AggieEP said:

---

Didn't Vizquel have some weird pervy rumors come out against him?

---

I think it was domestic violence. I may be wrong.

Fuzzy Dunlop said:

---

AggieEP said:

---

Didn't Vizquel have some weird pervy rumors come out against him?

---

I think it was domestic violence. I may be wrong.

---

I had to look it up.....looks like it might have been some lockerroom stuff that crosssed the line

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/31982342/omar-vizquel-sued-former-birmingham-barons-bat-boy-alleged-sexual-harassment

AggieEP said:

---

Didn't Vizquel have some weird pervy rumors come out against him?

---

Several sexual assault complaints including a clubhouse employee with down syndrome. That is why his voting percentage fell from over 50% to the teens.

On what planet is Vizquel more deserving then Utley? It would be like putting someone like Dubon in the HOF because he played 24 years.

Farmer1906 said:

---

On what planet is Vizquel more deserving then Utley? It would be like putting someone like Dubon in the HOF because he played 24 years.

---

Chase Utley has this guy's vote.

Farmer1906 said:

---

On what planet is Vizquel more deserving then Utley? It would be like putting someone like Dubon in the HOF because he played 24 years.

---

Vizquel is only getting elected for his defense. He played more games at SS that anyone in MLB history and had the highest fielding percentage.

His BA, which no one pays attention to anymore, is basically the same as Utley. Utley has a lot more HRs and a much higher WAR (which is subjective) than Vizquel in a much shorter span of time.

Fuzzy Dunlop said:

---

Farmer1906 said:

---

On what planet is Vizquel more deserving then Utley? It would be like putting someone like Dubon in the HOF because he played 24 years.

---

Vizquel is only getting elected for his defense. He played more games at SS that anyone in MLB history and had the highest fielding percentage.

His BA, which no one pays attention to anymore, is basically the same as Utley. Utley has a lot more HRs and a much higher WAR (which is subjective) than Vizquel in a much shorter span of time.

---

How is WAR subjective?

edit: I think WAR is flawed in many ways, but it's not a bad stat to judge a career or season as long as you understand what it's saying.

Fuzzy Dunlop said:

---

Farmer1906 said:

---

On what planet is Vizquel more deserving then Utley? It would be like putting someone like Dubon in the HOF because he played 24 years.

---

Vizquel is only getting elected for his defense. He played more games at SS that anyone in MLB history and had the highest fielding percentage.

His BA, which no one pays attention to anymore, is basically the same as Utley. Utley has a lot more HRs and a much higher WAR (which is subjective) than Vizquel in a much shorter span of time.

---

This was my logic

The guy is on the short list for best defenders of all time, at the most important defensive position on the field. His offensive numbers are on par with or better than some of the other "all glove" HOFers.

The only reason he and Utley were mentioned together is because they were on the same row on the graphic (which was done alphabetically)

Farmer1906 said:

---

Fuzzy Dunlop said:

---

Farmer1906 said:

---

On what planet is Vizquel more deserving then Utley? It would be like putting someone like Dubon in the HOF because he played 24 years.

---

Vizquel is only getting elected for his defense. He played more games at SS that anyone in MLB history and had the highest fielding percentage.

His BA, which no one pays attention to anymore, is basically the same as Utley. Utley has a lot more HRs and a much higher WAR (which is subjective) than Vizquel in a much shorter span of time.

---

War is subjective, to me, at least, because 5 different publications can derive 10 different WAR numbers. That is hyperbole, but how can WAR be definitive? I will agree that it is a good place to start, but it should not be the end all, be all of a decision, especially in the Vizquel vs Utley debate.
How is WAR subjective?

edit: I think WAR is flawed in many ways, but it's not a bad stat to judge a career or season as long as you understand what it's saying.

---

Fuzzy Dunlop said:

---

Farmer1906 said:

---

Fuzzy Dunlop said:

---

Farmer1906 said:

---

On what planet is Vizquel more deserving then Utley? It would be like putting someone like Dubon in the HOF because he played 24 years.

---

Vizquel is only getting elected for his defense. He played more games at SS that anyone in MLB history and had the highest fielding percentage.

His BA, which no one pays attention to anymore, is basically the same as Utley. Utley has a lot more HRs and a much higher WAR (which is subjective) than Vizquel in a much shorter span of time.

---

How is WAR subjective?

edit: I think WAR is flawed in many ways, but it's not a bad stat to judge a career or season as long as you understand what it's saying.


---



War is subjective, to me, at least, because 5 different publications can derive 10 different WAR numbers. That is hyperbole, but how can WAR be definitive? I will agree that it is a good place to start, but it should not be the end all, be all of a decision, especially in the Vizquel vs Utley debate.

---

---

I guess that is fair. fWAR wouldn't be subjective because there is no opinion. Its Fangraphs stat. But since bWAR likes to grade the pitching portion of the equation with RA9 vs fWAR's FIP, WAR as a whole is subjective.

I will say, there is no better single # stat out there.

Farmer1906 said:

---

Fuzzy Dunlop said:

---

Farmer1906 said:

---

Fuzzy Dunlop said:

---

Farmer1906 said:

---

On what planet is Vizquel more deserving then Utley? It would be like putting someone like Dubon in the HOF because he played 24 years.

---

Vizquel is only getting elected for his defense. He played more games at SS that anyone in MLB history and had the highest fielding percentage.

His BA, which no one pays attention to anymore, is basically the same as Utley. Utley has a lot more HRs and a much higher WAR (which is subjective) than Vizquel in a much shorter span of time.

---

How is WAR subjective?

edit: I think WAR is flawed in many ways, but it's not a bad stat to judge a career or season as long as you understand what it's saying.


---



War is subjective, to me, at least, because 5 different publications can derive 10 different WAR numbers. That is hyperbole, but how can WAR be definitive? I will agree that it is a good place to start, but it should not be the end all, be all of a decision, especially in the Vizquel vs Utley debate.

---

---

I guess that is fair. fWAR wouldn't be subjective because there is no opinion. Its Fangraphs stat. But since bWAR likes to grade the pitching portion of the equation with RA9 vs fWAR's FIP, WAR as a whole is subjective.

I will say, there is no better single # stat out there.

---

Bill James tried with Win Shares. But nobody understood it.

AggieEP said:

---

All the guys tied up in the juicing controversy just need to come clean and show me they can put their egos to the side.

The hall is full of guys that popped greenies so I don't really care so much about the fact that an athlete would take something to give them an edge, but I do care about the hall not being accessible to guys that refuse to be genuine with the fans. Bonds just has to look at a camera and admit that he's human and messed up and I'd vote for him the next day.

If the hall wants to make a separate section for these guys I'm ok with that also. But right now we basically have a hall of fame that doesn't include 3 of the top 15 players of all time (Arod, Bonds and Clemens) who were HoF locks even without taking anything.

---

this is a good discussion

and it's fair to wonder why none of these potential hall of famers have taken the mea culpa route -- none of them have

for example...someone who played from 1990 to 2005 would admit that they took 'roids from 1998 to 2002 or so... because they didn't want to fall behind the other players or lose their edge or hurt their team, etc..,

I think there might be 2 reasons for this

1. most of the players used steroids/HGH for 50% or 70% or 90% of their career. So they would be lying again to say they only took the illegal stuff for 3 or 4 years

2. the players union has strictly forbidden anyone from admitting usage. Because even non-Hall of Fame candidates will not talk about or admit usage (since Pettitte did it last)

Where I'm at on the hall is here. Getting into the hall of fame is a HUGE reward for a player following a great career. Some make the argument that the best players should be in there no matter the circumstances, but I disagree here. It's a personal reward for the player and their family so you danged well better earn that reward by being genuine with the fans that make it possible for them to make the hall.

I'm not sure if the players union is putting pressure on guys to stay quiet or not, but Bonds has had every chance to come out and discuss what happened and he's opted for silence instead.

I agree

I also don't have a problem with them getting in after they're dead.