2013 Baseball HOF Voting

[lighthousekeeper]

This year is arguably the most intriguing baseball Hall of Fame ballot ever, with many big name first timers. Screw the BBWAA - let's declare the FOFC the new authority for HOF determination.

Same rules apply: Voters are instructed to cast votes for up to 10 candidates; any candidate who receives votes on at least 75% of the ballots will be honored with induction to the Hall

Voting to close on 12/18 2:20PM EST.

[lighthousekeeper]

From Baseball Reference (Baseball Reference HOF summary page (http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/hof_2013.shtml) )

Batting Stats Pitching Stats
Rk YoB %vote HOFm HOFs Yrs WAR WAR7 JAWS Jpos G AB R H HR RBI SB BB BA OBP SLG OPS OPS+ W L ERA ERA+ WHIP G GS SV IP H HR BB SO Pos Summary
1 Jack Morris 14th 66.7% 122 39 18 39.3 30.8 35.1 57.8 568 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 .000 .000 .000 .000 -100 254 186 3.90 105 1.296 549 527 0 3824.0 3567 389 1390 2478 *1/D
2 Jeff Bagwell 3rd 56.0% 150 59 15 76.7 46.7 61.7 51.5 2150 7797 1517 2314 449 1529 202 1401 .297 .408 .540 .948 149 *3/D9
3 Lee Smith 11th 50.6% 135 13 18 27.6 19.7 23.7 32.3 1023 64 2 3 1 2 0 3 .047 .090 .094 .183 -50 71 92 3.03 132 1.256 1022 6 478 1289.1 1133 89 486 1251 *1
4 Tim Raines 6th 48.7% 90 47 23 66.2 41.1 53.7 50.7 2502 8872 1571 2605 170 980 808 1330 .294 .385 .425 .810 123 *78D4/9
5 Alan Trammell 12th 36.8% 118 40 20 67.1 43.3 55.2 52.1 2293 8288 1231 2365 185 1003 236 850 .285 .352 .415 .767 110 *6D5/478
6 Edgar Martinez 4th 36.5% 132 50 18 64.4 41.8 53.1 53.4 2055 7213 1219 2247 309 1261 49 1283 .312 .418 .515 .933 147 *D*5/3
7 Fred McGriff 4th 23.9% 100 48 19 48.2 33.2 40.7 51.5 2460 8757 1349 2490 493 1550 72 1305 .284 .377 .509 .886 134 *3D
8 Larry Walker 3rd 22.9% 148 58 17 69.7 43.1 56.4 55.4 1988 6907 1355 2160 383 1311 230 913 .313 .400 .565 .965 141 *9387/D45
9 Mark McGwire 7th 19.5% 170 42 16 58.7 40.1 49.4 51.5 1874 6187 1167 1626 583 1414 12 1317 .263 .394 .588 .982 163 *3D/597
10 Don Mattingly 13th 17.8% 134 34 14 39.8 34.4 37.1 51.5 1785 7003 1007 2153 222 1099 14 588 .307 .358 .471 .830 127 *3D97/548
11 Dale Murphy 15th 14.5% 116 34 18 42.6 39.0 40.8 54.8 2180 7960 1197 2111 398 1266 161 986 .265 .346 .469 .815 121 *8*9372
12 Rafael Palmeiro 3rd 12.6% 178 57 20 66.1 36.6 51.3 51.5 2831 10472 1663 3020 569 1835 97 1353 .288 .371 .515 .885 132 *3*D7/98
13 Bernie Williams 2nd 9.6% 134 48 16 45.9 35.7 40.8 54.8 2076 7869 1366 2336 287 1257 147 1069 .297 .381 .477 .858 125 *8D9/7
14 Barry Bonds 1st 340 76 22 158.1 71.1 114.6 50.7 2986 9847 2227 2935 762 1996 514 2558 .298 .444 .607 1.051 182 *78D/9
15 Roger Clemens 1st 332 73 24 133.9 64.0 99.0 57.8 709 179 5 31 0 12 0 13 .173 .236 .207 .443 17 354 184 3.12 143 1.173 709 707 0 4916.2 4185 363 1580 4672 *1
16 Mike Piazza 1st 207 62 16 56.1 40.7 48.4 41.0 1912 6911 1048 2127 427 1335 17 759 .308 .377 .545 .922 143 *2D3
17 Curt Schilling 1st 171 46 20 76.1 46.7 61.4 57.8 571 773 39 117 0 29 1 25 .151 .178 .171 .348 -9 216 146 3.46 127 1.137 569 436 22 3261.0 2998 347 711 3116 *1
18 Kenny Lofton 1st 91 42 17 64.9 42.0 53.5 54.8 2103 8120 1528 2428 130 781 622 945 .299 .372 .423 .794 107 *87/D9
19 Craig Biggio 1st 169 57 20 62.1 40.6 51.3 54.4 2850 10876 1844 3060 291 1175 414 1160 .281 .363 .433 .796 112 *4*287/D9
20 Sammy Sosa 1st 202 52 18 54.8 42.2 48.5 55.4 2354 8813 1475 2408 609 1667 234 929 .273 .344 .534 .878 128 *98D/7
21 David Wells 1st 88 40 21 49.2 29.0 39.1 57.8 660 178 8 23 0 5 0 3 .129 .148 .140 .289 -22 239 157 4.13 108 1.266 660 489 13 3439.0 3635 407 719 2201 *1
22 Steve Finley 1st 72 36 19 40.4 30.4 35.4 54.8 2583 9397 1443 2548 304 1167 320 844 .271 .332 .442 .775 104 0 0 0.00 1.000 1 0 0 1.0 0 0 1 0 *897/D1
23 Julio Franco 1st 58 42 23 39.7 29.1 34.4 54.4 2527 8677 1285 2586 173 1194 281 917 .298 .365 .417 .782 111 *6*4*3*D/579
24 Reggie Sanders 1st 18 27 17 36.7 25.2 30.9 55.4 1777 6241 1037 1666 305 983 304 674 .267 .343 .487 .830 115 *9*78/D
25 Shawn Green 1st 62 33 15 31.4 29.5 30.4 55.4 1951 7082 1129 2003 328 1070 162 744 .283 .355 .494 .850 120 *9387D
26 Jeff Cirillo 1st 37 23 14 32.0 28.7 30.3 53.4 1617 5396 800 1598 112 727 63 563 .296 .366 .430 .796 102 0 0 0.00 2.000 1 0 0 1.0 0 0 2 1 *534D/671
27 Woody Williams 1st 17 14 15 28.1 20.2 24.2 57.8 443 540 52 105 4 43 1 17 .194 .222 .267 .489 29 132 116 4.19 103 1.321 424 330 0 2216.1 2217 309 711 1480 *1
28 Rondell White 1st 6 17 15 25.5 19.9 22.7 54.8 1474 5357 756 1519 198 768 94 360 .284 .336 .462 .799 108 *7*8D
29 Ryan Klesko 1st 24 26 16 24.6 20.4 22.5 51.5 1736 5611 874 1564 278 987 91 817 .279 .370 .500 .870 128 *7*39/D
30 Aaron Sele 1st 21 15 15 17.5 17.6 17.5 57.8 404 58 5 9 0 1 0 3 .155 .197 .190 .386 1 148 112 4.61 100 1.491 404 352 0 2153.0 2413 225 798 1407 *1
31 Roberto Hrnandz 1st 93 7 17 17.2 16.7 16.9 32.3 1010 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 .500 .500 .500 1.000 166 67 71 3.45 131 1.367 1010 3 326 1071.1 1002 96 462 945 *1
32 Royce Clayton 1st 24 23 17 16.4 15.5 15.9 52.1 2108 7379 935 1904 110 723 231 565 .258 .312 .367 .679 78 *6/5D
33 Jeff Conine 1st 22 23 17 16.2 15.2 15.7 50.7 2024 6957 870 1982 214 1071 54 671 .285 .347 .443 .789 107 *3*79D5
34 Mike Stanton 1st 66 7 19 13.3 14.3 13.8 32.3 1178 24 3 8 0 3 0 1 .333 .360 .375 .735 96 68 63 3.92 112 1.352 1178 1 84 1114.0 1086 93 420 895 *1
35 Sandy Alomar 1st 48 24 20 11.6 11.8 11.7 41.0 1377 4530 520 1236 112 588 25 212 .273 .309 .406 .716 86 *2/D3
36 Jose Mesa 1st 113 1 19 9.6 12.1 10.8 32.3 1023 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 .000 .333 .000 .333 -3 80 109 4.36 100 1.472 1022 95 321 1548.2 1629 151 651 1038 *1
37 Todd Walker 1st 10 22 12 8.3 8.9 8.6 54.4 1288 4554 647 1316 107 545 66 421 .289 .348 .435 .783 98 *453D/76

[bhlloy]

I voted for Bonds and Clemens and not for McGwire and Sosa. Reasoning behind that is that I think the former two guys were easily good enough before/without the steroids and the latter two, I'm not sure about.

Other than that - Raines, Biggio and Piazza get in. Two of arguably the best at their position all time and Raines is probably only second to Rickey Henderson as the premier speed guy of his era.

[Logan]

Same as above with the steroids guys. If you want to put something on their plaques re: PEDs, go ahead.

[Drake]

Inducted ever or inducted this year?

I wouldn't vote for Clemens (fucker) or Bonds this year, but think they probably both need to be in there sometime in the next decade or so.

[sterlingice]

By the time he gets to the Veterans Committee, will there be enough veterans who have hit game winning home runs off of Jose Mesa to vote him in for his generosity to the game?

SI

[molson]

By the time he gets to the Veterans Committee, will there be enough veterans who have hit game winning home runs off of Jose Mesa to vote him in for his generosity to the game?

SI

I don't know, according to modern statistical metrics that summarize HOF induction likelihood, Mesa apparently has a better shot than Tim Raines and only a slightly worse shot than Jack Morris.

[lighthousekeeper]

Inducted ever or inducted this year?

I wouldn't vote for Clemens (fucker) or Bonds this year, but think they probably both need to be in there sometime in the next decade or so.

Voting is based on induction for this year.

(Keep in mind the world might end, you might die, or you might get kicked out of the FOFC-BBWAA before next year's ballot, so make sure your vote counts while you have the chance.)

[RendeR]

Morris is the only one on the list I actually would vote for.

[Maple Leafs]

Morris is the only one on the list I actually would vote for.
It's the Hall of Fame, not the "Hall of Was Almost As Good As Dave Stieb".

[molson]

the "Hall of Was Almost As Good As Dave Stieb".

I would absolutely visit that HOF. I can only imagine its somewhere in rural Ontario?

[DanGarion]

Morris is the only one on the list I actually would vote for.

Really? Jack Morris, who never one a Cy Young, ERA trophy, and only lead the league in stikeouts once in his career?

[tarcone]

Jack Morris is a shoe in for me.
I also voted, McGwire, Bonds, Clemens, Piazza, Raines, L. Smith, Murphy and Schilling.

I missed Biggio or I would have voted for him, as well.

[DanGarion]

Someone explain the Jack Morris love for me? I liked Jack Morris the player, but his stats really don't really do anything for me for HoF voting.

[Chubby]

Morris, Lee Smith, Raines, Trammell, Edgar

[molson]

I bet the real vote is going to end up a lot like this one - there's a bunch of viable candidates that are going to spread the vote pretty thin, since most people only vote for a handful of guys. It might be a class of 0 or 1.

[Chubby]

i laugh at those who think 'roiders will get voted in 1st ballot.

nelson laugh HA HA /nelson laugh

[Jas_lov]

Bagwell should be in, Biggio should be in, Raines should be in, Clemens, Piazza, Bonds all in. I don't know how you can justify keeping these guys out. Are they going to disqualify everyone from 90s-00s era? A guy like McGwire just has HRs so I can see keeping him out. Bonds and Clemens should easily be in. Bagwell and Piazza don't have much against them except speculation.

[stevew]

Someone explain the Jack Morris love for me? I liked Jack Morris the player, but his stats really don't really do anything for me for HoF voting.

He was widely regarded as the best pitcher of the 80s by many people? Im sure stats don't bear this out at all, but it explains why he might get into the HOF.

[Young Drachma]

i laugh at those who think 'roiders will get voted in 1st ballot.

nelson laugh HA HA /nelson laugh

It said who should be elected to the HoF, not "who do you think" will get voted in.

[stevew]

I think that Dale Murphy and Lee Smith(among others) will get in via the veterans committee some day.

[RainMaker]

How does Bonds and Clemens get so many votes but Sosa doesn't?

[molson]

I don't know how you can justify keeping these guys out. Are they going to disqualify everyone from 90s-00s era?

It's like any other crime, you only get punished if you get caught, that's the risk. The fact that you can't catch every thief, murderer, etc, doesn't mean you shouldn't punish the ones you do catch.

So it's kind of a mess but it's one players brought about themselves. They fought against drug testing forever, they chose for the waters to be muddied, so they get to stand and be judged by sportswriters instead of drug tests. Their choice.

[rowech]

He was widely regarded as the best pitcher of the 80s by many people? Im sure stats don't bear this out at all, but it explains why he might get into the HOF.

I would have taken Herhiser over Morris any day if we're talking 1980s. I'm amazed Hershiser never got more votes. I never expected him to get in but couldn't believe he was off the ballot after two tries.

[jbergey22]

i laugh at those who think 'roiders will get voted in 1st ballot.

nelson laugh HA HA /nelson laugh

It said who should be elected to the HoF, not "who do you think" will get voted in.

Well done YD!

[jbergey22]

How does Bonds and Clemens get so many votes but Sosa doesn't?

Bonds and Clemens were great players before people think they started in on the roids. Sosa didnt really become a great player until many feel he started in on the roids.

Of course its all speculation.

[molson]

Schilling will be an interesting vote - his playoff numbers are really good, and it wasn't just a couple of games, it was 19 starts, which included some really big, historically noteworthy games. And there's no steroid suspicion, which probably gives guys something of a bonus now. And 3,000+ Ks, reaching which has been a 100% lock until possibly Clemens and Schilling this year.

[Drake]

I voted for Larry Walker for no good reason other than that I really liked him.

[Drake]

Dola...

I'm going to start a Hall of People Drake Likes. It'll have Larry Walker, Nomar Garciaparra, Reggie Miller, Jim Harbaugh, Hoosier PG Michael Lewis, and Amy Adams in it. And Neal Stephenson. And maybe Quiksand.

[Young Drachma]

Dola...

I'm going to start a Hall of People Drake Likes. It'll have Larry Walker, Nomar Garciaparra, Reggie Miller, Jim Harbaugh, Hoosier PG Michael Lewis, and Amy Adams in it. And Neal Stephenson. And maybe Quiksand.

:D

[frnk55]

Todd Walker? Really, Todd Walker?
And of course he will get a vote by someone.:confused:

[General Mike]

Voted for Bagwell, Biggio, Trammell, Raines, Piazza, Bonds, Clemens, Murphy and Schilling.

[Atocep]

How does Bonds and Clemens get so many votes but Sosa doesn't?

Because even statistically his HoF case is rather borderline.

[Young Drachma]

Schilling will be an interesting vote - his playoff numbers are really good, and it wasn't just a couple of games, it was 19 starts, which included some really big, historically noteworthy games. And there's no steroid suspicion, which probably gives guys something of a bonus now. And 3,000+ Ks, reaching which has been a 100% lock until possibly Clemens and Schilling this year.

Markus told me that clutch doesn't exist and that's why OOTP doesn't have it and why star players are so shitty in the post-season. So I can't vote for Schilling since he doesn't exist.

[Maple Leafs]

He was widely regarded as the best pitcher of the 80s by many people? Im sure stats don't bear this out at all, but it explains why he might get into the HOF.
That, plus apparently for some voters Game 7 of the '91 World Series was worth 100 career wins.

[Blackadar]

First, on the roids thing. If you don't want to risk voting anyone in who may have done roaids, then you shouldn't vote for ANYONE in this era because you simply have no idea who was doing what. You don't know, can't know and shouldn't presume. So be consistent - vote for 'em all or none. Take your pick, but don't be a pussy trying to convict one guy while excusing your favorite player. Ken Caminitti said more than half were doing it and there's no reason to doubt him. Canseco may be an ass, but pretty much everything out of his mouth concerning roids has been proven true and his number was higher. So give up the crusade or vote for none, there can be no logical middle ground.

My votes are broken down as follows:

The No-Brainers:
Bonds
Clemens
Piazza

These guys have to be first ballot, no matter how much you like or dislike them. An all-time top 5 hitter, an all-time top 5 pitcher and the all-time best hitting catcher.

The Closer Inspections:
Biggio - 62 WAR + 3,000 hits gets you in the door.
Bagwell - 77 WAR should be automatic, but how did this guy only play in 4 All-Star games? Because he wasn't thought of as highly as his peers. But his peak was amazing and he passes the sniff test for me.
Schilling - Win totals put aside, this guy was a dominant pitcher of his era. A workhorse who has the best K/BB ratio of all time, he was no doubt a top starter. If he's iffy, then consider his postseason stats and he gets the nod.


Now that was my ballot for this year. Guys I'd entertain in the future - The Wait Until Next Years

Tim Raines - A great leadoff hitter with a 66 WAR. Perhaps the 2nd best base stealer in the modern era. Borderline, but he probably get my vote (but not in this class)...

Kenny Lofton - ...unlike Lofton, who probably doesn't.

Sosa - It's not the 'roids. It's the numbers. Good, but gaudy HR totals aren't all that impressive from that era (whether it be juiced players or balls or ballparks or all 3). He was a one-trick pony. It was a helluva trick, but one I'd like to contemplate a bit more on and see how his peers shake out. He probably gets a vote from me in the future...

McGwire - ...unlike Big Mac, whose injuries derailed him too much.

Larry Walker - I loved watching this guy play and he put up some great statistics. But a lot of that was due to the absurdity of Coors Field. His Away OPS is 200 points lower than his home one. He's a .278 hitter on the road and .348 at home. Probably not.


And who the fuck voted for Jeff Cirillo, Sandy (not Roberto) Alomar and Jose Mesa?

[lungs]

And who the fuck voted for Jeff Cirillo, Sandy (not Roberto) Alomar and Jose Mesa?

I don't actually believe Cirillo should get in. But I figured for the purposes of such a serious poll with far reaching implications, I'd throw one of my favorite Brewers of the 90's (slim pickings there) a bone.

[lighthousekeeper]

it's a wonder anyone ever gets elected to the HOF. 75% is a pretty tough threshold to meet. it will be interesting to watch this year if the pro-roiders and anti-roiders (plus the random cirillo fanboys) cancel each other out and 0 get selected.

[kcchief19]

Really? Jack Morris, who never one a Cy Young, ERA trophy, and only lead the league in stikeouts once in his career?
Morris is the romantic view of what a pitcher should be. He took the ball every fourth or fifth day for about 15 years, threw a lot of complete games, has the no-hitter and rings, was clutch for a couple of World Series champions and has a couple of marquee wins -- 1991 World Series and throwing a national televised no-hitter. And even though he won a championship with Detroit, for most of his career in D-town they were a pretty crummy team.

I get younger fans who don't get the Morris mystique because you had to watch Morris to understand his value.

That said, I'm surprised more stat heads don't jump on Morris because he illustrates the importance of a couple of key metrics. If Morris left the game after six innings like he was Pedro Martinez rather than throwing a 120 pitches every night, his stats would look a lot better.

[kcchief19]

We're a tough group. I'll bet almost to a tee that everyone will get a higher percentage from the real voters than us, except for perhaps some of the PED cases. I can't see Bonds and Clemens getting even 2/3 of the vote.

Three guys who should be in and it's a shame two of them are not: Biggio, Lee Smith and Raines. No one with more hits than Biggio, more saves that Smith or more stolen bases than Raines eligible for the Hall of Fame is not in. Again, based on today's metrics, Raines is arguably the greatest base stealer of all time. Not only does he have the fifth most steals, he also was successful about 85% of the time, which is absolutely ridiculous.

My cutoff guy is Fred McGriff. I really want to vote McGriff because I always liked him as a player and he was so freaking reliable. But he spent too much of his career post-'95, which means you have to assign a "juiced ball" era discount. I don't think McGriff juiced, but all offense post-strike is suspect to a certain percentage. If McGriff had just a few more of everything, it would be easy.

You could argue that the 1994 shutdown cost McGriff a spot in the Hall of Fame. 500 home runs (discounting PED users) is a guaranteed Hall slot. McGriff had 34 home runs and was arguable in his peak season. Give him those 48 games back, and I wonder if we feel differently about the Crime Dog.

[Atocep]

Sosa - It's not the 'roids. It's the numbers. Good, but gaudy HR totals aren't all that impressive from that era (whether it be juiced players or balls or ballparks or all 3). He was a one-trick pony. It was a helluva trick, but one I'd like to contemplate a bit more on and see how his peers shake out. He probably gets a vote from me in the future...


The numbers aren't anywhere close to what I think many would assume.

Sosa had an amazing peak, but the roughly 10 years he played prior to that peak he compiled a not-so-impressive .257/.308/.469. The peak was hall of fame worthy. The other two thirds of his career wasn't even close. He's a borderline candidate that would fall on the outside of the HoF for me and it has absolutely nothing to do with steroids.

[Atocep]

Edgar Martinez should be in the Hall. Bagwell, Piazza, Biggio, Raines, and Schilling would be get yes votes from me. Clemens, Bonds, and McGwire obviously should get in on stats, but with the PED questions I can see both sides of the argument and generally don't care strongly one way or the other if they get in or not.

[StLee]

It requires a 75% vote to get in, right? It looks like no one is going to make it in 2012 if FOFC is anywhere near the real results.

[Easy Mac]

it's a wonder anyone ever gets elected to the HOF. 75% is a pretty tough threshold to meet. it will be interesting to watch this year if the pro-roiders and anti-roiders (plus the random cirillo fanboys) cancel each other out and 0 get selected.

Morris is the romantic view of what a pitcher should be. He took the ball every fourth or fifth day for about 15 years, threw a lot of complete games, has the no-hitter and rings, was clutch for a couple of World Series champions and has a couple of marquee wins -- 1991 World Series and throwing a national televised no-hitter. And even though he won a championship with Detroit, for most of his career in D-town they were a pretty crummy team.

I get younger fans who don't get the Morris mystique because you had to watch Morris to understand his value.

That said, I'm surprised more stat heads don't jump on Morris because he illustrates the importance of a couple of key metrics. If Morris left the game after six innings like he was Pedro Martinez rather than throwing a 120 pitches every night, his stats would look a lot better.

His stats say he would actually look worse if he left after 6 innings.

Jack Morris Career Pitching Splits - Baseball-Reference.com (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/split.cgi?id=morrija02&year=Career&t=p)

[kcchief19]

His stats say he would actually look worse if he left after 6 innings.

Jack Morris Career Pitching Splits - Baseball-Reference.com (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/split.cgi?id=morrija02&year=Career&t=p)
My point (which was unclear) is that he pitched differently than current era pitchers. He had to assume every night he was pitching nine innings and throwing 120 pitches. Pedro Martinez came out throwing gas for 6 innings, Morris had to pace himself. Morris' numbers look worse compared to current era pitchers largely due to the way he was handled. But it was a different era. He was arguable one of the 3 pitchers of his era.

Frankly, his splits make him even more HOF worthy. The guy was his best in late innings.

And this is coming from a guy who largely hated Morris during his career.

[lighthousekeeper]

It requires a 75% vote to get in, right? It looks like no one is going to make it in 2012 if FOFC is anywhere near the real results.

In fairness, I don't think the BBWAA will have people like Samifan who only trout-vote for Jose Mesa, or people who only homer-vote for Jeff Cirillo.

...but who knows, that probably does happen in the BBWAA vote.

[Maple Leafs]

In fairness, I don't think the BBWAA will have people like Samifan who only trout-vote for Jose Mesa, or people who only homer-vote for Jeff Cirillo.
No, they have people like Mariotti who can't be bothered to put that much thought into it.

[DanGarion]

His stats say he would actually look worse if he left after 6 innings.

Jack Morris Career Pitching Splits - Baseball-Reference.com (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/split.cgi?id=morrija02&year=Career&t=p)

Maybe he meant 3 innings...

[DanGarion]

Here are the accumalative pitching stats for years 1980-1989 in the MLB. Sorted by WAR.

I think my biggest issue with Morris' stats is that accumulative they are really good if not great, but if you just look at year to year they aren't very impressive, there are only three above 4. His best WAR seasons only rank as the 91st and 92nd best in the 10 year stretch (1987, 1986, both 4.8 WAR).

<iframe src="http://www.baseball-reference.com/play-index/share.cgi?id=xEd6i&output=iframe" width=1454 height=782 scrolling=auto>
Report Created on <a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/">Baseball-Reference.com</a>
</iframe>

[stevew]

If it's truly the Hall of "Fame", someone like Jose Mesa will be remembered way longer than a vanilla guy like Biggio.

[molson]

If it's truly the Hall of "Fame", someone like Jose Mesa will be remembered way longer than a vanilla guy like Biggio.

There is a written criteria, and you can read fame in as being part of it, but not the whole thing

"Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played."

The first and last clause provide a lot of flexibility, but I think they can certainly be read to give consideration to guy who helped his team win big games and World Series', as opposed to just finishing 5th place instead of 7th place.

[lungs]

or people who only homer-vote for Jeff Cirillo.


I voted for 9 other guys. Not just Cirillo.

[Chief Rum]

I only put in Royce Clayton.

[Logan]

According To Exit Polls, Nobody Will Make The Baseball Hall Of Fame (http://deadspin.com/5972781)

[sterlingice]

Biggio is kindof a joke for not getting in. Piazza should also be in but I suspect the steroid cloud has tainted him, tho he was never really accused. Bagwell with surprisingly high numbers. Maybe he and Biggio make it in next year together: that would be pretty cool.

SI

[Atocep]

According To Exit Polls, Nobody Will Make The Baseball Hall Of Fame (http://deadspin.com/5972781)

The most entertaining part of this is Murray Chass' ballot. Jack Morris and only Jack Morris.

He also said that this is his last year voting unless Morris doesn't get in. If that's the case he'll vote for Jack Morris and only Jack Morris again next year and be done with HoF voting.

[Blackadar]

The most entertaining part of this is Murray Chass' ballot. Jack Morris and only Jack Morris.

He also said that this is his last year voting unless Morris doesn't get in. If that's the case he'll vote for Jack Morris and only Jack Morris again next year and be done with HoF voting.

Voters like this are why the voting is a joke.

[Subby]

Another great case for Schilling over Morris:

Curt Schilling is a Hall of Famer
By Dan Szymborski
Baseball Think Factory

In the past 15 years, a starting pitcher being elected into the Hall of Fame has become an increasingly rare sight. With the steroid cloud hanging over Roger Clemens, the pitcher most likely to be inducted into the Hall of Fame this summer appears to be Jack Morris.

The candidacy of Morris, who has dangled on the precipice of induction in recent years, comes with a strong case: durable pitcher for a long time, ace of his pitching staff, good win-loss record, postseason legend, thought highly of by contemporaries. Only problem is, that's not actually the case for Jack Morris, but for another prominent pitcher on this year's ballot, Curt Schilling.

Running down the Jack Morris case, Curt Schilling's better at being the mythical Jack Morris than the actual Jack Morris ever was. And if any non-Clemens pitcher should get in this year, it's Schilling. Check out this point-by-point breakdown.

Jack Morris, staff ace

Yes, Jack Morris started a lot of Opening Day games (14) over the course of his career. During his run with the Tigers, there just wasn't a whole lot of star power in the rotation, so it's unsurprising that Morris would receive a lot of the Opening Day starts. Pitchers like Dan Petry, Walt Terrell, and a Frank Tanana in the junkballing stage of his career all had their moments, but Morris was generally the most dependable member of the rotation.

But it sounds more impressive than it is. Think about the aces in baseball right now and most people will come up with a similar list of names, including some combination of Justin Verlander, Clayton Kershaw, Felix Hernandez and so on. I'd be willing to bet that almost nobody, when narrowing down the best pitchers in baseball to name the best, considers -- or even knows -- how many Opening Day starts each of the best pitchers in baseball have made. Because it's a crazy method of evaluation that's rarely been used, outside of making Morris look like a credible Hall of Fame candidate.

A better definition of an ace pitcher, a non-controversial one widely used whether you're a stathead or have old-school tendencies, is a durable starting pitcher who keeps the other team from scoring. After all, that's the primary contribution of a pitcher to teams winning baseball games.

Here, Morris fares poorly and Schilling fares extremely well. In the parks and leagues Morris played in over his career, a 4.10 ERA would have been a league-average pitcher. Morris' 3.90 ERA leaves him with an ERA+ of 105. That's a good pitcher, but not a great one. Schilling, on the other hand, had a 3.46 ERA in an era with more offense, when a 4.39 ERA was league average, resulting in an ERA+ of 127. The 563 extra innings Morris threw don't make up the difference, as Schilling would have to throw 563 innings of an 8.36 ERA to come down to Morris' career ERA+. Would anyone suggest pitching like that would enhance his ace status?

Jack Morris, proven winner

As the argument goes, Jack Morris was able to pitch to the score, enabling him to win more games for the Tigers than you would expect from his ERA.

When the record is actually looked at, there's no such evidence that Morris successfully pitched to the score. While he may have attempted to do so, the facts tell a different story. Based on the offenses of his teams and his runs allowed, you would expect to see 251 wins. Instead, he won 254, an extra win that came around less often than presidential elections. In tie games during his career, Morris allowed a .692 OPS, compared to his .693 OPS allowed overall. Morris did win more games than you would expect from his ERA in itself, but that was as a result of the offense. If you want to reward the Tigers' offense, it would make more sense to honor Alan Trammell and Lou Whitaker, two players who should've been in the Hall a long time ago.

At 254-186, Morris' .577 career winning percentage ranks 192nd all time. Schilling had fewer wins (216), but also fewer losses (146) and would have go a little below .500 for roughly two more seasons (38-40) to catch Morris in wins and losses.

Jack Morris, postseason legend

Morris, without a doubt, threw one of the most thrilling postseason games of my lifetime, his legendary Game 7 duel against John Smoltz in the 1991 World Series. The problem for Morris' postseason résumé is that taken as a whole, the rest of his playoff performances were considerably less impressive. In 13 career playoff starts, Morris' 3.80 ERA in 92⅓ innings isn't the stuff of legend. He allowed more than two runs in about half his playoff starts (six) and while he should get credit for that Game 7, you can't ignore the other 82⅓ innings of a 4.26 ERA.

Schilling's record, on the other hand, is one of the best in baseball history. An 11-2, 2.23 line in 19 starts is nearly unmatched in postseason history -- only Mariano Rivera has a higher WPA (win probability added) among pitchers. Schilling allowed two or fewer runs in 15 of 18 playoff starts and, as narrative goes, the Bloody Sock game is a ripping good yarn in its own right.

Jack Morris "felt" like a great

One of the common arguments made for Jack Morris is that everybody at the time knew they were looking at a great pitcher, and 25 years later we can't properly understand Morris' contributions. Accepting for the sake of argument that we should look at memories of actual performance over, well, actual performance, there are plenty of objective ways to see what contemporaries thought. Every offseason, the writers at the time, those who supposedly saw his greatness, had the opportunity to vote for the best pitchers that they saw in the previous year. And those writers who allegedly knew him best, generally ranked other pitchers above Morris.

Over his career, tallying up Cy Young votes, Morris accumulated .73 award shares, ranking 76th in the Cy Young era and putting him just ahead of Dontrelle Willis (.70) and Mike Hampton (.68) and well behind contemporaries who never won a Cy Young, such as Dave Stewart (1.22, 43rd) and Jimmy Key (1.25, 41st). Morris never finished higher than third in the Cy Young vote (he did it twice), and while he started three All-Star Games, a total of five All-Star appearances is a weak number for a player whose Hall of Fame case relies on reputation.

Schilling made only six All-Star appearances, but when the contemporaries who saw Schilling pitch were asked to name the greatest pitchers every October, Schilling's name came up a lot more often. He never won the Cy Young award outright, but finished second on three occasions and his 1.85 award shares rank him 18th overall.

The freak stat

In the end, practically every argument for Jack Morris will mention that he had the most pitching wins in a conveniently named decade (the 1980s). This sounds sexier than it actually is, and while it's a testament to his durability, it's also a testament to the coincidence that the best part of Morris' career conveniently fit between a year ending in zero and a year ending in nine. Once you actually look at winningest pitchers over decades that aren't tidily described, pitchers like Paul Derringer and Bucky Walters start to trickle in, making the stat less exciting.

Schilling's freak stat doesn't need any parlor tricks. Since walks became the statistic we know today in 1889, Schilling has the best strikeout-to-walk ratio ever. No contrived qualifications needed. Ever.

Jack Morris played a role in baseball history, but it was a supporting one. Induction into the Hall should represent true greatness. If 2013 ends and Curt Schilling didn't give a speech in a certain small town in upstate New York, it will have been the voting that fell short, not his qualifications.

Dan Szymborski covers baseball for ESPN Insider. He has written about the sport since 2001 for the Baseball Think Factory, where he is an editor. He is also the developer of the ZiPS projection system. You can find his ESPN archives here and follow him on Twitter here.

[Lathum]

Todays the day we get no one in, what a joke.

all these old farts who vote need to be replaced. Anyone who won't put someone on the first ballot out of principale needs to go, what a dumb criteria.

I was listening to Buster Olney today and he said Piazza isn't because some writters feel he took PEDs despite never being linked in any way. If this is where we are at just say no one who played from 1990-2010 can get in and be done with it. Total joke.

[Bad-example]

I would have voted for Bonds, Clemens, Martinez, Piazza, Trammell, Biggio, Bagwell and Raines.

Jack Morris is a shoe in for me.


What kind of shoe?

[spleen1015]

No one gets in this year.

[lungs]

Jeff Cirillo got zero votes? Bullshit is what that is.

[Buccaneer]

Woo hoo, so happy no one is going in. Perhaps they can start removing those that were undeserving?

[Logan]

Woo hoo, so happy no one is going in. Perhaps they can start removing those that were undeserving?

Hopefully you mean the voters.

[JediKooter]

I hope Kurt Bevacqua is still eligible next year.

[Lathum]

Woo hoo, so happy no one is going in. Perhaps they can start removing those that were undeserving?

What is your criteria for "undeserving"

[JonInMiddleGA]

My FB friends already know my feelings on this ...

That the outcry is over the absence of Bonds & Clemens rather than the less than 20% showing for Dale Murphy says much about the sorry state of baseball, the media and the country as far as I'm concerned. The criteria is that "voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played." ... Murf should have gotten in 15 years ago.

[Young Drachma]

Looking forward to a flood of self-righteous articles from @officialBBWAA members trying to convince us they were right. Hint: You weren't.

[lighthousekeeper]

My FB friends already know my feelings on this ...

That the outcry is over the absence of Bonds & Clemens rather than the less than 20% showing for Dale Murphy says much about the sorry state of baseball, the media and the country as far as I'm concerned. The criteria is that "voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played." ... Murf should have gotten in 15 years ago.

Homer:

A. you're 1
B. murph was 102 short

[Lathum]

When the people who vote for these things start leaving players off because they "think" they are tied to PEDs despite never being investigated, accused, showing up on the Mitchell report, etc...that is when there is a real problem.

The idiot reports should not get to play judge and jury regarding someones involvement in PEDs

[molson]

I don't mind the public 'roids guys not getting in, that was the players' choice to fight that battle forever and leave the mess to the writers. I don't know how much it hurt the non-public roids' guys, or if this is more just a case of a lot of potential candidates and writers generally not willing to vote for more than a couple guys, and thus a lot of vote splitting.

[Logan]

I read on another forum that there were at least a few writers who only voted for Jack Morris. Doesn't that tell you the system is completely fucked?

[JonInMiddleGA]

When the people who vote for these things start leaving players off because they "think" they are tied to PEDs despite never being investigated, accused, showing up on the Mitchell report, etc...that is when there is a real problem.

The idiot reports should not get to play judge and jury regarding someones involvement in PEDs

Is there someone associated with them that you're actually convinced is innocent? Surely not Bonds and/or Clemens. I'll assume you aren't talking about McGwire and/or Palmeiro.

That leaves a couple of obvious candidates I guess: Piazza & Bagwell.
Nate Silver has quantified that possibility (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/08/suspicion-of-steroid-use-could-keep-bagwell-and-piazza-out-of-hall/)based on the ballots that were made public. This chart illustrates the conclusion

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2013/01/08/us/politics/fivethirtyeight-0108-hof1/fivethirtyeight-0108-hof1-blog480.png

But to be honest, I can understand the doubts that (seem to) exist for a fair number of voters. Both guys are right on the edge in my mind (indeed my own vote here had one in, one out). I'm not nearly as upset by their absence as I would be the inclusion of several of the others.

[bhlloy]

Somewhere along the line I have convinced myself that Craig Biggio was far better than he actually was. I was all prepared to have a rant about him being left off but then I look at his stats and achievements and I actually agree he's not a first ballot guy. What do you know

[Buccaneer]

No, the undeserving are all those marginal players that shouldn't be in the hall, esp. those voted by the cronies of the vet committee in the 60s and 70s. Some marginal players recently too because once you admit those players, then that opens up the floodgates for hundreds of other players just like them. Only the best, not the very good and not the roofers.

[TRO]

Somewhere along the line I have convinced myself that Craig Biggio was far better than he actually was. I was all prepared to have a rant about him being left off but then I look at his stats and achievements and I actually agree he's not a first ballot guy. What do you know

Why does "first ballot" matter? He either is or isn't a hall of famer.

[bhlloy]

Why does "first ballot" matter? He either is or isn't a hall of famer.

It matters to the voters which means it matters quite a bit

[lungs]

My FB friends already know my feelings on this ...

That the outcry is over the absence of Bonds & Clemens rather than the less than 20% showing for Dale Murphy says much about the sorry state of baseball, the media and the country as far as I'm concerned. The criteria is that "voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played." ... Murf should have gotten in 15 years ago.

Is the Dale Murphy argument one of those "you had to be there to understand" arguments? My first year of baseball awareness was 1988, the year he kind of fell off a cliff. It's hard for me to say that a guy that wasn't anything special or downright terrible after age 31 is Hall of Fame worthy.

Of course I have a sneaking suspicion that Dale Murphy is the epitome of what you consider to be the glory days of your baseball memories?

[Alan T]

Dale Murphy when you watched him in the mid 1980s you knew that you were watching one of the best players in the game, period. He had great character both on and off the field and there really was not much that could be said bad about him. He had good speed, good glove and a good bat. Despite being on one of the worst teams in baseball he still received national notice for his high calibre of play.

What he has against him is his career tailed off right when the lively ball era picked up in the late 1980s. He never played for a real winning team other than a few years when joe torre managed the braves and the biggest issue is the depressed stats for that era of players. None of the best players of that era really had outstanding stats such as Murphy, Dawson, bell, etc unless they played a very long career.

So maybe it was a case of you had to be there, but in the mid 1980s there was no question of if Murphy would make the hall, just when would he.

[rowech]

Is the Dale Murphy argument one of those "you had to be there to understand" arguments? My first year of baseball awareness was 1988, the year he kind of fell off a cliff. It's hard for me to say that a guy that wasn't anything special or downright terrible after age 31 is Hall of Fame worthy.

Of course I have a sneaking suspicion that Dale Murphy is the epitome of what you consider to be the glory days of your baseball memories?

Heard something interesting. In 1999, Murphy had 19% in his second year, Blyleven had only 14% in his first year. In 2000, Jack Morris had his first year and had 22%. Murphy had 23% and Blyleven had 17%.

Which one got in and which ones aren't going to?

[frnk55]

Murph was my favorite player back in the 80's next to Kirby. Great career but imo I don't think he should be in the Hall.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Is the Dale Murphy argument one of those "you had to be there to understand" arguments?

I think Alan T's comment about how at the time it wasn't a question of if but simply just a matter of when kinda describes it as well as anything.

Of course I have a sneaking suspicion that Dale Murphy is the epitome of what you consider to be the glory days of your baseball memories?

Eh, although it's a fair question IMO, that'd probably be a stretch in my case. If you absolutely pinned me down to a specific timeframe for the absolute height of my baseball memories/fandom it would likely be the Garvey-Lopes-Russell-Cey era in Los Angeles, so more like 74-80 (ages 7-13 for me). Murphy was only a 3rd year starter in '80 and was still a couple of years away from his first MVP season.

[Glengoyne]

...

So maybe it was a case of you had to be there, but in the mid 1980s there was no question of if Murphy would make the hall, just when would he.

I felt the same way about Will Clark during that era.

[tarcone]

Stupid. There are plenty of HOFers in this group. I always think of a layer that is dominant for at least 5 years straight. Maybe thats not a great criteria. But if a player can dominate his contemporaries for, at least, half a decade (Sandy Koufax, anyone?) then thats a hall of famer. OR a player that excelled at his postition as compared to HOFers.
Either one works for me.

[rowech]

Stupid. There are plenty of HOFers in this group. I always think of a layer that is dominant for at least 5 years straight. Maybe thats not a great criteria. But if a player can dominate his contemporaries for, at least, half a decade (Sandy Koufax, anyone?) then thats a hall of famer. OR a player that excelled at his postition as compared to HOFers.
Either one works for me.

Five years isn't very long enough by any means. Strawberry, Gooden, Eric Davis and some others would be in.

If you're doing time, I think you need an 8-10 year period of greatness. That takes most guys from youth through their prime and into the swoon or gives a late bloomer through the end of their time. Or, you need 15 years of being really good.

I also think guys should face a quick test and that is what's your first reaction? Most guys would be a clear case one way or another.

[oykib]

If they don't want to put in any PED guys, I guess that's okay (actually , it's pretty stupid). But, if that's the case, I don't want to see any executives, league officials or journalists from that era go in either. They were all complicit in the steroid/HGH thing.

[Atocep]

I read on another forum that there were at least a few writers who only voted for Jack Morris. Doesn't that tell you the system is completely fucked?

All those people did was make it harder for Morris to get in. With no one getting in this year and Maddux, Glavine, Frank Thomas, Mike Mussina on the ballot next year it's going to be an incredibly stacked ballot.

[rowech]

If they don't want to put in any PED guys, I guess that's okay (actually , it's pretty stupid). But, if that's the case, I don't want to see any executives, league officials or journalists from that era go in either. They were all complicit in the steroid/HGH thing.

I wrote something similar to this on another board. The press sure is suddenly all about their morality, etc. but while this was going on, where was the journalism? The hard reporting? Making sure the story gets out? Now they suddenly care.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

What should the MLB Hall of Fame be? - ESPN (http://espn.go.com/mlb/hof13/story/_/id/8826383/what-mlb-hall-fame-be)

[AENeuman]

I am with the many in this country who are dismayed how little our All Star voting figured into this...

[JonInMiddleGA]

Anybody else notice that the writers are getting all this heat & yet the informal voting here also failed to produce a candidate over 68% either?

The writers had 5 players over 50%, FOFC had 5 players over 50%, agreeing on three of those. (They had Morris & Bagwell, we had Bonds & Clemens).

Even with what is pretty clearly (based on the percentages) a very lenient group here, nobody even cracked 70% ... so how far off are the writers really?

[Buccaneer]

I am with the many in this country who are dismayed how little our All Star voting figured into this...

Not sure if serious?

[oykib]

Anybody else notice that the writers are getting all this heat & yet the informal voting here also failed to produce a candidate over 68% either?

The writers had 5 players over 50%, FOFC had 5 players over 50%, agreeing on three of those. (They had Morris & Bagwell, we had Bonds & Clemens).

Even with what is pretty clearly (based on the percentages) a very lenient group here, nobody even cracked 70% ... so how far off are the writers really?

The difference is that the writers are the ones that created the logjam. Let's go back and revise the list based on guys who should be in the Hall already. For example, give us last year's list and I'm pretty sure Bagwell and Raines are off it already.

[JonInMiddleGA]

The difference is that the writers are the ones that created the logjam. Let's go back and revise the list based on guys who should be in the Hall already. For example, give us last year's list and I'm pretty sure Bagwell and Raines are off it already.

Here's last year's actual voting, I honestly don't think it changes the outcome here one bit this year. Might have been worth a few percentage points but not enough to push anyone over 75%.

We had 435 votes cast here this time by 70 voters, averaging just over 6 per person. That's not an indication that too many people were wishing they had room to vote for more guys (I myself voted for 5, certainly no statistical outlier)
2012 Hall of Fame Voting - Baseball-Reference.com (http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/hof_2012.shtml)

[Big Fo]

I failed to notice the rules and actually voted for 13 this year. Still better than someone who votes for Jack Morris and Jack Morris only imo.

[AENeuman]

Not sure if serious?

Taking the high road is pretty easy after the low road is washed out/up.

[molson]

What should the MLB Hall of Fame be? - ESPN (http://espn.go.com/mlb/hof13/story/_/id/8826383/what-mlb-hall-fame-be)

It's so difficult to write about the HOF and criteria because the arguments tend to just be circular, "you can't have a HOF without X!"

In that article, he goes with:

"Do we really want to look up, 10 or 20 years from now, and find we've constructed a Hall of Fame that doesn't include:

(Lists a bunch of known steroid freaks, Mike Piazza, and for good measure, Pete Rose)"

What does that even mean? Will my life not be complete if I "look up" 20 years form now and see that Barry Bonds isn't in the HOF? Somehow, I think I'll manage. I'll say, "ya, he's not in the HOF because he cheated and pissed everyone off, it was a dark decade for baseball that isn't remembered well, most of those guys didn't end up getting in". Makes sense to me. Do we really need a "long, serious national conversation" about this (actual quote). It's an honor voted on by humans who have various critera and those guys didn't fit the bill. Maybe some of them will get in later. I have trouble understanding the idea that some people just HAVE to have this particular honor or its some kind of disaster. Bonds took a ton of drugs, it became known, he was very unpopular (for that and because of his personality), so he doesn't get honored. Fantastic. They don't get the votes, they don't get the votes. There's no one particular inherent correctness of voting that people have to comply with for the stars to align and for the world to make sense. The guys who vote don't want to honor them. It's their little club. Maybe some other group can invite Barry and Roger to a big banquette and they can give them a shiny plaque. That private club can have different opinions than this private club. It's all good.

Edit: And Stark and a lot of people also have severe butt-hurt about the idea that we can't know with 100% certainty who's a cheater and who isn't, so therefore we shouldn't punish anyone. Interesting theory, but I hope we never try it in real life. Do you know how many unpunished criminals are walking around? How many unknown cheaters there are competing in every sport today? How many teams and organizations play fast and loose with salary cap or recruiting rules without being detected? Life doesn't have a lot of "100%s". You sure as heck aren't going to pull that off in a Human-voting HOF. You just have to give up the idea. You're not going to have 500 voters who think exactly the same about everything. And that's not a terrible thing.

[LloydLungs]

Selfishly I was hoping Biggio would get in -- I've only been to 20 or so MLB games, but I was in attendance for his major league debut. What are the odds of seeing a Hall-of-Famer's debut with so few chances?

And sorry Aaron Sele, even though you somehow got an actual vote from an actual voter, I'm still going to confuse you with Jason Bere in perpetuity.

[larrymcg421]

If I made a Venn diagram of things molson, Jon, and I all agree on, this thread would probably constitute the entirety of the very narrow overlapping section.

[sterlingice]

Selfishly I was hoping Biggio would get in -- I've only been to 20 or so MLB games, but I was in attendance for his major league debut. What are the odds of seeing a Hall-of-Famer's debut with so few chances?

I'm sure he'll be in and it will probably be next year. I'd really like to have seen him go in with Bagwell this year so they could have an "all-Houston" Hall of Fame before some of the bigger guns of the next few years start going in.

SI

[CrimsonFox]

surprising Morris didn't get in. I've always thought the writers were way too pretentious about this thing.

And are really way too hard on pitchers.

[Arles]

There needs to be consistency here - either we are ok with performance enhancing drugs/methods that were not banned or we are not. To sit there and judge that Bonds got a bigger advantage using steroids than players in the 60s that used greenies/red juice or Gaylord Perry scuffing the ball to resemble a Frisbee is purely subjective. IMO, improving your hand eye coordination or concentration (what red juice supposedly did) is as much as a performance enhancer as using HGH to recover quicker from an injury or steroids to bulk up. Ozzie Canseco was 250 pounds and juiced like crazy and never hit over .200. Who's to say Willie Mays or Hank Aaron stay as healthy and consistent as they did without the help of greenies or red juice? Same goes for Mantle.

What if 10 years from now some questionable supplement (ie, Creatine) that is currently allowed ends up being outlawed for being performance enhancing? Then, it turns out that there is evidence that both Derek Jeter and Albert Pujols used creatine in the early 2000s. Should they then be banned from the Hall because they used something that is now deemed performance enhancing (but wasn't banned when they played)?

[molson]

There needs to be consistency here - either we are ok with performance enhancing drugs/methods that were not banned or we are not. To sit there and judge that Bonds got a bigger advantage using steroids than players in the 60s that used greenies/red juice or Gaylord Perry scuffing the ball to resemble a Frisbee is purely subjective. IMO, improving your hand eye coordination or concentration (what red juice supposedly did) is as much as a performance enhancer as using HGH to recover quicker from an injury or steroids to bulk up. Ozzie Canseco was 250 pounds and juiced like crazy and never hit over .200. Who's to say Willie Mays or Hank Aaron stay as healthy and consistent as they did without the help of greenies or red juice? Same goes for Mantle.

What if 10 years from now some questionable supplement (ie, Creatine) that is currently allowed ends up being outlawed for being performance enhancing? Then, it turns out that there is evidence that both Derek Jeter and Albert Pujols used creatine in the early 2000s. Should they then be banned from the Hall because they used something that is now deemed performance enhancing (but wasn't banned when they played)?

Isn't that all up to the voters to sort out? If it's so important that they all have the same opinion on that stuff, how to we decide what opinion they should have? Supervoters?

[Arles]

I think there needs to be a decision on whether the Hall of Fame is a living history of baseball (in which case the steroid guys are eligible - maybe with some kind of "Steroid Era wing" to ensure people know the issue) or whether it is some kind of exclusive country club with rules (at which point maybe guys like Ty Cobb, Gaylord Perry, Phil Nekro and others get kicked out to be consistent with the cheating/conduct rules of this club).

[JonInMiddleGA]

I think there needs to be a decision on whether the Hall of Fame is a living history of baseball (in which case the steroid guys are eligible - maybe with some kind of "Steroid Era wing" to ensure people know the issue) or whether it is some kind of exclusive country club with rules (at which point maybe guys like Ty Cobb, Gaylord Perry, Phil Nekro and others get kicked out to be consistent with the cheating/conduct rules of this club).

Or perhaps the Hall simply evolves naturally, as the values & priorities change from one generation of voters to the next.

Not to your point specifically but while I'm posting anyway ... this situation reminds me somewhat of the hooha over college football. It seems that there's once again discomfort about the notion of anything being remotely abstract or subjected to any sort of judgement or discernment.

[molson]

Well it is a big museum of the history of baseball too and it's not like all mentions of Pete Rose and Barry Bonds are banned, they're part of history, they're in there. And if the museum downplays them to any degree or downplays or ignores steroids (I don't know if they mention steroids anywhere, it's been a while since I've been there), there's no literal correlation between that and the voting. Who they decide to have a little party for every summer is kind of a separate deal, you don't have to be selected for that to be a part of exhibits in he museum. If it was like every regional hall of fame they'd make selections about who to honor at that party based on who the big donators are, or what celebrity they think might draw a crowd that weekend. Instead they turn that part over, and let a large number of diverse writers decide who they're going to honor. I guess they could decide to do it in any number of ways - they could have a statistical cutoff to ensure consistency, they could have a small panel do it like the NFL, they could keep the voters but give them a more specific criteria. I can see them being resistant to changing the rules now. And I can see the appeal of leaving the decision to some varied group instead of facing criticism themselves every year. Sure, the views of the writers are going vary over the decades and they might not always match up with the general public, but any option they choose for selection is going to have pros and cons.

[oykib]

I'm sick of these idiot writers. It's about time for the Hall to redesign the voting process. You know how many times I've heard some writer say that he needed another year to think about a guy. You've had FIVE F*CKING YEARS at least to evaluate all of them! Come to a conclusion or give up your vote.

Bill Madden was just on the radio. Francesca was asking him about Piazza. Madden gave that idiot "I need another year" answer. He was asked directly whether it was because of possible PED concerns. He basically dodged the question.

PEDs are the only possible reason that anyone could think that Piazza wasn't Hall worthy. So now these guys have to prove a negative? There's no hard evidence of use by either Piazza or Bagwell. So what are these guys supposed to do to prove they were clean?

[Atocep]

I'm sick of these idiot writers. It's about time for the Hall to redesign the voting process. You know how many times I've heard some writer say that he needed another year to think about a guy. You've had FIVE F*CKING YEARS at least to evaluate all of them! Come to a conclusion or give up your vote.

Bill Madden was just on the radio. Francesca was asking him about Piazza. Madden gave that idiot "I need another year" answer. He was asked directly whether it was because of possible PED concerns. He basically dodged the question.

PEDs are the only possible reason that anyone could think that Piazza wasn't Hall worthy. So now these guys have to prove a negative? There's no hard evidence of use by either Piazza or Bagwell. So what are these guys supposed to do to prove they were clean?


Murray Chass said he didn't vote for Piazza because someone told him he had bacne with the Mets.

I wish I was kidding...

[sterlingice]

"Well, he's the best hitting catcher in the history of the game and it's not even close. But I'll have to think about it"

SI

[gstelmack]

Yeah, with no limits on the number of guys who get in, I don't understand the whole "keep voting on a guy for a certain number of years" rule. Either he gets in or he doesn't, I don't see how his candidacy changes over time.

It's easier to understand in the NFL with a cap on how many get in each year.

[Arles]

Good article on all this by Jayson Stark:

What should the MLB Hall of Fame be? - ESPN (http://espn.go.com/mlb/hof13/story/_/id/8826383/what-mlb-hall-fame-be)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Yeah, with no limits on the number of guys who get in, I don't understand the whole "keep voting on a guy for a certain number of years" rule. Either he gets in or he doesn't, I don't see how his candidacy changes over time.

Just guessing here but ... wouldn't that probably be related to the limited number of players you can vote for in a single year?

I mean, that seems like the probable basis for it as it stands now (without regard to whatever hypothetical changes could be made).

[spleen1015]

Good article on all this by Jayson Stark:

What should the MLB Hall of Fame be? - ESPN (http://espn.go.com/mlb/hof13/story/_/id/8826383/what-mlb-hall-fame-be)

I think I have changed my stance on these guys. Let them in. What they did wasn't against the rules of the game at the time it was done and no one wanted to do anything about it for a very long time.

[Scoobz0202]

Lee Smith had more votes than Curt Schilling, Barry Bonds, and Roger Clemens. What

edit: Also, disappointed to see Kenny Lofton not receive 5%. I know he played in the power era and is no first year guy, but I would think he deserves to stay on. Am I wrong?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Lee Smith had more votes than Curt Schilling, Barry Bonds, and Roger Clemens. What

Held the career record for saves for 12 years, I see no issue with him getting in at all.

Schilling meanwhile called the HOF shutout this year "fitting" (http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Sports/2013/01/09/Curt-Schilling-Hall-of-Fame)and believes that first-time induction should be limited to "special players"


And Bonds & Clemens deserve zero votes ever afaic.

edit to add: re: Lofton ... yeah, I don't see him as a HOF'er at all. I think you're off base on this one.

[oykib]

Held the career record for saves for 12 years, I see no issue with him getting in at all.

Schilling meanwhile called the HOF shutout this year "fitting" (http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Sports/2013/01/09/Curt-Schilling-Hall-of-Fame)and believes that first-time induction should be limited to "special players"


And Bonds & Clemens deserve zero votes ever afaic.

edit to add: re: Lofton ... yeah, I don't see him as a HOF'er at all. I think you're off base on this one.

Lee Smith and the saves record is just a function of timing. If you set the record and it's broken by five guys in the next decade or so, you're just the first of a new generation.

Lofton's a victim of being a speed guy. The Hall has a bias against speed vs. power, especially in the outfield. I don't know that he's a Hall of Famer. But he had a better career than Jim Rice or Andre Dawson.

[Buccaneer]

Hgh testing in-season is 15 years too late. If it was in place back then, then we wouldn't have the current controversies as much. Now those deservedly pay the consequences of their stupid actions and don't give me 'the fans wanted see such freaks', I didn't esp. with the mockery they made on the season hr records.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Lee Smith and the saves record is just a function of timing. If you set the record and it's broken by five guys in the next decade or so, you're just the first of a new generation.

Except he's still 3rd all-time in the category. And the highest active guy not already ahead of him (Rivera & Hoffman) is 129 behind him and 37 years old.

I don't know that he's a Hall of Famer. But he had a better career than Jim Rice or Andre Dawson.

I wouldn't put him anywhere particularly near the caliber of either guy you named.

Lofton - 6 AS, 1x top 5 MVP voting, 4 GG
Rice - 8 AS, 6x top 5 MVP voting
Dawson - 8 AS, 3x top 5 MVP voting, 8 GG

He's a "Hall of Good" candidate if I ever saw one

[stevew]

I suspect Palmerio will fall off next year.

Murph-lets say that 81 wasn't strike shortened and he finds his swing at some point. He easily tops 400 homers and maye bows out gracefully at age 35. He has an 8 year prime vs a 6 year one. Anyways "what if"

I have 0 issue with Lee Smith getting in eventually.

[oykib]

Except he's still 3rd all-time in the category. And the highest active guy not already ahead of him (Rivera & Hoffman) is 129 behind him and 37 years old.



I wouldn't put him anywhere particularly near the caliber of either guy you named.

Lofton - 6 AS, 1x top 5 MVP voting, 4 GG
Rice - 8 AS, 6x top 5 MVP voting
Dawson - 8 AS, 3x top 5 MVP voting, 8 GG

He's a "Hall of Good" candidate if I ever saw one

Dawson was terribly unproductive in terms of runs produced: outs. Rice had a short peak and is a beneficiary of revisionist history. He wasn't a good defensive player and his career wasn't long enough.

Dawson got some Gold Gloves he didn't deserve after his knees were gone (He won in 1987 and 1988, for instance). Lofton really was that good a defender.

Lee Smith lasted a long time and was one of the first guys to start his career in the modern closer era. I don't see where he's significantly better than John Franco. I don't think anyone argued particularly hard for Franco's candidacy.

[Buccaneer]

Dawson and Rice were two terrible inductees in recent memory, plus one other I can't think of. Next year will have some elite players going in, like Maddux.

[Scoobz0202]

Is Frank Thomas on the ballot next year?

[Atocep]

Is Frank Thomas on the ballot next year?

2013: Thomas, Maddux, Glavine, Mussina
2014: Randy Johnson, Sheffield, Pedro Martinez, Smoltz
2015: Griffey Jr, Jim Edmonds

[Scoobz0202]

Nice. I have a feeling Mussina will get less respect than he deserves with who will be on the ballots.

[Buccaneer]

2013: Thomas, Maddux, Glavine, Mussina
2014: Randy Johnson, Sheffield, Pedro Martinez, Smoltz
2015: Griffey Jr, Jim Edmonds

My votes (as a Small Hall advocate):
Thomas - probably
Maddux - definitely
Glavine - not sure yet
Mussina - no
Johnson - yes
Sheffield - no
Pedro - no (too short, same as why I wouldn't have Koufax in)
Smoltz - probably not
Griffey - yes
Edmonds - no way

[Crapshoot]

Summary of the result: Self-righteous middle aged farts searching desperately for relevance.

Also, any HOF without the great peak value pitcher of all time (Pedro Martinez) is a joke.

[stevew]

Thomas, Maddux, Glavine, Griffey, Smoltz, Johnson, Pedro-All in
Mussina, Sheffield-Not going to complain if they make it.

Sheffield has a zero personality so he will take 12-15 years to make it (if ever)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Sheffield has a zero personality so he will take 12-15 years to make it (if ever)

I think "zero" might be overly generous.

[Atocep]

I think people seriously underrated just how good Jim Edmonds was.

[molson]

Pedro's prime was pretty short but it wasn't like he was out of the game at 30 like Koufax. He was around long enough to cumulative stats, 3,154 Ks, 219 Ws. Though, Schilling had nearly identical career totals and he didn't get as close as I thought he would.

[stevew]

I probably mistakenly think of Jim Edmonds as a slightly better Steve Finley (or Bernie Williams)

[Atocep]

I probably mistakenly think of Jim Edmonds as a slightly better Steve Finley (or Bernie Williams)

To me, he's a very interesting case. There aren't many centerfielders that have put up a .900 OPS for their career and he's a guy where the stats actually back up his defensive reputation.

I honestly don't know if I'd have him as a yes or not, but IMO he was a much better player than people seem to remember. At the very least he's a guy that makes for great discussion as a borderline candidate.

[rowech]

I really think people missed the boat on Kenny Lofton. I'm not sure if he belongs but he deserved better than being gone first ballot. His numbers are MUCH better than people gave him credit for.

[CrimsonFox]

Summary of the result: Self-righteous middle aged farts searching desperately for relevance.

Also, any HOF without the great peak value pitcher of all time (Pedro Martinez) is a joke.


are you talking about the voters or the players on the ballot? :)

[Atocep]

I really think people missed the boat on Kenny Lofton. I'm not sure if he belongs but he deserved better than being gone first ballot. His numbers are MUCH better than people gave him credit for.

Playing for 11 teams really hurt him.

[Arles]

Lofton's a victim of being a speed guy. The Hall has a bias against speed vs. power, especially in the outfield. I don't know that he's a Hall of Famer. But he had a better career than Jim Rice or Andre Dawson.
Many people feel that Tim Raines is worthy (got 53% of the vote this year). Here's Raines and Lofton:

Raines - 23 years, 2600 hits, 1571 runs, 113 3B, 170 HR, 808 SB, .294 AVG, .385 OBP, career WAR of 66.2, 7-time AS

Lofton - 17 years, 2428 hits, 1528 runs, 116 3B, 130 HR, 622 SB, .299 AVG, .372 OBP, career WAR of 64.9, 4 GG, 6-time AS

Taking into account the 6 additional seasons Raines had, Lofton's career and prime were pretty similar. Raines was better - but not by much.

[rowech]

http://i.imgur.com/VABvF.png

[Scoobz0202]

Or

Barry Bonds belongs in Hall of Fame despite rumored steroid use - Jon Heyman - SI.com (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/jon_heyman/04/14/bonds.hall/index.html)

[oykib]

My votes (as a Small Hall advocate):
Thomas - probably
Maddux - definitely
Glavine - not sure yet
Mussina - no
Johnson - yes
Sheffield - no
Pedro - no (too short, same as why I wouldn't have Koufax in)
Smoltz - probably not
Griffey - yes
Edmonds - no way

Thomas - definitely One of the few .300/.400/.500 guys in history his traditional totals are .301, 521 HRs and 1704 RBIs and there's Black Ink all over his record. He was also outspoken against steroids (He (http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/06/01/frank-thomas-steroid-users-had-a-secret-society/) and Rick Helling are the only ones I remember talking about i (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_players_named_in_the_Mitchell_Report)t).
Maddux - definitely
Glavine - definitely 305-203 .600 3.54 with a 118 ERA+ 2 CY Youngs and 5 20-win seasons
Mussina - definitely 270-153 .638 3.68 with a 123 ERA+ and 7 Gold Gloves
Johnson - definitely
Sheffield - probably not
Pedro - definitely 219-100 .687 2.93 with a 154 ERA+ and 3 Cy Youngs (which really should have been 4, he was jobbed with the Zito award in 2002)
Smoltz - definitely 213-155 .579 3.33 and 154 Saves with a 125 ERA+ a CY Young and 15-4 .789 2.67 in the post-season
Griffey - definitely 524 HRs 1836 RBIs with ten Gold Gloves, eight Silver Sluggers and an MVP
Edmonds - probably

[rowech]

Or

Barry Bonds belongs in Hall of Fame despite rumored steroid use - Jon Heyman - SI.com (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/jon_heyman/04/14/bonds.hall/index.html)

That's even better.

[Logan]

I think you can change your opinion on something like that after a couple years, but he should own it and explain why.

[Blackadar]

Summary of the result: Self-righteous middle aged farts searching desperately for relevance.

Pretty much summed it up.

Clemens never tested positive for 'roids and was declared not guilty of all charges against him by a jury of his peers. Yet it appears many people want to play judge and jury against perhaps the greatest pitcher of all time. Pathetic.

Bonds, on the other hand, did get convicted (though cleared of most charges). By all accounts, he only started dosing because many players were doing so and the press was applauding their heroics. Yet now the press wants to punish Bonds, one of the best hitters of all time. Pathetic.

I don't believe McGwire has the stats for the HoF and has admitted taking steroids. When he entered the league in 1988, most steroids were still legal and available without a prescription. Yes, we know he took Andro during his home run record season. But Andro wasn't made illegal until 2005. So where's the proof that the steroids he took were illegal?

All this vote does for baseball is make it more irrelevant to the average person today. If your HoF doesn't have the greatest pitcher, the greatest hitter, the greatest hitting catcher, etc., then it's not a HoF. And Arles nailed it earlier...there's no consistency here. There's no proof that illegal drugs taken in the past were less effective or gave less of an advantage than the widespread use of steroids in the 90s. There are many known "cheaters" in the hall, but there's no outrage over this.

The whole thing is just a circle jerk of self-righteousness committed by the same guys who led the cheerleading while these guys were breaking records, knowing all along that steroids were a prevalent part of the game. Now they're trying to hide their duplicity in a flurry of misguided hypocrisy.

[Arles]

Again, imagine if Creatine (legal to use in baseball now and buy in public) is deemed "performance enhancing" in 5-6 years and then banned in baseball. Next, we find out that both Pujols and Jeter used it in the early 90s. Does that mean they are now "cheaters" and not eligible for the hall from many voters?

This is the exact scenario with andro/HGH/early 90s steroid use. If the league doesn't have a policy against a certain drug/supplement - then that league cannot complain if a certain number of players decide to use it. The worst items Bonds and McGwire used could have been obtained with a prescription and some of it was even over the counter.

[molson]

Again, imagine if Creatine (legal to use in baseball now and buy in public) is deemed "performance enhancing" in 5-6 years and then banned in baseball. Next, we find out that both Pujols and Jeter used it in the early 90s. Does that mean they are now "cheaters" and not eligible for the hall from many voters?

This is the exact scenario with andro/HGH/early 90s steroid use. If the league doesn't have a policy against a certain drug/supplement - then that league cannot complain if a certain number of players decide to use it. The worst items Bonds and McGwire used could have been obtained with a prescription and some of it was even over the counter.

Steroids has been banned in baseball since 1991, they just didn't test for them. But to answer your question, that's what voters are for. If creatine is later banned I don't think writers would keep 90s and 00s creatine users out, but that's their call. It's true that the MLB drug policy, player use, public and media attitudes about different drugs in different eras, testing, available evidence, varies wildly over the decades. So does other potential factors involving character, stats, racial inclusion, modern medicine, artificial turf and domes, etc. It's not an exact science. The HOF will never be that. You're never going to find it if you keep chasing it. But, one way to approach that chaos is to leave those calls in the hands of those who document the game, and that's what they do. It's their call. You haven't offered an alternative process, including who gets to decide what it would be. At some point (actually right away), you're going to run into different opinions about who should be honored and what should be considered - the dreaded "inconsistency." Somehow you have to stamp out all dissenting views from whatever you decide to go with - ban people from voting if they disagree with your view, or just have a totally objective statistical criteria. I just don't get why people think that's so darn important. It's OK to have voters with different views, that's kind of the point of voting, we have the sum of all different voices. The HOF just tells them who and who isn't eligible - and the rules on eligibility are pretty liberal. The HOF is opening a whole new can of worms if they close the process off and reject all writer opinions about this kind of stuff except the opinion and criteria they decide is the correct one (which again, would have to be based on some kind of.....vote, so you're going to have the same differences of opinion there anyway.)

[molson]

Dola, even if you come up with some specific criteria that you think ensures the desired "consistency", and tell 500 voters that they HAVE to vote one particular way (hopefully it's the way you want), there's no guarantee that all 500 votes apply your specific criteria exactly the way you want them to. They're all going to have their different take on it every year. You could examine all of their ballots every year and kick off anyone who you deem to have not appropriately followed your rules, but then you really have a HOF of one person's opinion (whoever gets to be that one person, I'm not sure - though there would probably a subjective voting process, and probably some dirty politics.)

What could be more consistent, cleaner, and more fair than sending out 500 ballots and then counting them? (though, just for hilarity's sake, I'd like to see what Jason Stark's proposed "long national conversation" would look like, and how they would come to a consensus about criteria and process.)

[JonInMiddleGA]

What could be more consistent, cleaner, and more fair than sending out 500 ballots and then counting them?

The argument probably becomes (is?) who should get those 500 ballots.

And then we could argue about that instead of this ;)

[Logan]

Dola, even if you come up with some specific criteria that you think ensures the desired "consistency", and tell 500 voters that they HAVE to vote one particular way (hopefully it's the way you want), there's no guarantee that all 500 votes apply your specific criteria exactly the way you want them to. They're all going to have their different take on it every year. You could examine all of their ballots every year and kick off anyone who you deem to have not appropriately followed your rules, but then you really have a HOF of one person's opinion (whoever gets to be that one person, I'm not sure - though there would probably a subjective voting process, and probably some dirty politics.)

What could be more consistent, cleaner, and more fair than sending out 500 ballots and then counting them? (though, just for hilarity's sake, I'd like to see what Jason Stark's proposed "long national conversation" would look like, and how they would come to a consensus about criteria and process.)

Serious question...why do you think we have this outrage in baseball but not when it comes to the HoF for the other sports? Is it because of more interest in Cooperstown as this "hollowed ground" of our national pastime? Are the same debates happening in other sports, but we just don't hear them as much?

[DaddyTorgo]

Serious question...why do you think we have this outrage in baseball but not when it comes to the HoF for the other sports? Is it because of more interest in Cooperstown as this "hollowed ground" of our national pastime? Are the same debates happening in other sports, but we just don't hear them as much?

*Yawn*

It's because the talking heads on ESPN need something to fill the hours of TV they have on everyday so they've taken this (and everything else) and blown it up into some giant hysterical frenzy.

It really doesn't matter. Seriously. So the guy won't have a plaque in Cooperstown. If he is a HOF in your mind as an individual isn't that what really matters - your memories of him? Not what a bunch of self-important blowhard writesr think.

[Young Drachma]

Serious question...why do you think we have this outrage in baseball but not when it comes to the HoF for the other sports? Is it because of more interest in Cooperstown as this "hollowed ground" of our national pastime? Are the same debates happening in other sports, but we just don't hear them as much?

Baseball is the national pastime. Even if it's sort of fallen by the wayside, it still is part of the culture.

[sterlingice]

Serious question...why do you think we have this outrage in baseball but not when it comes to the HoF for the other sports? Is it because of more interest in Cooperstown as this "hollowed ground" of our national pastime? Are the same debates happening in other sports, but we just don't hear them as much?

Because the Baseball Hall of Fame is the only one that isn't a complete joke and just a partial one?

SI

[lighthousekeeper]

Serious question...why do you think we have this outrage in baseball but not when it comes to the HoF for the other sports? Is it because of more interest in Cooperstown as this "hollowed ground" of our national pastime? Are the same debates happening in other sports, but we just don't hear them as much?

Baseball is more of a sport of individual achievement when compared to other major sports, so it is natural that baseball's HOF (which basically honors individual achievement) has more importance.

[lighthousekeeper]

dola: i think every sportwriter should read Bill James' book "Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame" before starting the same tired arguments decrying the HOF selection process. definitely one of my favorite baseball books.

[Arles]

What bothers me the most about the sports writers is how they romanticize about the players of the 60s and 70s as if they were above all this performance enhancing temptation. IE, "Mickey Mantle or Joe D never would have used steroids" and it's a bunch of hogwash. They did the same thing the guys in the 90s did and used the best drugs/technology available at the time to try and get ahead. They just didn't have access to the level of steroids/HGH/drugs that the players in the 90s did. If Sandy Kofax was willing to inject his elbow with 2-3 cortisone shots a year (even back then doctors knew this was risky) - are you telling me he wouldn't have taken the Andy Pettitte route and used HGH to recover in 2000 if he played then?

In the NFL, Jim Haslett is on record as saying that atleast half of NFL players in the 70s and early 80s took steroids. Yet, the NFL HOF didn't prevent guys in that era from entering the HOF - even though major records (Marino, Dickerson, Payton, ...) were set during that timeframe. It's a joke that the baseball writers are so pious about steroids in the baseball HOF when other sports don't care and "cheating" in other eras of baseball itself didn't seem to matter.

[Subby]

How does someone like Griffey or Glavine avoid the PEDs taint? Just because they didn't balloon doesn't mean they never took something. Same with Maddux or Johnson.

PEDs aren't just about improved performance, they are also about injury prevention and recovery. I don't understand how you can incriminate so many of these guys from the 80s and 90s, but still pick and choose based on nothing more than spurious visual evidence and media narratives.

[Logan]

Fucking Neifi Perez was popped for PEDs. There are other tiny, defensive-oriented players who have tested positive. Once those guys started dropping, it blew up that "eye test" argument.

[Blackadar]

Serious question...why do you think we have this outrage in baseball but not when it comes to the HoF for the other sports? Is it because of more interest in Cooperstown as this "hollowed ground" of our national pastime? Are the same debates happening in other sports, but we just don't hear them as much?

Because the voting for the Baseball HoF is the 2nd dumbest fucking system in sports (the BCS non-playoff is the dumbest, but that goes away soon). Idiots that didn't play the game get to vote in an absurd spectacle. That morons who "protest voted" only for Jack Morris get to keep their ballots shows just how stupid their whole system is.

Compare that with the NFL, where a smaller panel of selectors - some of whom *GASP* actually played the game - sit down, make presentations, debate/discuss candidates and then vote. The NFL ends up with a far more informed panel to select those worthy of the HoF. If someone refused to vote just because Joe Charboneau wasn't on the ballot, they'd be laughed/kicked off the panel because they wouldn't be worthy to vote.

[JPhillips]

The NFL panel is no better. Look at the bias to big markets and their continued refusal to put kickers in the HOF. Any process that relies on the whims of Peter King is ridiculous.

[molson]

Because the voting for the Baseball HoF is the 2nd dumbest fucking system in sports (the BCS non-playoff is the dumbest, but that goes away soon). Idiots that didn't play the game get to vote in an absurd spectacle. That morons who "protest voted" only for Jack Morris get to keep their ballots shows just how stupid their whole system is.


Then why do you care so much who gets in?

[Blackadar]

How does someone like Griffey or Glavine avoid the PEDs taint? Just because they didn't balloon doesn't mean they never took something. Same with Maddux or Johnson.

PEDs aren't just about improved performance, they are also about injury prevention and recovery. I don't understand how you can incriminate so many of these guys from the 80s and 90s, but still pick and choose based on nothing more than spurious visual evidence and media narratives.

This has been my argument for years. There's no evidence that Maddux didn't take roids...in fact, his physique actually got "harder" over the years. Randy Johnson had a similar career "dip" as Clemens (both due to injury) and came back in his mid-to-late 30s with even more velocity (over 700 Ks at age 37 & 38).

Let's face it...it's likely that these guys took steroids. When we look at their profiles, their excellence that extended far into baseball "old age" as compared to other players in other eras, that guys like Ken Caminitti said more than half used 'roids when he played (and he had no reason to lie)...are people really so naive as to think that these guys didn't use at some point in their careers?

So, guys get punished because their felon trainer said they took 'roids (Clemens)? Because they supposedly had back acne (Piazza)? Becuase they don't pass the eyeball test (Bagwell)? Where do you draw the line on rumor, hearsay and spurious evidence?

I'm going to take it one step further. Fay Vincent's 1991 supposedly drew the line at "illegal drugs" with his memo (though not an official rule), but steroids were legal with a prescription under the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 1990. If any players used 'roids in the mid 90s under such a prescription, they didn't commit an illegal act. Other 'roids, like Andro, were legal when guys like McGwire took it. No rule breaking there, either. So molson, your assumptions about creatine don't hold true. There definitiely has been some ex post facto rule-making here about being "worthy" for the HoF.

What I know is this - a HoF without a top-5 hitter, without its best pitcher in a century and without its leading batter isn't a HoF at all.

[Blackadar]

Then why do you care so much who gets in?

"The electorial college system is stupid."
"Then why do you care who is President?"

You might want to think about the question before asking it next time. :lol:

[sterlingice]

Fucking Neifi Perez was popped for PEDs. There are other tiny, defensive-oriented players who have tested positive. Once those guys started dropping, it blew up that "eye test" argument.

Just imagine how awful he would have been if he hadn't used.

SI

[sterlingice]

What I know is this - a HoF without a top-5 hitter, without its best pitcher in a century and without its leading batter isn't a HoF at all.

Snuck in a different situation there. Just sayin'

SI

[JonInMiddleGA]

What I know is this - a HoF without a top-5 hitter, without its best pitcher in a century and without its leading batter isn't a HoF at all.

And a HOF with pieces of shit like Bonds and a lying sumbitch like Clemens in it ought to be burned to the fucking ground.

There, we've now staked out our positions.

[Logan]

And a HOF with pieces of shit like Bonds and a lying sumbitch like Clemens in it ought to be burned to the fucking ground.

There, we've now staked out our positions.

Would you want it burned down if the integrity/sportsmanship clauses were removed from the voting criteria?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Would you want it burned down if the integrity/sportsmanship clauses were removed from the voting criteria?

I'd find it less interesting/worthwhile.

Consistent with my declining interest in the NFL being directly related to Ray Lewis, Mike Vick, etc etc.

[lighthousekeeper]

I'd find it less interesting/worthwhile.

Consistent with my declining interest in the NFL being directly related to Ray Lewis, Mike Vick, etc etc.

weird. To me, a HOF filled with Dale Murphys is infinitely less interesting than a HOF filled with Barry Bonds, Pete Roses, Ty Cobbs, etc.

[Buccaneer]

There are a lot of bonds, McGwire et al stuff at the baseball museum. They just don't deserve a plaque.

You're wrong, blackie, the nfl hof is an even worse joke than the baseball hof.

Lighthouse is correct. Much of my negative attitudes about the hof is based on James' book and why I said what the vet committee did in the 60s and 70s was bad.

But is incredible to me that there are those that want to perpetuate the mess by not only adding blatant cheaters but to admit even more marginal players.

[oykib]

There are a lot of bonds, McGwire et al stuff at the baseball museum. They just don't deserve a plaque.

You're wrong, blackie, the nfl hof is an even worse joke than the baseball hof.

Lighthouse is correct. Much of my negative attitudes about the hof is based on James' book and why I said what the vet committee did in the 60s and 70s was bad.

But is incredible to me that there are those that want to perpetuate the mess by not only adding blatant cheaters but to admit even more marginal players.

I agree with you regarding the Baseball vs. Pro Football Halls of Fame. But it's bullshit that we are penalizing the PED guys as compared to all the guys we lionize that took amphetamines like it was going out of style. For what it's worth, offense depressed more after amphetamines were banned than it did when PED testing and punishment started.

I really don't care what self-righteous indignation Goose Gossage, Frank Robinson or Reggie Jackson have about PED users who they feel diminish their accomplishments. It's just the modern version of the "old ballplayers never die" sections from Bill James' historical baseball abstract.

[Crapshoot]

weird. To me, a HOF filled with Dale Murphys is infinitely less interesting than a HOF filled with Barry Bonds, Pete Roses, Ty Cobbs, etc.

""""""""".

[Buccaneer]

But we didn't see a bunch of players all of a sudden increase their hr totals by 30-50% for multiple seasons. That would not have occurred naturally as the past 5 seasons have shown. The steroid era stands out as by far the biggest aberration on the game since babe Ruth. I'm glad that it is over with and results have returned to the predictable level before the aberration and those that obviously contributed to the mockery will not be rewarded with a plaque 'honoring' their dubious achievements.

[Buccaneer]

I guess some of you have never been to the national baseball museum. Do so before yapping about the lack of bonds, Cobb, and rose displays. Whole display cases of them are interesting.

[jbergey22]

Who really cares. We dont get to vote anyway.

I care more about the FOFC MLB Hall of Fame. Seems to have more qualified voters at least.

[sterlingice]

Sounds like a fun poll series

SI

[lighthousekeeper]

Who really cares. We dont get to vote anyway.

I care more about the FOFC MLB Hall of Fame. Seems to have more qualified voters at least.

yeah but currently has 0 members. :(

[Crapshoot]

But we didn't see a bunch of players all of a sudden increase their hr totals by 30-50% for multiple seasons. That would not have occurred naturally as the past 5 seasons have shown. The steroid era stands out as by far the biggest aberration on the game since babe Ruth. I'm glad that it is over with and results have returned to the predictable level before the aberration and those that obviously contributed to the mockery will not be rewarded with a plaque 'honoring' their dubious achievements.

This is bullshit of the highest order, and you ought to get called on it.

Home Run Rates in 1998 and 2012 | FanGraphs Baseball (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/home-run-rates-in-1998-and-2012/#more-110444)

[Blackadar]

lying sumbitch like Clemens in it ought to be burned to the fucking ground.

citation needed

[Blackadar]

This is bullshit of the highest order, and you ought to get called on it.

Home Run Rates in 1998 and 2012 | FanGraphs Baseball (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/home-run-rates-in-1998-and-2012/#more-110444)

Don't bother with facts. The lynch mob is still in full swing.

[rowech]

This is bullshit of the highest order, and you ought to get called on it.

Home Run Rates in 1998 and 2012 | FanGraphs Baseball (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/home-run-rates-in-1998-and-2012/#more-110444)

One thing I've always wondered Bout is how much impact expansion had on this. Expansion in 1993...jump. Then stabilization. In 1998, expansion and then another jump.

[sterlingice]

One thing I've always wondered Bout is how much impact expansion had on this. Expansion in 1993...jump. Then stabilization. In 1998, expansion and then another jump.

That's always been one of the theories out there. However, the hitting talent is diluted just like the pitching talent from expansion. That basically implies it's harder to throw at a MLB level than hit at an MLB level. I'm not really sure how to quantify that, tho.

SI

[Buccaneer]

This is bullshit of the highest order, and you ought to get called on it.

Home Run Rates in 1998 and 2012 | FanGraphs Baseball (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/home-run-rates-in-1998-and-2012/#more-110444)

:confused: SteroidsEra was from 1998-2006, not just one year. Those years where higher than the past five years, which is what I said.

[larrymcg421]

This is bullshit of the highest order, and you ought to get called on it.

Home Run Rates in 1998 and 2012 | FanGraphs Baseball (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/home-run-rates-in-1998-and-2012/#more-110444)

LMAO. So this guy does all this work to provide us with data from 1993-2012 and then provides a conclusion based on two individual years in that time span. Using that guy's own numbers:

1993-97: 3.52%
1998-06: 3.84%
2007-12: 3.58%

[Buccaneer]

Look, I am not condenming everyone who played during those years, just the ones showing up in the the red circle below. Got it?

http://photos.imageevent.com/ltsgallery/memberfoldersd/buccaneer/images/websize/hr3.jpg

[AENeuman]

Not following too closely here, but is the consensus that PEDs didn't help pitchers or that there just is not a neat stat like home runs that can quantify its effect?

The era of the greatest performance enhancing has to be when white hitters and pitchers were purposely shielded from facing often superior black players.

[PilotMan]

This might as well be the best thread to put this:

I hadn't really heard of this yes. I find it interesting that players already retired aren't grandfathered in and that the limits don't start moving forward.

Hall Of Fame Eligibility Rule Change Bones "Poster Boys" Of Steroid Era (http://deadspin.com/hall-of-fame-eligibility-rule-change-bones-poster-boys-1611733355)

Basically, retired players now only have 10 years of eligibility instead of 15. I really think it changes the decision making process for who is going in and who isn't.

[Peregrine]

I don't think those steroid guys would be going in anyway but it certainly hurts them - especially McGwire.

[Young Drachma]

Fuck the BBWA

[JonInMiddleGA]

Hall Of Fame Eligibility Rule Change Bones "Poster Boys" Of Steroid Era (http://deadspin.com/hall-of-fame-eligibility-rule-change-bones-poster-boys-1611733355)

And a group well-deserving of said treatment afaic.

[Shkspr]

Yeah, fuck Tim Raines.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Yeah, fuck Tim Raines.

You're really expecting sympathy for a guy who carried a vial of cocaine around in his uniform?

[Shkspr]

I don't think anyone would expect sympathy from you for kittens in a microwave.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I don't think anyone would expect sympathy from you for kittens in a microwave.

I like kittens tyvm.

(resists temptation to make a "... in a lovely red wine sauce" joke)

[PilotMan]

You're really expecting sympathy for a guy who carried a vial of cocaine around in his uniform?

Tim Raines was a customer of the then future Mrs PM, at the bank where she worked, when we were in FL. When we got married her gift to me was a signed ball and a couple of cards from him. She said he was a really nice guy. Shaq's mom was also super nice, but Lee Corso was a dick.