redsoxsuck05

Aesthetically terrible but gets the job done?

Not sure what you expected when he’s playing his first game back from knee surgery.

lol Knicks had the worst record and got Barrett

Still better than Omar

I don't really see the logic in your argument. Are you arguing that every roided player who hit a lot of homeruns in the late 90s should be treated the same? Here's the difference. Bonds >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sheffield, Manny >>>>>>>>>>> Sosa Btw I played MVP and Rolen had a better OVR than Sosa and Sheffield.

I want to focus on Helton because he's an interesting case: 1) His prime didn't really overlap with Mac, Bagwell, Palmeiro, Votto, Miggy, Hurt or McGriff. 2) 1st basemen were just incredible during the steroid era...I don't think it's fair to punish Helton for that. Catchers were incredible during the 70s, Shortstops in the late 90s, etc. 3) I'll convincingly take Helton over any of the guys you said are comparable or arguably better. 4) He led the NL in WAR once 5) He was a lifer, which is cool and makes a great narrative for an expansion team. 6) He has a really consistent peak that you can't write off as outliers. I hate when some guy puts up a fluke 9 win year and people act like that's who he was. On the other hand: 1) He became a really boring player after his 5 year peak. I wish he could've sprinkled in just one dominant season in his 30s. 2) Other than 2000 he was never among the best in the league. 3) He doesn't have any signature moments other than being an elder statesman with a cool beard on a team that got swept in the WS. 4) A lot of his value is tied to rudimentary defensive stats. All in all I like Helton a lot and don't give a **** about Coors Field. It's definitely not the strongest case ever though because he was so bland outside of his peak.

I mean we all know why he's not in, so what's even the point of talking about it lol

All of those players listed were better than Vazquez. Especially Nomah.

There are so many “big-market” players from that era who didn’t even get consideration for the HOF that were better players than Vizquel. Just off the top of my head: Nomar Garciaparra Jorge Posada Bernie Williams John Olerud Moises Alou Mark Grace Matt Williams Tim Salmon

Lofton fell off because of the perceived gap between his sabermetric and traditional profile, plus he spent forever as a journeyman which hurts his narrative. The same thing hurt Tim Raines. Vizquel’s candidacy is a joke. Vlad being listed is a major stretch. Walker only had to wait because of the morons who automatically dismiss any player who ever played in Denver. The big market magic certainly didn’t work for Posada, Williams, Munson, Mattingly either. It didn’t work for Dwight Evans or Fred Lynn. It’s not working for Rolen.

Give me your list bro. You’ll probably find a few guys from the 1920s who are borderline at worst based on the evaluation methods of their era.

How is Pettitte a slam dunk candidate? He was a mid-rotation workhorse with only 2 truly elite years. He’s not all that different than Mark Buehrle. Giambi and Sosa had short HOF-level peaks that were probably 50% roids.

Or people don’t have NY bias (which isn’t proven to be a thing in HOF voting) and he just had more counting stats.

To internet contrarians, saying that Jeter should have been unanimous is tantamount to claiming he’s an inner circle HOFer. It turns out that some people are more similar to boomer baseball writers than they like to admit.

Jeetz melting down the comment sections all over the Internet. ‘Twas already used to the contrarian babbling about how a guy with 3,465 hits somehow wouldn’t make the HOF if he played in Texas (because apparently the Hall is littered with undeserved Yankees like um...Earle Combs? Tony Lazerri?). It’s the biracial stuff that angers me, though. I don’t get how that’s socially acceptable to go after.