2022 Hall of Fame Class

scottyno

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
8,974
This is proof I would take voting away from the writers and give it to former players from the era. This is horrendous.
Former players are even worse

See Baines, Harold

The solution is a better process to cull the writers who either don't actually cover baseball anymore or clearly don't take this seriously
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
Apr 12, 2001
21,060
Former players are even worse

See Baines, Harold

The solution is a better process to cull the writers who either don't actually cover baseball anymore or clearly don't take this seriously
How could you prove that a writer “doesn’t take this serious” though?

There are 500 people voting here, not all of them are going to 100% choose who you, me or Bill James thinks is the “perfect ballot”. That’s kind of the good/bad thing about democracy. Your (or my) guy isn’t going to win all the time. And you can’t just start ripping away votes for people who you disagree with.

These votes won’t matter, at the end of the day.
 

Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat

has big, douchey shoulders
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
How could you prove that a writer “doesn’t take this serious” though?

There are 500 people voting here, not all of them are going to 100% choose who you, me or Bill James thinks is the “perfect ballot”. That’s kind of the good/bad thing about democracy. Your (or my) guy isn’t going to win all the time. And you can’t just start ripping away votes for people who you disagree with.

These votes won’t matter, at the end of the day.
Isn't the problem that some of these people don't cover baseball anymore, so they're more and more removed from the game?
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
Apr 12, 2001
21,060
Isn't the problem that some of these people don't cover baseball anymore, so they're more and more removed from the game?
I think that is an issue* but I don’t think that younger voters are ever going to cull the “old dude herd” because one day they’re going to be those old dudes.

* I also don’t think that this is a huge deal because more new guys are coming in and the old guard is leaving every year. Honestly, I don’t want 500 people who look at WAR (or whatever is the stat du jour) and make decisions that way. I think that for the most part the writers get these things correct. It might take an extra year or two, but the right guys normally get in.

I think the difference of opinions is what makes the votes so interesting. For example, as far as PED guys go, I don’t think it’s a huge deal. I think Bnods, Clemens, Manny, ARod, McGwire and Sosa should all get in. But if you don’t, I get that. However I think that Schilling should be on the outside looking in for the rest of his miserable life. And I hope it gnaws at him too. But if he got in, I’d understand why someone might vote for him too.

I guess my point is this, I don’t think that there’s anything really wrong with HoF voting. There are people with dumb ballots, but that’s okay, I think it a comes out evenly thanks to the vast amount of folks voting.
 

scottyno

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
8,974
How could you prove that a writer “doesn’t take this serious” though?

There are 500 people voting here, not all of them are going to 100% choose who you, me or Bill James thinks is the “perfect ballot”. That’s kind of the good/bad thing about democracy. Your (or my) guy isn’t going to win all the time. And you can’t just start ripping away votes for people who you disagree with.

These votes won’t matter, at the end of the day.
Schilling missed by 16 votes last year, Craig Biggio missed by 2 votes a few years ago, until all the votes are in we have no idea if these votes are going to matter or not.

As to proving they don't take it serious you could start with a guy who writes an article where he admits he doesn't even look at the numbers and essentially just votes for the guys on his local team that he liked
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
Apr 12, 2001
21,060
Schilling missed by 16 votes last year, Craig Biggio missed by 2 votes a few years ago, until all the votes are in we have no idea if these votes are going to matter or not.

As to proving they don't take it serious you could start with a guy who writes an article where he admits he doesn't even look at the numbers and essentially just votes for the guys on his local team that he liked
But Biggio is in the Hall of Fame, right? What are you getting so worked up over?

My point is by the time players leave the ballot, there are no real snubs left out of Cooperstown. And if there are, that's what the various Veteran's Committees are for. The players who are on the outside looking in (not counting PED, Rose and Jackson--these players are more philosophical), have maybe a few less tics in the con side of the ledger than the pro. I would love to see Luis Tiant and Dwight Evans make the Hall of Fame. But they're not slam dunks. The slam dunks are in, maybe they don't go in on the first year, but they all get in. Waiting and patience is okay.
 

BigMike

Dope
Dope
Sep 26, 2000
22,553
I can't imagine a more random ballot. To vote for Clemens, Sosa and Ramirez, but not Bonds must require some gold medal worthy mental gymnastics. Not to mention Abreu over others.
This one angers me more than the first two. Voting for Sosa, Clemens, Ortiz, Pettitte, and leaving Bonds off. You know this is just some idiot still pissed Bonds sneered at him in the locker room
 

Gdiguy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,940
San Diego, CA
I think that is an issue* but I don’t think that younger voters are ever going to cull the “old dude herd” because one day they’re going to be those old dudes.

* I also don’t think that this is a huge deal because more new guys are coming in and the old guard is leaving every year. Honestly, I don’t want 500 people who look at WAR (or whatever is the stat du jour) and make decisions that way. I think that for the most part the writers get these things correct. It might take an extra year or two, but the right guys normally get in.

I think the difference of opinions is what makes the votes so interesting. For example, as far as PED guys go, I don’t think it’s a huge deal. I think Bnods, Clemens, Manny, ARod, McGwire and Sosa should all get in. But if you don’t, I get that. However I think that Schilling should be on the outside looking in for the rest of his miserable life. And I hope it gnaws at him too. But if he got in, I’d understand why someone might vote for him too.

I guess my point is this, I don’t think that there’s anything really wrong with HoF voting. There are people with dumb ballots, but that’s okay, I think it a comes out evenly thanks to the vast amount of folks voting.
To me, the main issue is simply that the HoF itself should make a policy statement on steroid stuff, rather than just letting the voters wing it based on personal preference. It's just too large of an issue to simply just keep ignoring it - Bonds and Clemens in particular, there's absolutely no non-steroid argument for them not being in the HoF. So rather than the HoF actually making a decision, instead it's a game of 'how much do writers care about people who were accused of vs actually tested positive for vs have a huge amount of circumstantial evidence for using steroids'. I'm personally on the 'I don't care about it' side, but either way - just create a bright line, if you want it to be 'if you tested positive you're out of the HoF' I'd be fine with it, I just find the current situation maddening - if we could have these votes based on stats and not based on 'what do people think about Ortiz's rumored positive test vs Sosa maybe did something sometime etc etc' it would be a massive improvement

Everything else I think I agree with you (other than complete insanity like the above Sosa + Manny but not Bonds vote).
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
Apr 12, 2001
21,060
To me, the main issue is simply that the HoF itself should make a policy statement on steroid stuff, rather than just letting the voters wing it based on personal preference. It's just too large of an issue to simply just keep ignoring it - Bonds and Clemens in particular, there's absolutely no non-steroid argument for them not being in the HoF. So rather than the HoF actually making a decision, instead it's a game of 'how much do writers care about people who were accused of vs actually tested positive for vs have a huge amount of circumstantial evidence for using steroids'. I'm personally on the 'I don't care about it' side, but either way - just create a bright line, if you want it to be 'if you tested positive you're out of the HoF' I'd be fine with it, I just find the current situation maddening - if we could have these votes based on stats and not based on 'what do people think about Ortiz's rumored positive test vs Sosa maybe did something sometime etc etc' it would be a massive improvement
The Hall doesn't usually do that, right? Like they never did something similar with Pete Rose, its stance always seemed to be that they were a museum that works with MLB and BBWA and that they decide who goes into the Hall, not the Hall itself. They never seemed to make a policy statement on who should go in. I think (and this was a while ago and I haven't looked it up) that MLB came up with the rule that players on the banned list (Rose, Jackson) would be ineligible for election to Cooperstown. Which is weird considering that Rose has been part of the All Century team and gets trotted out every now and again by the Reds and MLB.

My feeling about the PED players is that people know the rumors and who used. It doesn't have to be on a plaque. Most people know that Cap Anson was a real piece of shit. Babe Ruth used to drink, whore around and punched an umpire. Ty Cobb was a psychopath. Ted Williams was a bad dad. Gaylord Perry put every slimy substance known to man on a baseball so it did weird shit. Whitey Ford put cuts in balls too. Derek Jeter weirdly gave away gift baskets as a thank you to the ladies for sexxing him up. Ball players are weird. And some are cheaters. And some are assholes. Just like everyone else. To the people where baseball matters, they'll know about that stuff. To people who don't care, they won't.
 

JoePoulson

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 28, 2006
1,951
Orlando, FL
Attention whores, all of them. I wish like hell these idiots would lose their voting privileges but instead they won't and will continue to be allowed to shit all over baseball.
 

Archer1979

shazowies
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
5,422
Right Here
I can't imagine a more random ballot. To vote for Clemens, Sosa and Ramirez, but not Bonds must require some gold medal worthy mental gymnastics. Not to mention Abreu over others.
I think its because we try to use logic and reasoning. This has to be pure emotion or not giving the steroid usage any weight. An argument can be made for Clemens, Bonds, and Manny simply in that they had HOF careers prior to juicing (and yes, I'm making an assumption on all three as to when they started juicing). No reason to exclude Bonds.

Taking that one step further, he should have checked off A-Rod to go along with Sosa as its almost impossible to tell how much of either of their numbers came from natural ability and hard work as opposed to modern pharmaceuticals. If he's going to include Sosa, why not Bonds or A-Rod?

Like I said, logic and reasoning...
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
40,560
View: https://twitter.com/tonycal93/status/1467131820504399879




Here is his reason For not voting for Ortiz
That means no on Alex Rodriguez, David Ortiz, Mark Teixeira and the rest of the newcomers. Rodriguez was an easy pass. I didn’t have to look past 2014 when he hit no homers and drove in zero runs because he was suspended for cheating the game for drugs.

Ortiz was never busted for cheating, but he didn’t pass my smell test. Why did Minnesota give up on him in 2002, and suddenly the following year he had a new career-high in homers and was an MVP candidate in Boston? And then again. And again. And again. Maybe he figured it out. It just seems like strange timing to me. Again, it’s my vote. But someone I trust in the game said there’s no way it happened naturally. So it’s a no.
https://jeffwilson.substack.com/p/a-rod-david-ortiz-miss-cut-on-2022?r=o3hiz
 

Diamond Don Aase

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 16, 2001
733
Merrimack Valley
Truly Andro has a dizzying intellect.
Miguel Cabrera was never busted for cheating, but he didn’t pass my smell test. Why did Florida give up on him in 2007, and suddenly the following year he had a new career-high in homers and was an MVP candidate in Detroit? And then again. And again. And again. Maybe he figured it out. It just seems like strange timing to me. Again, it’s my vote. But my best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with the girl said there’s no way it happened naturally like, say, Gary Sheffield. So it’s a no.
 

Mueller's Twin Grannies

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 19, 2009
6,652
Marcus is asking for the BBWAA to take away his vote with his track record lately. Maybe he'll get his wish after this.

You can tell the ballot is really messing with the voters this year.
 

axx

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
7,501
If he's not interested in voting, perhaps he shouldn't have a vote.
If he only voted for Jeter last year, then he's being consistent on not voting for the Steroid Guys.
 

Mueller's Twin Grannies

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 19, 2009
6,652
If he only voted for Jeter last year, then he's being consistent on not voting for the Steroid Guys.
He voted only for Jeter TWO years ago - he was part of the 2020 class that was formally inducted a couple months ago. But that ballot was submitted in 2019. Marcus has since submitted two blank ballots, this being the most recent. I was under the impression that the BBWAA was not putting up with that sort of thing anymore and that's most likely the reason he'll be denied a ballot next year, if they take that step.

And I don't think every name in that ballot is a steroid guy. Also, if he truly thinks those who didn't use deserve enshrinement over those who did, why not vote for Buerhle, Vizquel, and/or Justin Morneau just to make that point? Submitting a blank ballot TWICE seems to suggest that he has an obscenely high bar.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
15,579
Maine
He voted only for Jeter TWO years ago - he was part of the 2020 class that was formally inducted a couple months ago. But that ballot was submitted in 2019. Marcus has since submitted two blank ballots, this being the most recent. I was under the impression that the BBWAA was not putting up with that sort of thing anymore and that's most likely the reason he'll be denied a ballot next year, if they take that step.

And I don't think every name in that ballot is a steroid guy. Also, if he truly thinks those who didn't use deserve enshrinement over those who did, why not vote for Buerhle, Vizquel, and/or Justin Morneau just to make that point? Submitting a blank ballot TWICE seems to suggest that he has an obscenely high bar.
It seems as though is point is that he has a standard for enshrinement (stats, accomplishments, etc), but the only players to meet that standard are guys he suspects or are known PED guys. If he doesn't think Buerhle or Vizquel or Morneau are worthy, why should he vote for them because he perceives them as "clean"?

As much as I think Marcus is a clown for his stunt, I can respect his ballot POV over the guys with inconsistent PED standards who vote for Clemens but not Bonds, or Manny but not ARod.
 

axx

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
7,501
It seems as though is point is that he has a standard for enshrinement (stats, accomplishments, etc), but the only players to meet that standard are guys he suspects or are known PED guys. If he doesn't think Buerhle or Vizquel or Morneau are worthy, why should he vote for them because he perceives them as "clean"?
That was sort of what I was getting at. Marcus voted for Edgar and Mo in 2019 and in 2018 voted for the 4 guys who got in. It's not like he's not taking it seriously.
 

Philip Jeff Frye

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 23, 2001
8,421
Ortiz was never busted for cheating, but he didn’t pass my smell test. Why did Minnesota give up on him in 2002, and suddenly the following year he had a new career-high in homers and was an MVP candidate in Boston? And then again. And again. And again. Maybe he figured it out. It just seems like strange timing to me. Again, it’s my vote. But someone I trust in the game said there’s no way it happened naturally. So it’s a no.
Certainly no team has ever made a mistake about the future trajectory of one of their players. Makes you wonder what Frank Robinson was on when he won the MVP in 1966 after the Reds gave up on him. Jeff Bagwell must have started taking something after the Red Sox dumped him. Babe Ruth was a notorious substance abuser - what fueled his career after the Red Sox shipped him out of town?
 
Last edited:

scottyno

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
8,974
Nearly the entire ballot being voted on my the writers is better than most of the guys these committees keep putting into the hall
 

Yelling At Clouds

Post-darwinian
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
2,195
Nearly the entire ballot being voted on my the writers is better than most of the guys these committees keep putting into the hall
Who’s the beef from this crowd? Kaat? They put in at least two guys who everyone thinks should have been in ages ago, not sure how Allen missed out, though.
 

scottyno

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
8,974
Who’s the beef from this crowd? Kaat? They put in at least two guys who everyone thinks should have been in ages ago, not sure how Allen missed out, though.
Hodges Minoso Olivia and Kaat are all under 55 career WAR.

There's no point for the writers to spend 10 years rejecting a bunch of guys with 60-70 or more career WAR if these committees are then going to pick and choose which worse guys to put in regularly.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
74,076
Oregon
I'm so glad that the bulk of my baseball fandom was during the years before people thought "advanced" metrics were the be all and end all
 

Max Power

thai good. you like shirt?
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
5,483
Boston, MA
Hodges Minoso Olivia and Kaat are all under 55 career WAR.

There's no point for the writers to spend 10 years rejecting a bunch of guys with 60-70 or more career WAR if these committees are then going to pick and choose which worse guys to put in regularly.
It's not the Hall of WAR.
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
21,850
where I was last at
I never thought Jim Kaat or Tony Oliva were HoF players when they played. They were good but IMO not HoF guys.

Kaat was a very good pitcher who pitched forever, had a shit load of wins, and was a good TV analyst, and seemed like a good guy, and I got his autograph as a kid, but I never thought of him as a Hall of Famer. .

I hate saying this but the vet's committee just lowered the bar.

I think we all fell in love with Buck O'Neil from the Ken Burns Baseball series.
 

Ale Xander

killed off Vin Scully
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
44,835
I never thought Jim Kaat or Tony Oliva were HoF players when they played. They were good but IMO not HoF guys.

Kaat was a very good pitcher who pitched forever, had a shit load of wins, and was a good TV analyst, and seemed like a good guy, and I got his autograph as a kid, but I never thought of him as a Hall of Famer. .

I hate saying this but the vet's committee just lowered the bar.

I think we all fell in love with Buck O'Neil from the Ken Burns Baseball series.
Kaat was probably the best fielding pitcher in history, I am not sure how to value that though.

I agree with you on Oliva, he's the one I have issue with. (Both/all before my time to see live)
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
I never thought Jim Kaat or Tony Oliva were HoF players when they played. They were good but IMO not HoF guys.

Kaat was a very good pitcher who pitched forever, had a shit load of wins, and was a good TV analyst, and seemed like a good guy, and I got his autograph as a kid, but I never thought of him as a Hall of Famer. .

I hate saying this but the vet's committee just lowered the bar.

I think we all fell in love with Buck O'Neil from the Ken Burns Baseball series.
As well as being one Hell of a baseball player, Buck O'Neil made it his life's work to educate generations of fans about Negro Leagues and was a great ambassador for the game. That he wasn't elected while he was alive is a real failure by those responsible for the HOF voting process.