Potential Hall of Famers in the Mitchell Report (1 Viewer)

[NY/NJMFDIVER]

This list subject to edit, I understand that the list making the rounds is not final, but of the list, and these are just sort of the broadest possible HOFers on it(as in, they aren't all sure fire guys, but some who would be, some on the fringe):

Jeff Bagwell

Barry Bonds

Albert Belle

Jose Canseco

Roger Clemens

Troy Glaus

Nomar Garciaparra

Juan Gonzalez

Mark McGwire(prior implication)

Andy Pettitte

Rafael Palmiero(prior implication)

Albert Pujols

Pudge Rodriguez

Sammy Sosa(prior implication)

Gary Sheffield

Miguel Tejada

Matt Williams

Who makes the cut? Who's borderline candicacy gets hurt with this list?

What "immortals" will be on the outside looking in?

I just can't see the Hall keeping Clemens out, but I would love for Bonds to stay out, but you can't separate the two of them. And this list is by no means comprehensive I'm sure, I don't doubt lots of other guys may have done it, but we are not dealing with that, lots of other guys didn't get caught.

EDIT: 5:42PM

Original list kept for context, but the strike through indicates the inital leak was incorrect. Strike through players were not implicated, certain players had previous allegations or strong ties. Unchanged names appeared in the report.

 

[shadyridr]

do we need 3 threads on the same thing?

 

[PatsWillWin]

What was the standard of evidence required to make it on this list? Anyone know?

 

[Anarchy99]

Belle was never going to sniff the Hall even before getting on the list. (Which I don't agree with, but his support is abyssmal.)

 

[BoulderBob]

What was the standard of evidence required to make it on this list? Anyone know?

Receipts? Mitchell is as respected as they come...I'm thinking anyone on the list deserved to be caught...one would think there are many ways to keep steroid use as "hush-hush" as possible...

 

[Tremendous Upside]

This keeps Bagwell out, IMO...

Otherwise I think he was going to get in barely...

 

[PatsWillWin]

What was the standard of evidence required to make it on this list? Anyone know?

Receipts? Mitchell is as respected as they come...I'm thinking anyone on the list deserved to be caught...one would think there are many ways to keep steroid use as "hush-hush" as possible...

Not saying he is lying - I'm just wondering what the criteria was to be named on the list.

 

[NY/NJMFDIVER]

This keeps Bagwell out, IMO...Otherwise I think he was going to get in barely...

I would say Sheffield is in the same vote. Not the greatest guy to the media, borderline stats given the era he's in, but he had been picking up HOF heat in recent years, he's out too in my mind. Bags, I would have loved to seen him make it, but this would be a factor in what was a compartively fringe candidacy.

 

[shadyridr]

I actually think this improves some players chances like McGwire

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Roger Clemens is one of the top 5 pitchers in the history of the game. He deserves a small room in the HOF, not just admission. And I hate the ****er.

 

[NY/NJMFDIVER]

Roger Clemens is one of the top 5 pitchers in the history of the game. He deserves a small room in the HOF, not just admission. And I hate the ****er.

Bonds deserves to be in too, theoretically, for his 4 MVPs in what would appear to be a pre-roids era for him(based on Body) but I feel like these writers are the last custodian of baseball history and thats JUST the cause that those self important tossers will get behind, so we are talking less about deserving and more about what might go down.But if anything, it might help Donnie Baseball's chances, those stats look a little better clean...

 

[Urn]

Bonds and Clemens still should be in...

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Roger Clemens is one of the top 5 pitchers in the history of the game. He deserves a small room in the HOF, not just admission. And I hate the ****er.

Bonds deserves to be in too, theoretically, for his 4 MVPs in what would appear to be a pre-roids era for him(based on Body) but I feel like these writers are the last custodian of baseball history and thats JUST the cause that those self important tossers will get behind, so we are talking less about deserving and more about what might go down.But if anything, it might help Donnie Baseball's chances, those stats look a little better clean...

Bonds is a HOFer and the best player of my generation. Of course he is a HOFer. As for the talk that will now start about the "clean" guys looking better, do we really want to reward guys simply for "doing it right?" I don't know.

 

[Jason Wood]

Chris "Mad Dog" Russo just started the Mike & The Mad Dog show by saying that Roger Clemens has just kissed the Hall of Fame goodbye. I'm just not sure I see that. What will be fascinating is whether Clemens gets in while Bonds doesn't. Clemens, like Bonds, was on a HOF path in his early years but then became an all-time great very late in his career, seemingly defying the odds.

What thinks you?

 

[Anarchy99]

Someone asked what the criteria was to get on the list. I heard a discussion about this on tv, and apparently there needed to be people verbally alleging something and also some sort of paper trail, such as phone call records, cell phone records, emails, Fedex signatures for receipt of deliveries, cancelled checks, etc.

Don't ask me how they were granted access to those records, but there did seem to be a multi-tiered evidence standard to get on the list. And who knows what the report actually SAYS. Legally, I suspect that they will try to dilute their accusations by saying something to the effect of: "These players were found to have some basis to believe that they may have received substances that have been banned by MLB."

I have a hard time thinking that by defauly players on the list will be suspended, as who knows what the proof is. Similarly, if these players did not fail a drug test and otherwise conformed to the rules in the CBA, how can the commish do an end around and still suspend them. The Player's Union is going to go ballistic.

 

[BoulderBob]

We all saw that Roger Clemens was fading into bolivian before he went to Toronto and started roiding up...up to that point, was he a HOF'er? If so, then he is in, if not, leave his ### on the street with Pete Rose...

http://www.baseball-reference.com/c/clemero02.shtml

Of course, I'd like to see a detailed study on the effects of steroid on baseball performance, this would clear up a bunch of issues I have...

 

[Tremendous Upside]

Chris "Mad Dog" Russo just started the Mike & The Mad Dog show by saying that Roger Clemens has just kissed the Hall of Fame goodbye. I'm just not sure I see that. What will be fascinating is whether Clemens gets in while Bonds doesn't. Clemens, like Bonds, was on a HOF path in his early years but then became an all-time great very late in his career, seemingly defying the odds. What thinks you?

Russo hates the Yanks so take that with a grain of salt, but I do think Clemens' candidacy takes a major hit here...I think it might depend on what "evidence" they have on him and what his response is...

 

[Jason Wood]

We all saw that Roger Clemens was fading into bolivian before he went to Toronto and started roiding up...up to that point, was he a HOF'er? If so, then he is in, if not, leave his ### on the street with Pete Rose...

http://www.baseball-reference.com/c/clemero02.shtml

Of course, I'd like to see a detailed study on the effects of steroid on baseball performance, this would clear up a bunch of issues I have...

Clemens had three Cy Youngs by the time he was 28 years old...of course he was a Hall of Famer before juicing.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Roger Clemens is one of the top 5 pitchers in the history of the game. He deserves a small room in the HOF, not just admission. And I hate the ****er.

Bonds deserves to be in too, theoretically, for his 4 MVPs in what would appear to be a pre-roids era for him(based on Body) but I feel like these writers are the last custodian of baseball history and thats JUST the cause that those self important tossers will get behind, so we are talking less about deserving and more about what might go down.But if anything, it might help Donnie Baseball's chances, those stats look a little better clean...

 

[NY/NJMFDIVER]

We all saw that Roger Clemens was fading into bolivian before he went to Toronto and started roiding up...up to that point, was he a HOF'er? If so, then he is in, if not, leave his ### on the street with Pete Rose...

http://www.baseball-reference.com/c/clemero02.shtml

Of course, I'd like to see a detailed study on the effects of steroid on baseball performance, this would clear up a bunch of issues I have...

I don't know if you can ever full delinate, but we had:-6(at least) 62 plus homer seasons in the last 10 years after never having had one previously

-unprecedented Home run numbers across the board, basically all records broken

-players EXCELING well into their 40's(Clemens and Bonds being poster boys) when basically you had small samples of decent seasons at that age. You could argue that at points in their 40's, Bonds and Clemens were the best player and pitcher in baseball.

 

[NY/NJMFDIVER]

Roger Clemens is one of the top 5 pitchers in the history of the game. He deserves a small room in the HOF, not just admission. And I hate the ****er.

Bonds deserves to be in too, theoretically, for his 4 MVPs in what would appear to be a pre-roids era for him(based on Body) but I feel like these writers are the last custodian of baseball history and thats JUST the cause that those self important tossers will get behind, so we are talking less about deserving and more about what might go down.But if anything, it might help Donnie Baseball's chances, those stats look a little better clean...

Come on, had to make 23 think about this for a minute..

 

[Koya]

Roger Clemens is one of the top 5 pitchers in the history of the game. He deserves a small room in the HOF, not just admission. And I hate the ****er.

However, Clemens may very well have been the MOST POSITIVELY AFFECTED by taking roids. Even Bonds.Clemens was well on the decline. From '93-'95 he was so obviously on the decline. Then he suddenly gets an extra decade of dominance out of his body? Without roids, he might make it barely above 250 wins. We can not know, but I think Roger got perhaps the biggest boost of any of the "no brainer" HoF candidates. Perhaps he and Bonds are on par, but I think Bonds was a better pre roid player than Clemens although that can certainly be debated.

 

[Jason Wood]

Bonds and Clemens are no inextricably linked...the best hitter of his era and the best pitcher of his era as the only two active HOF caliber players to be named in the Mitchell Report. It's an interesting synergy.

 

[Koya]

Chris "Mad Dog" Russo just started the Mike & The Mad Dog show by saying that Roger Clemens has just kissed the Hall of Fame goodbye. I'm just not sure I see that. What will be fascinating is whether Clemens gets in while Bonds doesn't. Clemens, like Bonds, was on a HOF path in his early years but then became an all-time great very late in his career, seemingly defying the odds. What thinks you?

Russo hates the Yanks so take that with a grain of salt, but I do think Clemens' candidacy takes a major hit here...I think it might depend on what "evidence" they have on him and what his response is...

If Bonds is in, Clemens has to be. But as I already mentioned, for the HoF careers, none was probably helped as much as Clemens. He would have been remembered as a dominating pitcher until he was 33, then meh, then he probably would have disappeared by 38 for all intents and purposes. Instead, he had another whole career, likely due to steroids.Unlike Bonds, he would not have had great years in his 30's and beyond, while Bonds probably would have (just not hitting 70 HRs in those years). Clemens would not be a top 20 overall pitcher without roids but with them, he is top 5.

 

[Koya]

The question of "when did they start" is an interesting one. Rogers innings pitched from 1993-5 (age 30-32)

191

170

140

Then he goes well over 200 for the next three. I could take a good guess on when the roids started... and fwiw, he MORE THAN DOUBLED his Cy Young total after that obvious (and expected) decline.

 

[Tremendous Upside]

The question of "when did they start" is an interesting one. Rogers innings pitched from 1993-5 (age 30-32)191170140Then he goes well over 200 for the next three. I could take a good guess on when the roids started... and fwiw, he MORE THAN DOUBLED his Cy Young total after that obvious (and expected) decline.

According to this it was 1998, nut who knows for sure...

 

[curta269]

This list subject to edit, I understand that the list making the rounds is not final, but of the list, and these are just sort of the broadest possible HOFers on it(as in, they aren't all sure fire guys, but some who would be, some on the fringe):

Jeff BagwellBarry BondsAlbert BelleJose CansecoRoger ClemensTroy GlausNomar GarciaparraJuan GonzalezMark McGwireAndy PettitteRafael PalmieroAlbert PujolsPudge RodriguezSammy SosaGary SheffieldMiguel TejadaMatt Williams

Who makes the cut? Who's borderline candicacy gets hurt with this list? What "immortals" will be on the outside looking in?I just can't see the Hall keeping Clemens out, but I would love for Bonds to stay out, but you can't separate the two of them. And this list is by no means comprehensive I'm sure, I don't doubt lots of other guys may have done it, but we are not dealing with that, lots of other guys didn't get caught.

Where was Pujols named in the Report? I haven't heard his name mentioned on Espn or the St. Louis Post Dispatch website.

 

[dparker713]

That was from an earlier leaked list, which has several players not mentioned in the report, including Pujols and Bagwell.

 

[redman]

Bonds and Clemens are no inextricably linked...the best hitter of his era and the best pitcher of his era as the only two active HOF caliber players to be named in the Mitchell Report. It's an interesting synergy.

 

[Koya]

The question of "when did they start" is an interesting one. Rogers innings pitched from 1993-5 (age 30-32)191170140Then he goes well over 200 for the next three. I could take a good guess on when the roids started... and fwiw, he MORE THAN DOUBLED his Cy Young total after that obvious (and expected) decline.

According to this it was 1998, nut who knows for sure...

There are a number of players on the list who's "listed" start date is pretty much certainly considerbly after their actual starting date of roid's use. I would expect this to be the case here by that evidence. Man, it would be awesome for a REAL investigation to occur just so we could get closure on this - but that will never come (and objectively speaking would be an utter waste of resources)

 

[NY/NJMFDIVER]

Very impressive report by Mitchell, at least in the attempt of the throughness. There seems to be rational means of denying this by Clemens, and I think given his prolonged us and marked improvement, I would keep him out of the Hall of Fame.

I honestly don't see how this is all that different from Rose. You can't tell me he's the only uniformed individual to be involved with betting on baseball since 1919, and his conduct struck at the very intergrity of the game. These players did the same thing, as an illegal(but not banned) substance directly led to a competitive advantage. It influenced championships(that my team won!), players set records, and won awards on this stuff. We have very strong evidence implicating these guys.

Many will say, what about corked bats, what about ball doctors, and this is a fair point. I guess we all have to settle that amongst ourselves and as a collective. My answer is, that sort of behavior is gamemanship that is directly punishable on the field and in game. Get caught with a bat, get caught with sandpaper, you get ejected. Its a darker con to use juice that has no ingame monitoring or sanction. There will always be people looking to cheat/get the edge depending on your persepctive, and we'll deal with them as they come and this list I don't think is comprehensive, but I think we can only work with the information availble and I don't think the two big names on this list, who REALLY made their name on the juice, going from all stars to immortals, irrespective of their achievement prior to detection, should be rewarded with the Hall.

 

[Pat Patriot]

According to the LIST that I read on ESPN, no mention of McGwire or Sosa. How can that be?

 

[Pat Patriot]

It looks to me like most of these got caught (and the evidence seems to be irrefutable) because they paid their drug dealer by check. Real smart.

 

[NY/NJMFDIVER]

One thought I've had on this discussion, a frequent argument of writers I see goes along the lines of "how can I keep one guy out for roids and what if another guy gets in who did it?"

They are relatively safe, but I don't know why they don't get more proactive with a system to counter this. Because it is a valid concern. Were I them, I would initate pre-screening of all candidates, some sort of mini-investigation or exploration of their background. Its really no different then you would do for a job interview.

Short of that, I would begin to institute a structure that could remove a player if it comes out in 20 years that his entire career were built on roids. At least with steps like that IN PLACE before any of these guys go in, its not specific targeting but a redress to the greater problem and era at hand.

Delinations and some sort of evaluation will be necessary, because despite the lumping status, I do feel there is a difference between a guy who did a cycle versus guys who built major parts of their career or legacy on the juice like a Clemens or a Bonds.

 

[dparker713]

One thought I've had on this discussion, a frequent argument of writers I see goes along the lines of "how can I keep one guy out for roids and what if another guy gets in who did it?"They are relatively safe, but I don't know why they don't get more proactive with a system to counter this. Because it is a valid concern. Were I them, I would initate pre-screening of all candidates, some sort of mini-investigation or exploration of their background. Its really no different then you would do for a job interview.Short of that, I would begin to institute a structure that could remove a player if it comes out in 20 years that his entire career were built on roids. At least with steps like that IN PLACE before any of these guys go in, its not specific targeting but a redress to the greater problem and era at hand. Delinations and some sort of evaluation will be necessary, because despite the lumping status, I do feel there is a difference between a guy who did a cycle versus guys who built major parts of their career or legacy on the juice like a Clemens or a Bonds.

Would they also be able to remove the Spitballers? Amphetamine users? Drug dealers? Murders?The HOF isnt exactly filled with choir boys, and I dont think baseball writers should suddenly be shocked that the type A of type A personalities looked for any edge they could find.As for investigations, Im pretty sure that the HOF doesnt have the revenue streams to do that for all of the players that appear on the ballot each year. Besides, the morals clause has always been applied spottily at best.

 

[NY/NJMFDIVER]

One thought I've had on this discussion, a frequent argument of writers I see goes along the lines of "how can I keep one guy out for roids and what if another guy gets in who did it?"They are relatively safe, but I don't know why they don't get more proactive with a system to counter this. Because it is a valid concern. Were I them, I would initate pre-screening of all candidates, some sort of mini-investigation or exploration of their background. Its really no different then you would do for a job interview.Short of that, I would begin to institute a structure that could remove a player if it comes out in 20 years that his entire career were built on roids. At least with steps like that IN PLACE before any of these guys go in, its not specific targeting but a redress to the greater problem and era at hand. Delinations and some sort of evaluation will be necessary, because despite the lumping status, I do feel there is a difference between a guy who did a cycle versus guys who built major parts of their career or legacy on the juice like a Clemens or a Bonds.

Would they also be able to remove the Spitballers? Amphetamine users? Drug dealers? Murders?The HOF isnt exactly filled with choir boys, and I dont think baseball writers should suddenly be shocked that the type A of type A personalities looked for any edge they could find.As for investigations, Im pretty sure that the HOF doesnt have the revenue streams to do that for all of the players that appear on the ballot each year. Besides, the morals clause has always been applied spottily at best.

I'm not suggesting a full scale Mitchell Report style exploration of all of them, but something in the lines of due dilligance. As for the others:-spitballing(and bat corkers and sign stealing) are all infractions that happen inside of the game, and are punishable by in game sanction(and spitballing wasn't illegal until the 20's I believe)-Amphetamine usage was relic from a time it was legal in society into baseball culture and the usage was apparently so widespread(ranging to managers and coaches) there isn't sufficent evidence to suggest it led to a competitive advantage-the murders, racists, skirt chasers, drug dealers, drunks, trannys, come one come all, so long as you do it before induction. You correctly state, its not the boys choirSteroids are a clear line for me though. There is no way to punish inside of the game, and the modern hall is basically a stat collection anyway. There is a double edge sword. Not only did guys like Clemens and Bonds pad their stats, they also HURT the stats of guys they were competiting against. Their selfish choice of disrupting the competition does not NECESSARILY warrant the reward and recogntion of the hall of fame you know. Its not their right.

 

[dparker713]

One thought I've had on this discussion, a frequent argument of writers I see goes along the lines of "how can I keep one guy out for roids and what if another guy gets in who did it?"They are relatively safe, but I don't know why they don't get more proactive with a system to counter this. Because it is a valid concern. Were I them, I would initate pre-screening of all candidates, some sort of mini-investigation or exploration of their background. Its really no different then you would do for a job interview.Short of that, I would begin to institute a structure that could remove a player if it comes out in 20 years that his entire career were built on roids. At least with steps like that IN PLACE before any of these guys go in, its not specific targeting but a redress to the greater problem and era at hand. Delinations and some sort of evaluation will be necessary, because despite the lumping status, I do feel there is a difference between a guy who did a cycle versus guys who built major parts of their career or legacy on the juice like a Clemens or a Bonds.

Would they also be able to remove the Spitballers? Amphetamine users? Drug dealers? Murders?The HOF isnt exactly filled with choir boys, and I dont think baseball writers should suddenly be shocked that the type A of type A personalities looked for any edge they could find.As for investigations, Im pretty sure that the HOF doesnt have the revenue streams to do that for all of the players that appear on the ballot each year. Besides, the morals clause has always been applied spottily at best.

I'm not suggesting a full scale Mitchell Report style exploration of all of them, but something in the lines of due dilligance. As for the others:-spitballing(and bat corkers and sign stealing) are all infractions that happen inside of the game, and are punishable by in game sanction(and spitballing wasn't illegal until the 20's I believe)-Amphetamine usage was relic from a time it was legal in society into baseball culture and the usage was apparently so widespread(ranging to managers and coaches) there isn't sufficent evidence to suggest it led to a competitive advantage-the murders, racists, skirt chasers, drug dealers, drunks, trannys, come one come all, so long as you do it before induction. You correctly state, its not the boys choirSteroids are a clear line for me though. There is no way to punish inside of the game, and the modern hall is basically a stat collection anyway. There is a double edge sword. Not only did guys like Clemens and Bonds pad their stats, they also HURT the stats of guys they were competiting against. Their selfish choice of disrupting the competition does not NECESSARILY warrant the reward and recogntion of the hall of fame you know. Its not their right.

For spitballers I was more referring to Gaylord Perry, Whitey Ford and the like. Players that admitted to cheating after retiring, and in Perry's case, before election to the hall. They just never got caught/suspended during their careers.I really dont understand the amphetamine usage arguement. Reports are that anywhere from 20-80% of MLB players have used steroids at some point, a what point does the use become so widespread so as to not create a competitive advantage? There are also no doctors that feel amphetamines can be used long term by adults without adverse side effects, same is not true of steroids. There also was not a system in place to punish amphetamine use until after steroid testing was strengthened. At this point, there is a way to punish both steroid users and amphetamine users for the first time in baseball history. I really dont see the distiniction between the two, as Ive seen a study that amphetamines could potentially help positional players significantly more than steroids. Starting pitchers, on the other hand were surely helped more by steroids.