quote:

---

So you believe Bonds and Clemens are viewed on in the same steroid-light as Pudge?

---

No, but based on what sample size we have, Pudge will get the same treatment. Hell, Piazza was considered the greatest offensive catcher ever, and see where that got him.

Do you view Pudge as being cleaner than Bagwell and Piazza? Google image searches do show trends. What do you think a voter will see when they do their "research" come Fall of 2016?

quote:

---

quote:

---

So you believe Bonds and Clemens are viewed on in the same steroid-light as Pudge?

---

No, but based on what sample size we have, Pudge will get the same treatment. Hell, Piazza was considered the greatest offensive catcher ever, and see where that got him.

Do you view Pudge as being cleaner than Bagwell and Piazza? Google image searches do show trends. What do you think a voter will see when they do their "research" come Fall of 2016?

---

So you think based on an extremely small sample size, that Pudge Rodriguez -- who never failed a drug test, was never suspended, was never named in the Mitchell Report, etc... will receive the same treatment as Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens?

Do you think that Mike Piazza -- whose HOF resume revolves around homerun hitting (and not his below average defense) -- will receive the same treatment as Pudge Rodriguez?

Pudge hit over 30 homeruns once in his career, at age 27 -- his prime. Despite what another poster said previously -- it's actually the opposite -- his career power #'s read like what you would expect a player's power #'s to look like... Increasing up until his prime, decreasing there after... There was no sudden drop or sudden spike in Pudge's numbers that didn't correlate with his age.

In Pudge's "power" years -- ages 27, 28 and 29 -- he averaged a little over 16 at-bats-per-homerun... During that time period that was barely Top 40 in baseball.

If Pudge's lofty status amongst greatest catchers of all time was due to his power hitting (like Piazza -- a guy who at age 37 was on a pace to hit 30+ homeruns), then I might agree with you that he'll receive similar treatment as Piazza.

But Pudge earned his ranking by being a above average -- but not super power -- hitter and an elite (hell, the greatest) defender. That's why he will be viewed differently.

But as we've all said, we'll know this time next year. I suspect if I bump the thread in about 10 months there won't be many who would bet against him being a 1st ballot HOF.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

So you believe Bonds and Clemens are viewed on in the same steroid-light as Pudge?

---

No, but based on what sample size we have, Pudge will get the same treatment. Hell, Piazza was considered the greatest offensive catcher ever, and see where that got him.

Do you view Pudge as being cleaner than Bagwell and Piazza? Google image searches do show trends. What do you think a voter will see when they do their "research" come Fall of 2016?

---

So you think based on an extremely small sample size, that Pudge Rodriguez -- who never failed a drug test, was never suspended, was never named in the Mitchell Report, etc... will receive the same treatment as Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens?

---

Holy ****. That was never said. All anyone said was that he'll probably be made to wait a few years because there is some steroid suspension. If not, oh well. Damn.

This article basically sums up how most feel on Pudge.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1151986-ivan-pudge-rodriguez-retires-ped-rumors-shouldnt-affect-hall-of-fame-status

I don;t disagree with what you have said, but there are still plenty of voters who without any substantial support say "I'm not voting for Player X because of steroids".

I agree it is a small sample size, but please point out to me anyone who had as much steroid speculation as Pudge has make it in on his first ballot.

It's not going to be the slam dunk you think it is. He will probably poll around what Trevor Hoffman did this year.

Here is an interesting (yes very small sample of 15) set of HOF votes for next year. Note that Bagwell only got 11 of 18 official ESPN votes this year.

quote:

---

I agree it is a small sample size, but please point out to me anyone who had as much steroid speculation as Pudge has make it in on his first ballot.

---

The problem is there were few (if any) position players during that time that are considered on Pudge's level.

Take Griffey -- who a previous poster already showed there was absolutely steroid rumblings about, but nothing even close to damning. Probably Top 5 at his position all-time offensively. Defensively good, but not elite.

99.3% of the vote on first ballot.

Now I will agree that Pudge has more steroid "talk" than Junior, but he's also considered a little bit better than Jr when it comes to position rankings (and absolutely better defensively).

It's not hard for me to think that Pudge can get 75% of the vote when Griffey got 99%+.

Without a steroid smoking gun, you won't see a "one of the greatest of all time" snubbed.

Grif was universally loved.It can be argued he was was the best player in the game during the late 90s regardless of position.

quote:

---

Here is an interesting (yes very small sample of 15) set of HOF votes for next year. Note that Bagwell only got 11 of 18 official ESPN votes this year.

---

Interesting link, but not sure it really tells us a whole lot... It basically says there's a very good chance Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens make it in next year.

And Vlad Guerrero is a potential 1st ballot HOF? Yeah, no.

quote:

---

Grif was universally loved.It can be argued he was was the best player in the game during the late 90s regardless of position.

---

Griffey is probably my favorite player of that generation, I understand the love.

And in no way am I saying Pudge is going to rival Griffey's vote %.

But not hard for me to think he can get within 25 percentage points of it.

Looks like Manny is getting killed for roids. He was a stud. I love watching him hit. Looking back, how did he not win the MVP in 99?

OPS 1.105
RBI 165
HR 44
wRC+ 172

So many people put up stupid #s during those years.

I'm kind of shocked he's getting 2 votes. He's a two time convict. I would not be shocked to see him get < 5% overall and be off the ballot.

SI's thoughts on the next 5 years of Hall of Fame voting

quote:

---

SI's thoughts on the next 5 years of Hall of Fame voting

---

Thanks for sharing. Great breakdown.

quote:

---

Bagwell doesn't even crack a lot of people's Top 10 first-basemen list.

---

Baseball statistician Bill James, in his New Historical Baseball Abstract, listed Bagwell as the fourth best first baseman of all time.

James' lists are interesting because guys can move up/down them over time without significant changes in the #'s. Bagwell was #9 in his 1st basemen lists after the 2003 season. One more solid (but not spectacular) season and he's jumped up to #4?

Even ignoring that though -- I have no doubts that Bagwell is in many people's Top 10 lists... He's a great player. I'm just saying the comparison to Pudge isn't a good one, as Pudge is in every person's Top 10 list.