2013 Baseball HOF Voting
 

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.

From Baseball Reference (Baseball Reference HOF summary page )

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.

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

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.

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.

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.)

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".

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

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

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.

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.

Morris, Lee Smith, Raines, Trammell, Edgar

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.

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

nelson laugh HA HA /nelson laugh

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

Well done YD!

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

Because even statistically his HoF case is rather borderline.

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.

That, plus apparently for some voters Game 7 of the '91 World Series was worth 100 career wins.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Jack Morris Career Pitching Splits - Baseball-Reference.com

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.

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.

No, they have people like Mariotti who can't be bothered to put that much thought into it.

Maybe he meant 3 innings...

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).

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.

I voted for 9 other guys. Not just Cirillo.

I only put in Royce Clayton.

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

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.

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.

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.

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


What kind of shoe?

No one gets in this year.

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

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

Hopefully you mean the voters.

I hope Kurt Bevacqua is still eligible next year.

What is your criteria for "undeserving"

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.

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

Homer:

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

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

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.

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?

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 based on the ballots that were made public. This chart illustrates the conclusion



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.

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

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.

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

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.


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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

Not sure if serious?

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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