saying Ortiz got in because of his persona since he retired.  Its an obvious reason he got in, or at least helped him.  He barely got in, so it only takes a few votes.

Because he (allegedly) had an affair with a drug dealer's wife?  That's an odd reason to get into the hall.

[jarman86]

Papi has always been a lovable guy. I get the media darling with him, but I don't think thats an issue. I mean, Alomar got blasted and vilified for spitting on an ump, but he still made it in.  From what I remember Piazza wasn't so popular either with media, maybe I'm misremembering. I also think getting Edgar in paved the way for him, and Papi being eligible in an era of unexciting players on the ballot and the risk of going 2 years without electing anyone probably factored in too. 

Edited January 26, 2022 by jarman86

[jarman86]

Also, to add to it. Barry Bonds was convicted of a felony. He served 30 days home arrest for obstruction of justice. 

Roger Clemens was charged with several felonies, 4 or 5? Commentary after was more that he was acquitted because Pettite backtracked his testimony, his personal trainer had obvious character witness flaws, and the jury felt that 30 days in federal prison wasn't exactly a justifiable punishment for his crimes. Otherwise, he too would be a felon. 

Ortiz, we only know because his info was leaked. Maybe the Mitchell report would have found more damning info on him if guys had made statements against Ortiz or if he didn't ignore the Red Sox and Brewers as alleged.

Bottom Line: I don't know of many HOFers who are felons, or before being elected. I assume, even though not guilty, facing criminal charges did not help Clemens. If it was just cheating, I think, they would be in. They wouldn't have been first balloters as a "statement," but they would have been in. I mean Perry was known for cheating (spitball), Ford admitted cheating openly. Like you said I think Aaron said guys were injecting in the 70s. MLB and writers knew steroid use was rampant. Bagwell had steroid accusations around him, I think Piazza did too if I'm not mistaken. And quite frankly, I wouldn't be shocked if they used.  

I would think, if he qualified, you wouldn't want John Wettlend getting into the HOF or Ugueth Urbina, just a hunch.

Edited January 26, 2022 by jarman86

[Philip]

Should Palmeiro be in?

[Moose Milligan]

5 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

That reasoning for not putting those guys in is terrible.  
 

It’s simple..bonds wasn’t a nice guy when he was playing.  That’s why he’s not in.  If he was a media darling, they would have gotten past the steroid thing eventually.

You can’t say I won’t elect a guy because of PeD use and then put someone in with an actual failed test.  (bonds and Clemens never failed a test). It’s hypocrisy.  

 

I agree with your overall point that if they were nicer guys, they'd be in.  Same with Albert Belle who didn't get the 5% to stay on the ballot.  One could argue that his peak was too short, that's fine.  But he deserved at least 5%.  Worse players have gained more in their first year on the ballot.  

The failed test stuff isn't really intellectually honest, though.  Lance Armstrong never failed a test, either.

[Moose Milligan]

14 minutes ago, Philip said:

Should Palmeiro be in?

Yes.  

[Moose Milligan]

4 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

Because he (allegedly) had an affair with a drug dealer's wife?  That's an odd reason to get into the hall.

 

Where's the link?

[jarman86]

7 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

 

Where's the link?

Alleged drug kingpin in David Ortiz shooting arrested (nypost.com) "

Shortly after the shooting, news reports speculated that the hit was ordered by Peralta over a love triangle involving Dominican model Maria Yeribell Martinez Garcia.

[Sports Guy]

1 hour ago, Moose Milligan said:

 

I agree with your overall point that if they were nicer guys, they'd be in.  Same with Albert Belle who didn't get the 5% to stay on the ballot.  One could argue that his peak was too short, that's fine.  But he deserved at least 5%.  Worse players have gained more in their first year on the ballot.  

The failed test stuff isn't really intellectually honest, though.  Lance Armstrong never failed a test, either.

Iirc, his career way was higher than Puckett

[Moose Milligan]

2 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Iirc, his career way was higher than Puckett

In terms of WAR?  Puckett has him beat by 11.1 by baseball reference WAR.