The 2015 MLB HOF Ballot Tracker
- Thread starter soxhop411
- Start date
OzSox said:
There is obviously something to this, but I think the bigger issue is that Sheffield was a dick to these guys and this is how they are paying him back.
Not that they are leaving him off their ballots as payback - at least not consciously. But in a year full of ballot compromises and/or tough calls, leaving Sheffield off is an easy decision for most.
glennhoffmania said:
They shouldn't. You're absolutely correct.
OzSox said:
Has he been named in any reports? I'm serious, I honestly don't know. Bonds and Clemens at least have those allegations directed at them personally, I'm not sure if he does or if he falls in the sportswriter's list of Bagwell, Biggio, and others who must have because everyone did.
Sheffield is a victim of a crammed ballot as much as payback.
Bonds, Clemens, Pedro, Mussina (!!), Schilling, Bagwell, Smoltz, Raines, Edgar, Biggio and McGwire are all ahead of him on the ballot if you go strictly by WAR. Piazza, a catcher, is barely behind him.
Bonds, Clemens, Pedro, Mussina (!!), Schilling, Bagwell, Smoltz, Raines, Edgar, Biggio and McGwire are all ahead of him on the ballot if you go strictly by WAR. Piazza, a catcher, is barely behind him.
Yaz4Ever said:
Yeah reports about him and the cream were all over the place. He's as tainted as anyone. But either vote for PED guys or vote for none of them. Picking and choosing which guys you think could've been in the HOF without PEDs is nonsensical to me. The issue is whether cheating is an automatic disqualifier.
I'm not lobbying for Sheffield to get in. I'm hardly a fan. My issue is solely with the hypocrisy and ignorance of some of the voters.
The same argument could hold for Sosa and McGwire. Right or wrong, my guess is that some writers are saying that Clemens and Bonds had HOF-caliber resumes before they "started juicing" and so they would have made it even if "clean," whereas in the case of Sosa, McGwire, and perhaps Sheffield, the PEDs were what made them HOFers. The problem I have with the argument is that PEDs weren't invented in 1997 (Clemens' "bounce-back" year with the BJs). If Bonds and Clemens (and AFraud) were juicing in the late 1990s and early 2000s, why should I assume they weren't juicing for their entire careers?glennhoffmania said:
glennhoffmania said:
So who should the voters drop from their ballot for Sheffield? You're acting like he's a slam dunk Hall of Famer when there's a very good case he's not. His defense sucked (mostly because he didn't care about playing it) and he was a huge fucking asshole (as exhibited, in part, by his unwillingness to make an effort on defense).
Spacemans Bong said:
That really isn't the point. First, like I said earlier, name one OF who had the offensive numbers to get in but was kept out due to defensive deficiencies. Assuming that you can't, the issue isn't whether he has the numbers to get in, because he does.
Second, I'm not looking at a couple of hundred ballots and arguing ballot by ballot who he should replace. I'm simply talking about an issue that's been brought up in several articles about the voting, including Heyman's yesterday, that say that he's not getting votes because of BALCO.
I don't have a problem with that. In fact I applaud it. But if one thinks he's a HOFer based on the offensive numbers and he still isn't on the ballot because of PEDs, yet that same ballot has Bonds, Clemens, or any other juicer, that makes no sense to me. Ozsox' point has some merit, but I think it's a cop out by the writers. Like P91 said, we have no way to know whether the juicers were or were not using during their whole careers, so drawing an imaginary line in the sand for which PED users would've been good enough anyway is bullshit.
Again, I'm not advocating for Sheffield's induction. To me, this is just one of many examples of the idiocy of the voting system and results. Nothing more. Sheffield is simply an interesting case during an interesting time.
Why aren't the voters writing in Jose Guillen's name, either? He's an outfielder who used steroids. If you vote for one, you have to vote for all of them.
The "rumors" have always been that Clemens and Bonds started juicing in the late 1990's. While most of the evidence is rumors, the "where there's smoke there's fire" argument seems to apply. There's also the issue of physical appearance changes over the years, which were glaring obvious with Clemens and Bonds. With Sosa, his career stats tell the story quite clearly.Plympton91 said:
Back on topic, there are a number of issues with Sheffield's candidacy:
- PED rumors, which are exacerbated by the fact that his HR totals really shot up starting in 1999 at age 30.
- Crowded ballot
- The fact that for the first half of his career he bounced between the small market teams of Milwaukee, San Diego, and Florida
- He didn't break any single season HR records or have any other great career milestones to point to.
- He was such a pain that even with his offensive prowess, teams like the Dodgers, Braves, and Yankees were more than willing to let him walk when the time came.
- He didn't exactly make friends with the voters.
glennhoffmania said:
Dick Allen and Albert Belle are two pretty good examples of HOF-worthy hitters who haven't got in due to, in part, bad defense. Also in part to being a huge fucking asshole, which I've noticed you've just ignored. Like Sheffield, they're inextricably linked: Sheffield was capable of being a good defensive player (probably not in the infield, but certainly in right field), he just didn't want to put in the effort.
Jim Rice was a poor defender (though more honestly) and a surly dick, and he took the entire 15 years to be inducted. I'd argue if it wasn't for steroids he would never have been inducted.
Also, the people putting Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens on ballots are likely disproportionately younger voters who do pay attention to stats, and he really is one of the game's worst defensive players - being -28 WAR for your career in the field takes a lot of beating.
He's a bad defender and has a rap sheet of jerk behavior that's a mile long.
To this you could add the reported story that he deliberately was making errors (in Milwaukee or San Diego) to force a trade out of townlexrageorge said:
Spacemans Bong said:
Neither Belle nor Allen even cracked the 400 homer mark, so I don't know what point you're trying to make.
Look I wasn't trying to start a big argument here. If voters come out and say, I didn't vote for Sheffield because he was a shitty defender, fine. If they say they won't vote for him because he's an asshole, fine. But all I've read over the last couple of days is that the reason he isn't going to get votes is because of PEDs. That's it. I haven't read one comment that says he won't get in because of offense, defense or personality- just BALCO. And that's why I have an issue with it, because it's inconsistent on the part of a lot of voters. Heyman said flat out that his resume looks like a HOFer but he's not voting for him, but he's also not voting for Bonds, Clemens, Sosa, etc., so I respect his position.
If you want to keep arguing that Sheffield isn't deserving, go ahead. I'm not going to keep repeating myself. But voters have said that he is deserving based on his numbers, but not based on his alleged use of PEDs. If you don't like that argument or opinion or whatever, that's fine- it wasn't my position to begin with. I'm not a voter and I didn't come out with these comments about him. I'm only responding to the comments I've read from baseball writers, and I'm calling bullshit on their distinction between two guys who both have HOF numbers (by their own admission) and both used PEDs, but only one of them would've been good enough even without PEDs, in their humble opinion.
Perhaps we should move on.
Who are these people declaring that they're not voting for Sheffield because of PEDs but also have Clemens and/ or Bonds on their ballot? Is it even more than one or two guys? I'm sure many who voted Bonds/ Clemens but not Sheffield likely don't think Sheffield is a HoFer for non-PED reasons.
Is there a link you could give us to all this chatter from sportswriters putting Bonds and Clemens on their ballot but not Sheffield because of PEDs?
Is there a link you could give us to all this chatter from sportswriters putting Bonds and Clemens on their ballot but not Sheffield because of PEDs?
glennhoffmania said:
But it's only recently that we've had a way to begin to actually quantify defensive deficiencies. And while lots of voters don't pay attention to WAR (or whatever), I'll bet that there's more than a few that do, and that proportion will grow every year. So it's not a stretch to think that a guy who might have voted for Shef in 1980 would not today.
Another way to legitimately deal with the PED era is to throw out the comparisons of the numbers to historical benchmarks and compare players to their peers, under the assumption that so many were using they all might as well have been. In that case you can throw out both confirmed users and rumored users and vote for Bonds and Bagwell but not Sheffield and Palmiero because Bonds and Bagwell were clearly much more valuable.JohntheBaptist said:
http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/newsstand/discussion/the_2015_hof_ballot_collecting_gizmo/P800
Piazza has lost another 0.5% over the last 22 known ballots. Not sure he makes it this year. Biggio looks safe, however.
Piazza has lost another 0.5% over the last 22 known ballots. Not sure he makes it this year. Biggio looks safe, however.
http://m.mlb.com/news/article/105597840/mlbcom-reporters-reveal-their-hall-of-fame-ballots
ignorance at its fullest
Joe Posnanski's ballot:
Bonds, Bagwell, Clemens, Johnson, Martinez, Mussina, Piazza, Raines, Schilling, Smoltz.
Bonds, Bagwell, Clemens, Johnson, Martinez, Mussina, Piazza, Raines, Schilling, Smoltz.
soxhop411 said:
So this guy anoints Gary Sheffield as a "no-brainer" but leaves off Bonds and Clemens, presumably for the PED taint (which applies to Sheffield as well). Smoltz is a "no-brainer" as well but Mussina and Schilling are nowhere to be found despite extremely similar career numbers (minus the saves). The mind reels.
Red(s)HawksFan said:
It has always annoyed me that people don't link Sheffield to PEDs when the only difference between him and Barry Bonds is that (1) Sheffield threw Bonds under the bus in his testimony/public statements and (2) unlike Bonds, he was not good enough to threaten any records of significance.
Gary Sheffield paid tens of thousands of dollars for substances he claims to have believed were nutritional supplements and flaxseed oil. He never questioned why these would cost so much when he could have bought the real stuff himself for a fraction of the cost. He never questioned why the results he got were so spectacular. He simply accepted this at face value and when federal agents came calling he blamed it all on Barry Bonds because he never would have used/paid so much for supplements and flaxseed oil if not for Bonds telling him how great this particular flaxseed oil was. See? It's all the fault of Barry Bonds.
Oh, and Sheffield to this day has never admitted using PEDs even though "the clear" and "the cream" have been identified as powerful PEDs. Because, you see, he was told that they were supplements and flaxseed oil. So he's not a steroid user...
The point isn't that I'm an apologist for PEDs or someone who would condemn all PED users, because it's about as messy and complicated a topic as there is. But I do know that anyone who would vote for Gary Sheffield for the HOF while leaving Barry Bonds (or Clemens) off the ballot entirely is self-identifying as either a moron, a coward or both.
Red(s)HawksFan said:
This is basically the issue Spaceman and I were discussing yesterday only in the reverse. Voting for Sheffield but not for Bonds or Clemens is idiotic.
Average Reds said:
I think Sheffield claimed that not only was he unaware that we was possibly taking any PEDs, but when it came time to pay BALCO he told his wife to handle it so he never knew how much it cost. His story is as believable as Pettitte only taking HGH a couple times so he could recover more quickly only for the sake of his teammates.
Red(s)HawksFan said:
I don't really mind writers who have Smoltz in without Mussina and Schilling. It's not how I would vote, but I can see Smoltz getting viewed differently because of the saves, essentially treating Smoltz like Eckersley, as well as his role as the pitcher who was there all throughout that Braves run of success.
singaporesoxfan said:
I don't mind putting in Smoltz ahead of those guys either. My objection was more that Smoltz was a shoe-in, no doubt Hall of Famer in this voter's eyes while Schilling and Mussina weren't worth his vote at all. It's not like he ranked the players and they were #11 and 12 just off a full ballot. He only voted for 8 players. That's the really stupid part.
OzSox said:
Excellent article- thanks for the link. Nice case for Bonds, even by 1998. The thing that always bugged me about Bonds was how he would say "I didn't know...". Please, Barry, you're way too smart for me to believe that. On the other hand, he never got the respect or press he deserved, but playing in Pittsburgh and SF prior to 2010 would do that to a player.
Quick question.
Where's your line? The line between who gets in and who doesn't?
Just looking at this list, sorted by WAR, my line is between Biggio and McGwire, with Piazza making it due to his position.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/hof_2015.shtml
Where's your line? The line between who gets in and who doesn't?
Just looking at this list, sorted by WAR, my line is between Biggio and McGwire, with Piazza making it due to his position.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/hof_2015.shtml
Rasputin said:
Agreed. I don't want to live in a world where Mark McGwire makes it into the HOF. He doesn't have the numbers, period.
Bob Costas neatly summed up the general debate on MLBN this morning as the panel was discussing Tim Raines. Costas said that if you look at the overall career, Raines would be a better candidate than Lou Brock. But, as Costas said, at the time he retired Brock held the SB record and had excelled in World Series play ... achievements that mattered to a high degree at the time to the majority of voters.
Now, however, there's a mix of voters with a mix of priorities which, along with the crowded ballot and the few opportunities Raines had in his prime on the national stage, makes it harder for Raines' career to be appreciated. It's good though to see Raines get a 15-20% jump this year; so maybe in one of the last 2 years he'll be on the ballot, he'll get in.
Now, however, there's a mix of voters with a mix of priorities which, along with the crowded ballot and the few opportunities Raines had in his prime on the national stage, makes it harder for Raines' career to be appreciated. It's good though to see Raines get a 15-20% jump this year; so maybe in one of the last 2 years he'll be on the ballot, he'll get in.
glasspusher said:
Well, he's got the 583 homers, .394 OBP and .588 SLG, but he stole a total of 12 bases, his defense was never really a plus.
I mean, I kinda feel like an idiot leaving out a guy who had that many homers, but all he did was hit for power at a time when hitting for power was the easiest it ever was.
E5 Yaz said:
I was talking to my wife yesterday and saying that Tim Raines may be the second best leadoff man in all of baseball history and the only reason he isn't in the HoF is because he played at the same time as the best leadoff man in all of baseball history.
If you look at the black ink test, Raines has a 20, Rickey has 50.
Bill James had a quote when asked if Rickey was a HOFer, that was something to the effect of "If you broke him in half, you'd have two hall of famers" - I always figured Raines was one of the two HOFers you'd get in that hypothetical Rickey split. Maybe Brock's the other...the WAR math works out pretty well: Brock + Raines = 114, Rickey = 111.
That's actually not bad if the goal is tactical voting. You assume Pedro and Johnson and the like are in and you get in votes for Raines, Trammell, and Bonds.soxhop411 said:
Wut.....
soxhop411 said:
Wut.....
Anybody that defends this guy from now on should be banned. Fuck Harold Reynolds forever.
edit--something tells me Harold Reynolds never does "tactical" anything, so...
Fuck Donnie Baseball. There are like 15 guys ahead of him. There's no reason to keep him on the ballot going forward if that's his thinking.JohntheBaptist said:
Seriously though, I guarantee you he doesn't have Pedro on because of his win total, and he has Smoltz (deservedly) in because they are colleagues.