2022 Hall of Fame Class

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,509
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Indeed McGwire eventually admitted using.
Sorta kinda. He claimed steroids "only helped him stay healthy," but that he broke records all on his own. Because he had a gift. From "the Man Upstairs," in his own words. Which is kind of ironic; the creator of the universe actually took a personal interest in Mark McGwire - enough to gift him so, while at the same time neutering that gift with a health handicap.

Well, Thank the Needle that the Needle was there to help correct the Almighty's shortcomings!

https://www.espn.com/mlb/news/story?id=4816607
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
Just Kent.


And only 2 votes for Manny in the entire edit: paper (forgot about MAzz/Herald)

WTF
I've long held that "PEDs!" is often a pretext for self-serious and, ultimately, unprofessional sports writers to not vote for people they just don't like. I'm not saying all anti PED voters are unprincipled, but some (like Shank) certainly are.
 

BigMike

Moderator
Moderator
SoSH Member
Sep 26, 2000
23,244
Funny that Shank would tie his sail to the biggest of all A-holes on the whole ballot. (And that is saying something on a ballot with bonds, Arod, and Clemens). Makes some sense, Kent is kind of the Shaughnessy of players.
 

bigq

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
11,023
Shaughnessy pulling a bad faith publicity stunt to draw attention to himself is nothing new.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,510
Funny that Shank would tie his sail to the biggest of all A-holes on the whole ballot. (And that is saying something on a ballot with bonds, Arod, and Clemens). Makes some sense, Kent is kind of the Shaughnessy of players.
If Shaugnessy had to cover Kent for even a half season, he wouldn't have voted for him.

I kind of softened a bit of Shank over these last few years, he's been a shadow of himself. He doesn't have any power but not voting for Ortiz is crazy. And I know that he's always bitching about how Manfred "let Ortiz off the hook", so it's no shock that Shaughnessy enacted his own frontier style justice. He's a fool. Like how can you look at the ballot filled with people that you covered every day and say that only Jeff Kent deserves a Hall of Fame vote? It's ridiculous and I wouldn't be surprised if Shank doesn't blame Ortiz for ending his Curse of the Bambino gravy train.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,716
It defeats the purpose of the ballots if you take away someone's vote because of who they voted for, but that's dumb as fuck.
 

Deweys New Stance

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 8, 2001
2,887
Here to Eternity
So it turns out that Shank also handed in a Kent-only ballot last year. In 2020 he only voted for Jeter; in 2019 he only voted for Rivera.

All very on-brand for him of course. But as I pointed out in the main board HoF thread, his rationale for Kent (worthy player not linked to scandal or cheating) ignores Scott Rolen, who had similar offensive #'s and significantly higher career WAR on account of superior defense in the same # of seasons. The only real argument for Kent over Rolen is the one MVP award, but given Rolen's superior glove it's really hard to claim Kent's the better candidate. There's also the fact that Kent was eligible (and just as worthy) the years that Shank only voted for Rivera and Jeter. Shank's trying to appear principled about this, but it doesn't really hold up to scrutiny.
 

coremiller

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
5,846
So it turns out that Shank also handed in a Kent-only ballot last year. In 2020 he only voted for Jeter; in 2019 he only voted for Rivera.

All very on-brand for him of course. But as I pointed out in the main board HoF thread, his rationale for Kent (worthy player not linked to scandal or cheating) ignores Scott Rolen, who had similar offensive #'s and significantly higher career WAR on account of superior defense in the same # of seasons. The only real argument for Kent over Rolen is the one MVP award, but given Rolen's superior glove it's really hard to claim Kent's the better candidate. There's also the fact that Kent was eligible (and just as worthy) the years that Shank only voted for Rivera and Jeter. Shank's trying to appear principled about this, but it doesn't really hold up to scrutiny.
I don't know why we should assume Kent was clean, either. He has one of those suspicious aging curves where he suddenly gained a lot of power after turning 30. The number of completely clean players who were better in their mid-30s than their mid-20s is small.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,647
Ortiz had a maybe but not 100% sure positive test in 2003. After that he had a HOF career. And had a HOF character and by any measure has been a HOF contributor to the game of baseball. And he has been named to All-Star games and received MVP votes and was voted WS MVP and Silver Slugger and won the Hank Aaron award and had his number retired and even won the Roberto Clemente award. So presumably in the eyes of many there is literally nothing he could have done after his maybe but not 100% sure positive test in terms of Championships or hitting or character to get in the HOF, but pretty much every other accolade is OK.

edit-I just looked up to make sure I remembered correctly that in 2016 Ortiz was on every AL MVP ballot. He was. What I did not know was that the two Boston writers put him 6th on their ballots while NY writers had him 2nd (King had him 2nd to Betts with winner Trout 3rd) and 1st (Feinsand).
 
Last edited:

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
11,292
So it turns out that Shank also handed in a Kent-only ballot last year. In 2020 he only voted for Jeter; in 2019 he only voted for Rivera.

All very on-brand for him of course. But as I pointed out in the main board HoF thread, his rationale for Kent (worthy player not linked to scandal or cheating) ignores Scott Rolen, who had similar offensive #'s and significantly higher career WAR on account of superior defense in the same # of seasons. The only real argument for Kent over Rolen is the one MVP award, but given Rolen's superior glove it's really hard to claim Kent's the better candidate. There's also the fact that Kent was eligible (and just as worthy) the years that Shank only voted for Rivera and Jeter. Shank's trying to appear principled about this, but it doesn't really hold up to scrutiny.
Kent being on the ballot for the last 8 years and Shank only deciding when there wasn't an obvious Yankee to vote for to vote for him proves that the whole thing is a joke to him.
 

Earthbound64

Member
SoSH Member
Mentioned in Ken Burns' "10th inning" as "A Boston Globe writer."

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98/n738/a01.html?5999
Author: Dan Shaughnessy, The Boston Globe

MCGWIRE DRUG AFFAIR A BUM RAP FOR HIM

"No wonder ballplayers loathe the media."

"tabloid-driven controversy"

"It's unfair."



https://www.si.com/si-wire/2013/05/10/david-ortiz-dan-shaughnessy-steroids-racist-discrimination-peds

Boston Red Sox slugger David Ortiz said on Thursday that he thought a recent Boston Globe column had racially tinged elements in its questioning of whether he has been helped by steroids in his prolific start to the 2013 season.
http://www.espn.com/boston/mlb/story/_/id/9260558/david-ortiz-boston-red-sox-says-ped-suggestions-discriminatory

Yesterday, the guy came to see me and asked some questions about steroids, and when you see the writing, it basically focuses on the fact that I'm Dominican and that many Dominicans have been caught using steroids
 

sean1562

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 17, 2011
3,620
I would not be surprised if loads of players are taking "greenies" or Adderall today. It is ridiculously easy to get a prescription for them. They are definitely a performance enhancing drug. It is easier to train longer and harder on those things, you have so much more energy.
 

CarolinaBeerGuy

Don't know him from Adam
SoSH Member
Mar 14, 2006
9,389
Kernersville, NC
I would not be surprised if loads of players are taking "greenies" or Adderall today. It is ridiculously easy to get a prescription for them. They are definitely a performance enhancing drug. It is easier to train longer and harder on those things, you have so much more energy.
I couldn’t find the most recent data on adderall exemptions, but it seems that, historically, at least 10% of the league is taking it with league approval.
 

Daniel_Son

Member
SoSH Member
May 25, 2021
1,679
San Diego
5 days left until all ballots are submitted and results are announced. At 83.7%, Ortiz seems a lock, although nothing's set in stone. Bonds + Clemens are going to be close - both are around 77%, but in past years, the public ballot pre-results were much higher than the totals on post-result public/private ballots.

Year Bonds Clemens
2021​
-23.10%​
-21.00%​
2020​
-21.20%​
-17.70%​
2019​
-19.50%​
-16.60%​
2018​
-20.00%​
-16.10%​
2017​
-21.90%​
-20.00%​


As far as I can tell, they've never been over the 75% threshold on pre-result public ballots before. Is that enough to push some of the private voters the other way?
 

epraz

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 15, 2002
6,162
Based on the past results in non-public ballots, Bonds and Clemens are absolutely not close. Their only hope is that the non-public composition is different this year, or a bunch of non-public voters decide to change their minds in the last year of eligibility. I don't see any evidence for either, but we'll see.

Ortiz would be in great shape if it weren't for the leaked 2003 test. But even without that, the non-public voters vote for fewer candidates generally-almost all candidates have received a lower share from the non-public block in recent years, and so he wouldn't be a lock. The big question is how the non-public voters view the 2003 test. They also may be less likely to vote for (1) a DH or (2) any player on their first ballot.
 

axx

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
8,123
Ortiz would be in great shape if it weren't for the leaked 2003 test. But even without that, the non-public voters vote for fewer candidates generally-almost all candidates have received a lower share from the non-public block in recent years, and so he wouldn't be a lock. The big question is how the non-public voters view the 2003 test. They also may be less likely to vote for (1) a DH or (2) any player on their first ballot.
The O/U should be more like 72.5%. That's still great shape for getting in next year.
 

allmanbro

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
360
Portland, Maine
Ortiz now has exactly half the votes he'll need on Thibodaux's tracker. He's at 84% with Bonds and Clemens at 77.7% and 76.6%. I've gotten more confident about his chances this year as I have watched him pull ahead of them a bit more substantially. It's impossible to know, but I would guess he drops less in the private vote than those two. As much as the 2003 test and DH things hurt him, his playoff heroics and status as team leader is significant bait for the same kind of voter.
 

HowBoutDemSox

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 12, 2009
10,072
Results will first be announced at 6:00 pm eastern on Tuesday on MLB Network, as part of a four hour show with various analysts and round tables discussions. Can we read anything into the fact that Francona is scheduled to join the broadcast?
View: https://mobile.twitter.com/MLBNetworkPR/status/1484293915096268800

Edit: this story says no one counts the ballots until Tuesday, so they wouldn’t know results when picking the guests for the announcement broadcast, so maybe we can’t read too much into Francona’s presence (other than whoever is in charge of selecting guests has been looking at the same trackers we have).
 
Last edited:

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,595
Maine
Francona seems like a good choice just because he has some broadcast background and the one thing lacking from the lineup is a manager/former manager. He's also been around long enough to have managed or managed against most of the eligible players, so he probably can speak well about any of them.

Including Rob fucking Parker kinda sucks though. It's not like they don't have the reporter/voter angles covered with Kurkjian, Morosi, Sherman, and Verducci. Or maybe I'm just pissed he left Ortiz off his ballot on top of his other offenses.
 

Ale Xander

Hamilton
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
72,203
My one hope for the show is Francona is making an argument for Manny's inclusion for one of the next 4 years.
 

Mueller's Twin Grannies

critical thinker
SoSH Member
Dec 19, 2009
9,386
Francona being there seems to me like someone got tipped off that it looks REALLY good for Ortiz. He's not going to be there to induct anyone but a Red Sox player, especially since no Cleveland players are up that he would have managed other than Manny, who doesn't seem likely to go in. And if it doesn't pan out for Ortiz, then Tito can do a hard sell for next year.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
43,492
Here
Well, Rob Parker is there, so at least we know Tom Brady will NOT be getting elected this year.
 

Ale Xander

Hamilton
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
72,203
Something I just learned (DVR from 1/2 hour ago) from Tom Verducci:

Bonds has 3 of the 4 MLB all-time 30-30-30 seasons (HR/SB/IBB).
 

Sad Sam Jones

Member
SoSH Member
May 5, 2017
2,471
Not that it isn't a really impressive distinction to hold, but intentional walks are very era driven. Rules and attitudes about it changed dramatically over the years. They were pretty much unheard of during the deadball era and rules about where the catcher could set up and receive the pitch changed during the 1920s. They also weren't differentiated from unintentional walks in game scoring until 1928 (and weren't adopted as an official stat until 1955). We can rest assured that Ruth wasn't intentionally walked as much in the 1920s as Bonds would be, but it was looked down upon far more from a competitive point of view in Ruth's time. When they started tracking it in 1928, Ruth still had five more otherworldly seasons left him in (his OPS+ from 1928-32 was 206), but he was only intentionally walked 30 times total.
 

Ale Xander

Hamilton
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
72,203
Not that it isn't a really impressive distinction to hold, but intentional walks are very era driven. Rules and attitudes about it changed dramatically over the years. They were pretty much unheard of during the deadball era and rules about where the catcher could set up and receive the pitch changed during the 1920s. They also weren't differentiated from unintentional walks in game scoring until 1928 (and weren't adopted as an official stat until 1955). We can rest assured that Ruth wasn't intentionally walked as much in the 1920s as Bonds would be, but it was looked down upon far more from a competitive point of view in Ruth's time. When they started tracking it in 1928, Ruth still had five more otherworldly seasons left him in (his OPS+ from 1928-32 was 206), but he was only intentionally walked 30 times total.
Is being the best player in the 50 year history of the game from 1955-2004 (beginning of enforcement iirc) not enough?
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,595
Maine
Not that it isn't a really impressive distinction to hold, but intentional walks are very era driven. Rules and attitudes about it changed dramatically over the years. They were pretty much unheard of during the deadball era and rules about where the catcher could set up and receive the pitch changed during the 1920s. They also weren't differentiated from unintentional walks in game scoring until 1928 (and weren't adopted as an official stat until 1955). We can rest assured that Ruth wasn't intentionally walked as much in the 1920s as Bonds would be, but it was looked down upon far more from a competitive point of view in Ruth's time. When they started tracking it in 1928, Ruth still had five more otherworldly seasons left him in (his OPS+ from 1928-32 was 206), but he was only intentionally walked 30 times total.
You're absolutely right. Though I think the guy hitting behind Ruth had a bit to do with why he wasn't intentionally walked more often.

Lou Gehrig >>>> Jeff Kent >>>> Edgardo Alfonzo/Pedro Feliz (the two most often hitting behind Bonds in his record breaking IBB season of 2004)
 

Sad Sam Jones

Member
SoSH Member
May 5, 2017
2,471
That's definitely true to an extent. Gehrig led the league in intentional walks in two of those five seasons, but even he only had 36 total.
 

Sad Sam Jones

Member
SoSH Member
May 5, 2017
2,471
Is being the best player in the 50 year history of the game from 1955-2004 (beginning of enforcement iirc) not enough?
Huh? I started off by saying it's a really impressive distinction, and nothing I said had anything to do with PEDs or my stance on Bonds' HoF candidacy. He'd already be in the Hall if it was up to me.