Hall of Fame balloting
- Thread starter JimRiceHOFer
- Start date
Looking at Mussina versus Glavine, using ERA- here is how their careers stack up relative to league average. I'm doing this on my iPad while on a train, so I apologize for it not being in a table.
Mussina: +28% +34% -2% +37% +31% +2% +28% +23% +26% +20% +28% +8% +24% -1% -2% +23% -14% +22%
Glavine: -28% -26% +2% -7% +33% +23% +23% +7% +27% +30% +29% +41% +9% +26% +17% +28% -8% +14% +14% +13% -3% -31%
If we rank them in order we get:
G, M, M, G, M, G, G, MMMG (28%), G, GM (26%), M, MMGG (23%), M, M, G, G, G, G, G, M, G, GM (2%) --LGAVG-- M, M, M, G, G, G, M, G, G, G.
Mussina was much more consistently above average, and I'd argue, much more consistently excellent. Longevity counts for something, and they each had a number of below average seasons, but 3 of Mussina's 4 were -2% or better. 5 of Glavine's 6 were -7% or worse with three of those being at least -26% worse.
I don't put a ton of stock in Cy Young trophies considering how heavily the win bias has played into it historically.
Mussina: +28% +34% -2% +37% +31% +2% +28% +23% +26% +20% +28% +8% +24% -1% -2% +23% -14% +22%
Glavine: -28% -26% +2% -7% +33% +23% +23% +7% +27% +30% +29% +41% +9% +26% +17% +28% -8% +14% +14% +13% -3% -31%
If we rank them in order we get:
G, M, M, G, M, G, G, MMMG (28%), G, GM (26%), M, MMGG (23%), M, M, G, G, G, G, G, M, G, GM (2%) --LGAVG-- M, M, M, G, G, G, M, G, G, G.
Mussina was much more consistently above average, and I'd argue, much more consistently excellent. Longevity counts for something, and they each had a number of below average seasons, but 3 of Mussina's 4 were -2% or better. 5 of Glavine's 6 were -7% or worse with three of those being at least -26% worse.
I don't put a ton of stock in Cy Young trophies considering how heavily the win bias has played into it historically.
My gut feeling is that Tim Raines is being underrated here, but I'm on my phone so it's tough to link. He was an OBP machine, at least occasionally leading the league in that category, and right around top 100 WAR all time.
SumnerH said:
He led the league in OBP once, but his career OBP was .385.
808 stolen bases. 85% success rate.
Missed about 140 games in 81, 87, 94 and 95 due to strikes and owner collusion(87).
I think he suffered a little bit because of the early career drug use. But mostly I think he played too long. Even though he maintained a great OBP, he wasn't considered a star player after he left Montreal. And after his White Sox years, he hung around as a part time player and bounced around.
He should be in. It's kind of funny that people are worried about Craig Biggio getting in, when Raines was a much better player than Biggio at his peak.
Just want to point out today is Minnie Minoso's birthday. His age is up for debate, but he's listed at 88. Good chance he's over 90.
This man should be in the Hall of Fame--and soon-- so he can enjoy it still.
He doesn't have all time great career numbers, but considering he got a late start because of his color and being buried in the Cleveland organization in his early 20's, he should be treated like Jackie Robinson and Larry Doby.
From 1951-1961, Minnie Minoso was probably the second best AL player behind Mickey Mantle. He should be in the Hall.
This man should be in the Hall of Fame--and soon-- so he can enjoy it still.
He doesn't have all time great career numbers, but considering he got a late start because of his color and being buried in the Cleveland organization in his early 20's, he should be treated like Jackie Robinson and Larry Doby.
From 1951-1961, Minnie Minoso was probably the second best AL player behind Mickey Mantle. He should be in the Hall.
http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/newsstand/discussion/the_2013_hof_ballot_collecting_gizmo
Track it here...
As of this post
Track it here...
As of this post
Tango has a post here where he tracks everyone's ballot:
http://tangotiger.com/index.php/site/article/most-perfect-hof-ballots
Links to this spreadsheet
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0Aqc4QTMoPrdtdDQxaDYzd1lLOGpOdUdrcnNNNWNXa2c&authkey=CPyuwqIJ&authkey=CPyuwqIJ&pli=1#gid=7
Good for some good laughs.
http://tangotiger.com/index.php/site/article/most-perfect-hof-ballots
Links to this spreadsheet
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0Aqc4QTMoPrdtdDQxaDYzd1lLOGpOdUdrcnNNNWNXa2c&authkey=CPyuwqIJ&authkey=CPyuwqIJ&pli=1#gid=7
Good for some good laughs.
Rice4HOF said:
So, yet another thing that CHB is terrible at then.
(And Murray Chass too, of course)
Someone did this year as well according to soxhop411's post up above. Assumed it was the same guy. I'll have to some more digging.phrenile said:
What is the fascination that ~ 60% of the voters have with Jack Morris?
It's almost like a reaction against intelligence and actual increased knowledge about baseball as this increased understanding if the game has exposed to an even greater extent how unqualified for the HOF he is.
So the supporters become more entrenched and resentful towards those of us who are educating ourselves further about a game we have followed for decades.
Those Chass/Madden/Cafardo idiot types then promote his possible election with more fervor
Yet some of those guys continue to overlook Biggio, Bagwell, Martinez and numerous other much more qualified candidates.
It's almost like a reaction against intelligence and actual increased knowledge about baseball as this increased understanding if the game has exposed to an even greater extent how unqualified for the HOF he is.
So the supporters become more entrenched and resentful towards those of us who are educating ourselves further about a game we have followed for decades.
Those Chass/Madden/Cafardo idiot types then promote his possible election with more fervor
Yet some of those guys continue to overlook Biggio, Bagwell, Martinez and numerous other much more qualified candidates.
Well, on one hand, Morris will be off the ballot after this year.
On the other hand, with the continuous "re-examining" of players that the Hall does, wouldn't surprise me if he makes it in during a 2045 special election or something.
On the other hand, with the continuous "re-examining" of players that the Hall does, wouldn't surprise me if he makes it in during a 2045 special election or something.
Game 7 of the 1991 World Series?
Yep. Only reason. And an awful one, he should have lost that game. My thoughts: http://www.hallofverygood.com/2013-articles/january/11cooperstown-2013-jack-morris.html
Yep. Only reason. And an awful one, he should have lost that game. My thoughts: http://www.hallofverygood.com/2013-articles/january/11cooperstown-2013-jack-morris.html
Murray Chass should have his vote taken away...
http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/01/02/maury-chass-is-keeping-his-hall-of-fame-vote-to-spite-me-specifically/
http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/01/02/maury-chass-is-keeping-his-hall-of-fame-vote-to-spite-me-specifically/
Posnanski's ballot:
http://joeposnanski.com/joeblogs/the-massive-hall-of-fame-post/
Terrific article (as usual)
In descending order from #10
Raines
Biggio
Clemens
Bonds
Glavine
Schilling
Piazza
Bagwell
Thomas
Maddux
He merely debits the steroid guys .. a not unreasonable argument . (although in my HOF they are out )
Honourable mention:
McGuire
Edgar Martinez
Walker
Mussina
Trammell
Leaving aside the steroid debate that's a pretty good ballot. Well thought out with very compelling arguments. I particularly like his championing of Trammell - who I don't think - as with Dwight Evans - will ever get elected.
http://joeposnanski.com/joeblogs/the-massive-hall-of-fame-post/
Terrific article (as usual)
In descending order from #10
Raines
Biggio
Clemens
Bonds
Glavine
Schilling
Piazza
Bagwell
Thomas
Maddux
He merely debits the steroid guys .. a not unreasonable argument . (although in my HOF they are out )
Honourable mention:
McGuire
Edgar Martinez
Walker
Mussina
Trammell
Leaving aside the steroid debate that's a pretty good ballot. Well thought out with very compelling arguments. I particularly like his championing of Trammell - who I don't think - as with Dwight Evans - will ever get elected.
Oh, please. I thought we stopped talking about that about 4 years ago. Who do I have to blow to change my username already?
Neyer takes Chass to task for taking him to task.
Chass's attack is particularly interesting given Neyer's well-documented ambivalence toward the HOF and particularly self-congratulatory purism, which Chass is of course practicing.
My ballot, split into 3 categories: the ones I wouldn't bother debating, the ones I think are probably deserving, and the ones I can be convinced are not deserving.
Definites: Maddux, Bonds, Clemens
Likelies: Glavine, Mussina, Thomas, Bagwell
Borderline: Schilling, Raines, Piazza
Just-Missed: Edgar Martinez, Craig Biggio, Alan Trammell, Lee Smith (toughest guy to leave off a ballot)
The steroids thing is stupid - it's simplest (and I think most reasonable) to say that the guys were still pretty darn superlative vis-a-vis their also-suspected lesser colleagues.
Chass's attack is particularly interesting given Neyer's well-documented ambivalence toward the HOF and particularly self-congratulatory purism, which Chass is of course practicing.
My ballot, split into 3 categories: the ones I wouldn't bother debating, the ones I think are probably deserving, and the ones I can be convinced are not deserving.
Definites: Maddux, Bonds, Clemens
Likelies: Glavine, Mussina, Thomas, Bagwell
Borderline: Schilling, Raines, Piazza
Just-Missed: Edgar Martinez, Craig Biggio, Alan Trammell, Lee Smith (toughest guy to leave off a ballot)
The steroids thing is stupid - it's simplest (and I think most reasonable) to say that the guys were still pretty darn superlative vis-a-vis their also-suspected lesser colleagues.
I wish there was a simple answer to "the steroids thing." But I've never come up with one despite thinking I had worked it out over and over. If we followed your proposal then a guy with 3000 hits and 569 HR and a slew of Gold Gloves would probably get consideration for the HOF, as would another guy with 600+ home runs. But despite being way better than their colleagues almost nobody will vote for them despite the fact that voters (including you) would support other guys with maybe lesser statistics who may or may not have used. I'm not being critical of the your hypothetical ballot or anyone else who leaves off Sosa and Palmeiro but includes Bagwell and Piazza and Raines as I might do the same, but I'm not sure my reasoning would be simple or avoid contradictions.zenter said:
snowmanny said:
Yeah, I get your point, but it really makes no difference, since one's argument for including/excluding player X or Y doesn't typically focus on a single counting stat here or there (EDIT: or award). For example, my reasons for leaving McGwire, Sosa and Palmiero off are unrelated to their presumed steroid usage.
drleather2001 said:
You know, more I think about it, the more that's a tossup. I give points to Mussina spending his entire career in basically baseball's toughest division (and tougher league) while doing almost as well as Schilling (stats-wise). Tough call, though.
snowmanny said:
If by "a slew of Gold Gloves" you mean 3, the last of which he "won" while playing a grand total of 28 games at First Base (and 128 at DH), sure.
Which, of course, leads into the absurdity of using any award voted on by others as consideration for HOF worth.
I mean, should we lower our view of Pedro because he never won an MVP?
Of course you are correct on the GGs, but the point stands that Palmeiro's numbers would put him into very strong HOF consideration absent the steroids.terrisus said:
As to the Pedro question, no, just as it wouldn't lower our opinion of him if he didn't get into the HOF, which is also a voted on award.
Of course you are correct on the GGs, but the point stands that Palmeiro's numbers would put him into very strong HOF consideration absent the steroids.
As to the Pedro question, no, just as it wouldn't lower our opinion of him if he didn't get into the HOF, which is also a voted on award.
I'm not disagreeing on the main point of his numbers, I guess it was more into a tangent on how I think of awards being used in HOF discussions.
I guess it's more of an issue with MVPs and Cy Youngs, since you have basically the same people voting on them as those who vote for the HOF. Just because people at the time did or did not consider someone worthy of an award (hence my Pedro mention) doesn't necessarily change their HOF worth.
As to the Pedro question, no, just as it wouldn't lower our opinion of him if he didn't get into the HOF, which is also a voted on award.
I'm not disagreeing on the main point of his numbers, I guess it was more into a tangent on how I think of awards being used in HOF discussions.
I guess it's more of an issue with MVPs and Cy Youngs, since you have basically the same people voting on them as those who vote for the HOF. Just because people at the time did or did not consider someone worthy of an award (hence my Pedro mention) doesn't necessarily change their HOF worth.
Well, to be fair, the GGs were awarded by a Managers/Coaches vote .. This has now changed , of course with a hard statistical element making up a percentage (30%?) of the vote.
zenter said:
You can make an argument against any of them, but to claim you aren't including any of the three and it has nothing to do with PEDs defies credibility.
I don't think he was a much better player. Raines was a better basestealer in his prime and was maybe a tad better hitter, but Biggio played a premium defensive position. Both have a pretty comparable 7-year period that represents much of their value.getfoul said:
Biggio (1993 - 1999): .303/.397/.473, 132 OPS+, 237 SB / 68 CS, 814 R, 514 RBI, 283 2B, 26 3B, 122 HR, 4 GG at 2B, 41.5 WAR
Raines (1983 - 1989): .308/.398/.456, 139 OPS+, 429 SB / 63 CS, 710 R, 410 RBI, 217 2B, 61 3B, 78 HR, 39.3 WAR
Raines walked more and struck out less, but Biggio is 2nd all-time in HBP, which erases a lot of the OBP gap. Raines played in a lower run-scoring era (hence the higher OPS+ despite lower OPS) but Biggio played his prime years in a terrible hitters' park. They're fairly close as hitters, but Biggio's got a huge defensive advantage as a 2B even if you think he's overrated defensively.
Average Reds said:
Ummm... Okay. I mean, I have no problems including Clemens and Bonds, so your logic doesn't track at all. Give me infinity votes, and I might include them.
I think they're all great players, but, right now (in the context of 10 votes), these three don't impress me as the other people I've named - in a live-ball era, the offensive theatrics of these guys pale in comparison to Bonds, and are lesser to Bagwell.
- McGwire was very good (offensively) at a position with players I think are better (Palmeiro and Bagwell).
- Sosa was a great all-around guy and gets a boost for playing a tougher defensive position, but he just doesn't crack the list for me.
- Palmeiro was very-good and played a long time, and wasn't as one-dimensional as McGwire... But he wasn't as good as Bagwell.
If I had to rank these three, I'd go Sosa, Palmeiro, McGwire, but that's after the guys I named.
Note: I will cop to Lee Smith (4th in my just-missed list) being a sympathy case because I loved the guy. But he helped define the modern closer and did it well for many long pre-Mariano years.
Like many of you, I really don't know what to do with the "steroid era" and players that have been suspected of and/or caught using PEDs. Posnanski's two paragraphs about Bonds and Clemens are striking:
8. Roger Clemens. Let’s write one short paragraph about Clemens without mentioning you know what. One MVP. Seven Cy Youngs. Seven ERA titles. Five-time strikeout king. Six-time shutout leader. Third all-time in strikeouts. Third all-time in WAR. Won a Cy Young at 23. Won a Cy Young at 41. Based purely on what he did on the field, Clemens is probably the greatest pitcher who ever lived.
7. Barry Bonds. Let’s write one short paragraph about Bonds without mentioning you know what. Seven MVPs, including four in a row. All-time home run leader, career and single season. Only player with 500 homers and 500 steals. Only player with 400 homers and 400 steals. All-time walk leader. Eight Gold Gloves. Here’s an absurd one: Had more intentional walks than Roberto Clemente or Andre Dawson had TOTAL walks. Based purely on what he did on the field, Bonds is one of the five greatest players who ever lived.
My first reaction is that there's no way they should get in based on their PED use. But the fact of the matter is, both of them were without question first-ballot, inner-circle locks for the HOF, even *without* PED use. Clemens' case in that regard is less so, so let's start with him.
Here are his numbers pre-1997, when he bounced back with the first of two straight CYA with Toronto:
192-111 (.634), 3.06 era, 144 era+, 1.16 whip, 8.4 k/9, 2590 k, 81.3 bWAR, 3 CYA, 1 MVP
Pretty awesome numbers. Maybe not HOF lock, but his rate stats are tremendous and his counting stats are very good. If you factor in a few more years like his last four in Boston, he still adds another 40 wins, and his era really doesn't go up *that* much. He'd have 3 CYAs, 1 MVP, and an otherwise very impressive resume.
From 1997-2007, here's what he did:
162-73 (.689), 3.21 era, 140 era+, 1.19 whip, 8.8 k/9, 2082 k, 58.0 bWAR, 4 CYA
So those numbers aren't an improvement, really, on his pre-PED numbers. What makes them so striking is that he did that later in his career, when it appeared that he was indeed in the "twilight" of his career following the 1996 season, so those numbers are very unexpected.
His total case is overwhelming that he's one of the all-time greatest pitchers the sport has ever seen. Clearly his totals are impacted by his PED use. How much though? We don't know. How much of those 1997-2007 numbers could he have replicated without PEDs? Maybe half those years he isn't even playing at all. Who knows. I just know that his total case is ridiculously good; an absolute no-brainer just looking at the numbers themselves, and he's very probably a HOFer even without the PEDs.
Now, about Barry Bonds. He started using PEDs, according to the reports, after the 1998 season. So let's break his career up into two segments as well. First, here are his numbers from 1986-1998:
.290/.411/.556/.966, 164 ops+, 1364 r, 1917 h, 411 hr, 1216 rbi, 1357 bb, 445 sb, 3 MVP
Just insanely good. At age 33, he was showing no signs of slowing down (unlike Clemens). His 1998 year was his seventh straight of an ops of 1.031 or better. He was, at that point, one of the most dominant players the game had ever seen. If he retired *at that moment* he was probably a certain HOFer.
Obviously, from 1999-2007, the numbers become almost comical:
.316/.505/.712/1.217, 214 ops+, 863 r, 1018 h, 351 hr, 780 rbi, 1201 bb, 69 sb, 4 MVP
The total case for Bonds, when all the numbers are put together, is that he's probably a top 3 player ever. Without PEDs, he's still a certain HOFer.
So the question is: Do these two guys qualify *REGARDLESS* of PED use? To me, the answer is yes. Does the PED use *disqualify* them from consideration? Well, that's what people need to decide. I have, up til now, thought yes to that last question, but now I'm rethinking it.
8. Roger Clemens. Let’s write one short paragraph about Clemens without mentioning you know what. One MVP. Seven Cy Youngs. Seven ERA titles. Five-time strikeout king. Six-time shutout leader. Third all-time in strikeouts. Third all-time in WAR. Won a Cy Young at 23. Won a Cy Young at 41. Based purely on what he did on the field, Clemens is probably the greatest pitcher who ever lived.
7. Barry Bonds. Let’s write one short paragraph about Bonds without mentioning you know what. Seven MVPs, including four in a row. All-time home run leader, career and single season. Only player with 500 homers and 500 steals. Only player with 400 homers and 400 steals. All-time walk leader. Eight Gold Gloves. Here’s an absurd one: Had more intentional walks than Roberto Clemente or Andre Dawson had TOTAL walks. Based purely on what he did on the field, Bonds is one of the five greatest players who ever lived.
My first reaction is that there's no way they should get in based on their PED use. But the fact of the matter is, both of them were without question first-ballot, inner-circle locks for the HOF, even *without* PED use. Clemens' case in that regard is less so, so let's start with him.
Here are his numbers pre-1997, when he bounced back with the first of two straight CYA with Toronto:
192-111 (.634), 3.06 era, 144 era+, 1.16 whip, 8.4 k/9, 2590 k, 81.3 bWAR, 3 CYA, 1 MVP
Pretty awesome numbers. Maybe not HOF lock, but his rate stats are tremendous and his counting stats are very good. If you factor in a few more years like his last four in Boston, he still adds another 40 wins, and his era really doesn't go up *that* much. He'd have 3 CYAs, 1 MVP, and an otherwise very impressive resume.
From 1997-2007, here's what he did:
162-73 (.689), 3.21 era, 140 era+, 1.19 whip, 8.8 k/9, 2082 k, 58.0 bWAR, 4 CYA
So those numbers aren't an improvement, really, on his pre-PED numbers. What makes them so striking is that he did that later in his career, when it appeared that he was indeed in the "twilight" of his career following the 1996 season, so those numbers are very unexpected.
His total case is overwhelming that he's one of the all-time greatest pitchers the sport has ever seen. Clearly his totals are impacted by his PED use. How much though? We don't know. How much of those 1997-2007 numbers could he have replicated without PEDs? Maybe half those years he isn't even playing at all. Who knows. I just know that his total case is ridiculously good; an absolute no-brainer just looking at the numbers themselves, and he's very probably a HOFer even without the PEDs.
Now, about Barry Bonds. He started using PEDs, according to the reports, after the 1998 season. So let's break his career up into two segments as well. First, here are his numbers from 1986-1998:
.290/.411/.556/.966, 164 ops+, 1364 r, 1917 h, 411 hr, 1216 rbi, 1357 bb, 445 sb, 3 MVP
Just insanely good. At age 33, he was showing no signs of slowing down (unlike Clemens). His 1998 year was his seventh straight of an ops of 1.031 or better. He was, at that point, one of the most dominant players the game had ever seen. If he retired *at that moment* he was probably a certain HOFer.
Obviously, from 1999-2007, the numbers become almost comical:
.316/.505/.712/1.217, 214 ops+, 863 r, 1018 h, 351 hr, 780 rbi, 1201 bb, 69 sb, 4 MVP
The total case for Bonds, when all the numbers are put together, is that he's probably a top 3 player ever. Without PEDs, he's still a certain HOFer.
So the question is: Do these two guys qualify *REGARDLESS* of PED use? To me, the answer is yes. Does the PED use *disqualify* them from consideration? Well, that's what people need to decide. I have, up til now, thought yes to that last question, but now I'm rethinking it.
ivanvamp said:
The problem with the bolded question is the presumption of knowledge about when/if people began using PEDs. Even Bonds, who has the most public case here, is still a big question mark in this regard. Who knows if folks were taking PEDs (including andro, steroids, HGH, greenies, etc) during the 80s through mid-90s? We certainly don't have enough information.
As for the second question, PEDs were reportedly widely-used and MLB made no effort to prevent players from using them, nor punish them for using them. Therefore, no, PEDs during the free-for-all era ought not disqualify a player. PEDs in the post-2005 era (Peralta, Braun)? Absolutely.
BigMike said:
Good point. Though I think I get where he's coming from. I mean, you have two guys that we essentially know did PEDs - Bonds and Clemens. Given this knowledge, it makes me wonder when they *really* started using. That they were users is not really in doubt. When they started may be.
Guys like Tony Gwynn or Wade Boggs were never ever ever suspected of using at all, and never tested positive for anything. No stories, no innuendo, no rumors, nothing. So I don't see it being reasonable to have the exact same question about Boggs as we do Bonds.
It would be like finding out that Joe was cheating on his wife last week. Kind of makes you wonder how long he had been doing it. Bob, meanwhile, has no indication at all that he was cheating on his wife. So are Joe and Bob on exactly equal footing in your mind as you think about whether they were cheating on their wives two years ago? There's no evidence that either one was doing it at that point in time, but given what you now know about Joe, I would think it would make you more suspicious.
getfoul said:
Presumably, based on the lack of Clemens/Bonds and the inclusion of Martinez (ruling out some kind of knock for DHing a lot), he suspects Thomas as a steroid user due to his massive stature. Makes the Bagwell and Piazza inclusions interesting, though.
Edit: I can't find his ballot from this year, but he wrote a post explaining his choices last year that was titled "2013 Baseball Hall of Fame voting: Steroid cheats strike out on this ballot." He also acts as a champion of Jack Morris. Piazza and Schilling, who are on his ballot this year, didn't make it last year.
ivanvamp said:
How about this analogy. Joe gets busted for possession of pot last week. Joe and Bob belong to the same club that has them in close contact for extended periods. What are the odds Bob is unaware of Joes pot use, and what are the odds that Bob has experimented with some of what Joe had to offer?.
Being a suspect is not proof of course, its possible Bob is clueless, but you are still going to be suspicious.
I guess what I am saying is, assuming players like Boggs and Gwynn are clean (absence of evidence is not proof), what responsibility did they have to call out teammates who were cheating?. How plausible is it that players were clueless or were protecting those who are cheating at their expense?. The fact that neither player, or almost any of the other clean players said anything at the time tells us what?.
Schilling was quoted as saying
http://deadspin.com/5819068/curt-schilling-no-winning-team-was-steroid+free-not-even-my-own
So clean players, if there were any, were just as big a part of the steroid era as MLB, the owners and players who used IMO.
Oh, and BTW, Gwynn hit more home runs at age 37 than at anytime in his career. Schilling for his part was a much better pitcher in his 30's than his 20's, much like Bonds was a much better hitter. We claim Bonds performance in his 30's is attributed to steroids but the clean player just leaned how to pitch or hit better.
I am not accusing either Boggs or Gwynn, or even Schilling but am saying that by virtue of guilt by association they should be suspects as should any player who played in that era.
Vote them all in and put an asterisk next to the names of those unlucky enough to have got caught, since I am sure there are many more users than we know of.
Howard Bryant deserves a call out here, not just for the awful ballot of course, but for how he rips Tyler Kepner for suggesting the elimination of the pointless 10-vote limit
So he manages to brag about how he only needed four votes for his crappy ballot, while accusing Kepner of "pandering to social media" for suggesting something that makes obvious sense.
Anyways my nonexistent ballot would be
Bonds
Maddux
Clemens
Raines
Glavine
Schilling
Piazza
Bagwell
Thomas
Mussina
My last vote was a toss-up between Mussina, Biggio, Edgar Martinez and Allen Trammel. I'm open to persuasion on Larry Walker. If possible I would have given a vote for Fred McGriff but that's probably just me being too nostalgic about a player who was big during my early days as a fan of the game.
So he manages to brag about how he only needed four votes for his crappy ballot, while accusing Kepner of "pandering to social media" for suggesting something that makes obvious sense.
Anyways my nonexistent ballot would be
Bonds
Maddux
Clemens
Raines
Glavine
Schilling
Piazza
Bagwell
Thomas
Mussina
My last vote was a toss-up between Mussina, Biggio, Edgar Martinez and Allen Trammel. I'm open to persuasion on Larry Walker. If possible I would have given a vote for Fred McGriff but that's probably just me being too nostalgic about a player who was big during my early days as a fan of the game.
^
That's a solid ballot. If a voter isn't taking a stand on Bonds and Clemens, it really is impossible to turn in a ballot that you feel good about leaving somebody off.
If I had an unlimited vote on this ballot, I think these guys should be in:
Maddux, Thomas, Glavine, Mussina, Biggio, Morris, Bagwell, Piazza, Raines, Schilling, Clemens, Bonds, Trammell, McGriff.
That's 14. Leaving off four, I'd probably go Morris, Trammell, McGriff, and Schilling. McGriff may be a victim of playing clean and losing playing time to the 94/95 strike. He definitely would have had 500 homers.
On Edgar Martinez, I acknowledge he was a great hitter, but if I vote for him, I feel like I would have to vote for Larry Walker. And I don't want to vote for Larry Walker.
Sosa, Palmeiro, and McGwire are PED creations. I truly can't believe anyone has room for them on this ballot.
Jeff Kent is an interesting case, but my gut is telling me he's just short. For now, I'm passing. I don't want him to get less than 5% though.
I wouldn't feel bad if Mattingly was a HOFer. Same with Dale Murphy who fell off the ballot last year. Maybe someday the Vet Committee puts them in.
That's a solid ballot. If a voter isn't taking a stand on Bonds and Clemens, it really is impossible to turn in a ballot that you feel good about leaving somebody off.
If I had an unlimited vote on this ballot, I think these guys should be in:
Maddux, Thomas, Glavine, Mussina, Biggio, Morris, Bagwell, Piazza, Raines, Schilling, Clemens, Bonds, Trammell, McGriff.
That's 14. Leaving off four, I'd probably go Morris, Trammell, McGriff, and Schilling. McGriff may be a victim of playing clean and losing playing time to the 94/95 strike. He definitely would have had 500 homers.
On Edgar Martinez, I acknowledge he was a great hitter, but if I vote for him, I feel like I would have to vote for Larry Walker. And I don't want to vote for Larry Walker.
Sosa, Palmeiro, and McGwire are PED creations. I truly can't believe anyone has room for them on this ballot.
Jeff Kent is an interesting case, but my gut is telling me he's just short. For now, I'm passing. I don't want him to get less than 5% though.
I wouldn't feel bad if Mattingly was a HOFer. Same with Dale Murphy who fell off the ballot last year. Maybe someday the Vet Committee puts them in.
Boswell in today's Washington Post went off on a rant about voters, after noting that his newspaper no longer allows its writers to participate in the process. He starts out, "The baseball Hall of Fame is a mess. Worse, it’s not a mess that can be fixed, at least not now and maybe not ever." However, he doesn't blame the Hall but writers with arguments being "now about messy morals and analytical methods, as much as celebrations of performances and people," and "the too-much-information age’s passion for arguing about trifles and the rise of Sabermetrics, my favorite art-pseudo-science that, if presented with a cup of morning coffee, would add two tablespoons of decimal points."
This latter part is quite interesting because Boswell, himself, was once sabermetrically-inclined, developing the Total Average metric. There was a hoo-hah between him and Bill James and Boswell retired that pen.
The entire piece struck me as being sour grapes and perhaps my quotes simply reinforce that. I did not include a link because I believe that the Washington Post requires a log-in to read on-line. However, you may be able to find it through Google News by searching for Tom Boswell in Google News and looking for the article, "Baseball Hall of Fame vote has become an exercise in swings and misses."
This latter part is quite interesting because Boswell, himself, was once sabermetrically-inclined, developing the Total Average metric. There was a hoo-hah between him and Bill James and Boswell retired that pen.
The entire piece struck me as being sour grapes and perhaps my quotes simply reinforce that. I did not include a link because I believe that the Washington Post requires a log-in to read on-line. However, you may be able to find it through Google News by searching for Tom Boswell in Google News and looking for the article, "Baseball Hall of Fame vote has become an exercise in swings and misses."
Clemens and Bonds, nor any of the known PED users, should ever be in the HOF. Of course in cases like theirs that absent the PED, they'd be surefire HOFs. But to me the HOF is not just about a collection of stats, it's about one's impact on the game itself. Of course the great players with great numbers have great impact on the game, so the two qualities often overlap. But that's no reason to mistake them for the same thing. It's the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Great Players.
Ananti said:
The thing with that, is that with any common sense, there probably are players already in the Hall that took steroids. And with certainty, there are players that took chemical enhancement in amphetamines, Do I think greenies are as bad as steroids? No. But it is a form of cheating.
Plus the culture in the 1994-2002 range was to look the other way. MLB practically endorsed PED use. I'm for some forgiveness just to move on and acknowledge the era, but I don't want a disproportionate amount of players in the Hall from that era. So I say yes to Bonds and Clemens, but no to Palmeiro, Sosa, and McGwire.
Why are greenies not as bad as steroids? It's when amphetamines were banned that offense took a nose dive, not when steroids were banned.