2013 Baseball HOF Voting

[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]

Originally Posted by 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)?

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]

Originally Posted by 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).

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Arles

Good article on all this by Jayson Stark:

What should the MLB Hall of Fame be? - ESPN

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]

Originally Posted by Scoobz0202

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" 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]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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" 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]

Originally Posted by oykib

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]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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]

Originally Posted by Scoobz0202

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]

Originally Posted by Atocep

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]

Originally Posted by stevew

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]

Originally Posted by stevew

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by 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.

Playing for 11 teams really hurt him.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by oykib

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]

[Scoobz0202]

Or

Barry Bonds belongs in Hall of Fame despite rumored steroid use - Jon Heyman - SI.com

[oykib]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

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 and Rick Helling are the only ones I remember talking about it).
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]

Originally Posted by Scoobz0202

Or

Barry Bonds belongs in Hall of Fame despite rumored steroid use - Jon Heyman - SI.com

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]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by molson

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]

Originally Posted by 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.)

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]

Originally Posted by Logan

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]

Originally Posted by Logan

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]

Originally Posted by Logan

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