HOF Future Eligibles

[bcbgcbrcb]

With all of the talk this week centering around the 2015 Baseball HOF candidates and how crowded and back-logged the ballot is, I thought it would be fun to take a peek into the future at the next couple of years. In addition to everyone who does not make it this year and retains their eligibility status going forward, here are the biggest names for 2016 & 2017 IMHO:

2016 - Ken Griffey Jr. (no brainer), Trevor Hoffman (likely) & Jim Edmonds (not sure if he has been linked to PED's at all)

2017 - Ivan Rodriguez (PED's), Manny Ramirez (PED's), Vladimir Guerrero (close to a lock) & Jorge Posada (questionable)

I would love to hear everyone's thoughts on the upcoming ballots.........

[Sean]

I really like Vlad Guerrero, but I don't think he gets in... at least not on the first ballot.
I hope I'm wrong.

[btcarfagno]

Trevor Hoffman? Oh please no. And if Jorge Posada gets more than 5% of the vote Ted Simmons should go apeshit on the BBWAA.

Tom C

[Robextend]

I agree, those seem to be the best names out there besides the returning crew.

Griffey no doubt...I had the pleasure of growing up watching him destroy my Yankees time and time again.

Hoffman will get in, although I think his 601 saves is a bit deceiving, as I do not think he was overly dominating. The last few years of his career he racked up an insane amount of saves to help his cause, but his ERA in the span wasn't what you would expect for a hall of fame closer.

Edmonds was never a top 3 MVP vote finisher and only made 4 AS games. These days, 284 AVG, 393HR, under 1200 runs and rbi is def not good enough...not sure he even stays on ballot past a year or two.

Manny is going to succomb to the same fate as McGwire, Clemens, etc...probably even worse since he is a repeat offender in recent years.

I-Rod might get strong support, but he will probably fall shy because of that PED link, although he will probably have a better HOF vote percentage than Manny

Vlad might get in, but he certainly is no lock...wouldn't be surprised if it took a few years.

Posada was a winner and put up good numbers, especially for a catcher, but in my mind he is far from HOF worthy. He was a good player, not great.

[Robextend]

Trevor Hoffman? Oh please no. And if Jorge Posada gets more than 5% of the vote Ted Simmons should go apeshit on the BBWAA.

Tom C

Agreed on Simmons...Posada isn't in the same ballpark as him regarding HOF numbers and the type of hitter Simmons was.

[autocentral]

I think Griffey is a no brainer. Hoffman will get in and the only one of the others with a case is Vlad but I think it is a 50/50 he will get it in.

-Nick

[Klrdds]

Trevor Hoffman? Oh please no. And if Jorge Posada gets more than 5% of the vote Ted Simmons should go apeshit on the BBWAA.

Tom C

Agree with you on Simmons. Posada gets the benefit of the doubt because he was a Yankee. Simmons gets hurt because he was a contemporary with Bench when the Cards were ok to bad and the Reds were one of the best in baseball.

[arc2q]

Are those really the only significant players with first-time eligibility in 2016 and 2017? Things have really thinned out. Even without PEDs to consider, I would consider only Griffey as a HOF lock. Guerrero and Ramirez (my opinion) were historically borderline.

Because I grew up in the 80s I consider every player on what I call the Schmidt-Dawson-Raines-Murphy paradigm (I just made that up). Schmidt was the only lock yet I felt (and still feel) all four were better in their day than the 90's/00's power hitters, including Guerrero, Ramirez, Tejada, Edmonds, Sosa, etc.

[rats60]

Griffey 1st ballot, Vladimir 2nd or 3rd. This will be when Bagwell and Piazza make it. If Hoffman gets in, Billy Wagner should too. I don't want to fill the hall with a bunch of relievers. Everyone else no. We could see a ballot where no one gers 75%.

[Runscott]

I think too many of the voters believe Bagwell and Piazza might be steroid users. The gate still hasn't opened for anyone who even 'might be' one of them.

[Centauri]

Griffey for sure. Manny and Pudge Rodriguez would be no doubt about it HOF'ers based on their resumes. Trevor Hoffman?!? No way.

Allow me moment to laugh at any writer who does not vote for the Big Unit. You sir, are an idiot.

[sycks22]

I know we're talking about future HOF ballots, but it's amazing how dominate Pedro was for a 7-8 span in the middle of his career. From '97 - '03 he led the league in ERA 5 years with era's of 2.89 and an injury plagued year of 2.39 as his other years. Averaged over 250k's and this is all in the AL without the pitcher hitting and obvious steroid era. This is probably the most dominate a pitcher has been for a 7 year span in the last 50 years. He also won 3 Cy Young's and came in 2nd two more times. 2.20 Era for this 7 years, amazing

[bcbgcbrcb]

I'm very surprised that we are now heavily into the PED time frame of HOF balloting and no one has commented on the fact that the most recent selectees are almost all pitchers, Maddux, Glavine, Pedro, Big Unit, Smoltz (most likely) with only Frank Thomas being a position player. This could continue with guys like Schilling & Mussina garnering more votes as the PED position players begin to show up more and more on future ballots. Is it realistic to think that the only "clean" players during this era were pitchers? Why do we assume that they were not using?

In my opinion, Bagwell was a user. His minor league and amateur resume just do not add up to his major league power numbers. I know anything's possible but.......

Piazza's minor league numbers match up somewhat better but did anyone see him during is first year or two in the minors? Was there a big difference in body size and type from his major league physique?

I would also like to make a comprehensive list of known users who finished with the best career stats. Off the top of my head, these are the ones that I can think of:

Bonds
McGwire
Sosa
Sheffield
Clemens
Pettitte
Palmeiro
M. Ramirez
I. Rodriguez
A. Rodriguez
Bagwell (IMHO)
J. Gonzalez
M. Tejada
Braun
Canseco
Ortiz

Does anyone else have any others that would be surefire HOF'ers based on their career stats? Looks like I missed one big name on my list, just added Ortiz now.

[clydepepper]

I think Jim Thome is almost a no-brainer. A well-liked clean-living power hitter who lasted a long time and was consistently productive.

[packs]

Really surprised Posada doesn't get more love. Other than Pudge and Piazza (both linked to PEDs), who was a better catcher during his era?

If you're the best player at your position in your era, that to me makes you a HOFer.

[z28jd]

I really hope they are done putting relievers in. I don't want to see Hoffman in, don't want to see Rivera in and no one that made a living pitching one inning. How many of these saves are 2-3 runs, or facing the bottom of a lineup?

There are guys that were real good pitchers putting in 3-4x more time on the mound because they were better pitchers. Hoffman, Rivera, Wagner and any current closer are failed starters at some point in their career. I think it's laughable they get consideration but a guy like Jim Kaat could be a good pitcher over 4500 innings and we consider guys with 1000 or so innings to be worthy.

Bruce Sutter being in kills me and he pitched for awhile when relievers actually had to work. Basically any post-LaRussa A's relievers are no for me. Craig Kimbrel could have 15 more seasons like he's already had, be the best one inning reliever by far and I wouldn't even consider him.

[packs]

I have no love for most relievers but come on. Mariano Rivera was one of the greatest pitchers of all time. How can you say he's not a HOFer?

[rats60]

I'm very surprised that we are now heavily into the PED time frame of HOF balloting and no one has commented on the fact that the most recent selectees are almost all pitchers, Maddux, Glavine, Pedro, Big Unit, Smoltz (most likely) with only Frank Thomas being a position player. This could continue with guys like Schilling & Mussina garnering more votes as the PED position players begin to show up more and more on future ballots. Is it realistic to think that the only "clean" players during this era were pitchers? Why do we assume that they were not using?

In my opinion, Bagwell was a user. His minor league and amateur resume just do not add up to his major league power numbers. I know anything's possible but.......

Piazza's minor league numbers match up somewhat better but did anyone see him during is first year or two in the minors? Was there a big difference in body size and type from his major league physique?

I would also like to make a comprehensive list of known users who finished with the best career stats. Off the top of my head, these are the ones that I can think of:

Bonds
McGwire
Sosa
Sheffield
Clemens
Pettitte
Palmeiro
M. Ramirez
I. Rodriguez
A. Rodriguez
Bagwell (IMHO)
J. Gonzalez
M. Tejada
Braun
Canseco

Does anyone else have any others that would be surefire HOF'ers based on their career stats?

David Ortiz

[rats60]

Really surprised Posada doesn't get more love. Other than Pudge and Piazza (both linked to PEDs), who was a better catcher during his era?

If you're the best player at your position in your era, that to me makes you a HOFer.

So you think Jack Morris belongs in the hof? I don't think so. Being the best at your position over a period of time doesn't make you a hofer. Posada isn't even the best of his era. Piazza for the early part of his career, Joe Mauer for the later part.

[Greg Sonk]

Griffey is the obvious top of the list of all players not yet inducted, given current voting patterns.

When you have voters refusing to consider Jeff Bagwell despite not being named in the Mitchell report, never failing a drug test, and used andro well before it was a banned substance, anyone in the Manny Ramirez situation has no chance, sadly. That takes out Pudge too. It also sinks Gary Sheffield, who is probably the biggest name I see missing from the discussion.

Posada will get in because WINS, but I wouldn't even take him over Edgar Renteria, who shouldn't sniff the Hall.

Vlad Guerrero is the most interesting one to me. I struggle with objectivity in his case because I've never had more fun watching a position player than I have watching one of his at bats. Realistically, he's very much in that Killebrew/Sheffield/etc group of borderline cases that needs something to push him one way or the other.

I would love to hear someone attempt a cogent argument that Trevor Hoffman of all people is a Hall of Famer and Pedro Martinez isn't. It can't be done. Pedro has exactly one possible strike against him, and it works even more strongly against Hoffman. Please note this isn't a shot directed at anyone other than the BBWAA, because at this point I have so little faith in them that I expect Hoffman to go in first (not that I would vote for him at all).

[conor912]

I would be shocked if Posada didn't get in. Probably not first ballot, but soon thereafter. That team was so dominant for those 5-6 years that I think there'll be enough of a cry to push him in.

[t206blogcom]

Griffey Jr within the first 3 times being on the ballot. The rest - no way.

[packs]

So you think Jack Morris belongs in the hof? I don't think so. Being the best at your position over a period of time doesn't make you a hofer. Posada isn't even the best of his era. Piazza for the early part of his career, Joe Mauer for the later part.

I know it's never been proven per se but Piazza is long suspected of PEDs.

Mauer had a good season in 2008 and a great one in 2009, and then played 82 games in 2011, when Posada retired.

It is not the same as Jack Morris. Posada was a switch hitting catcher with power who was great for a decade plus. That's special. There are maybe 2 or 3 great catchers at any given time, who usually burn out after a few good seasons. Sure guys might have a better year, but a better career?

[bcbgcbrcb]

The difference between Vlad and Killebrew, Sheffield, etc. is a .318 career batting average.

[Robextend]

There is no way Posada is getting into the HOF with 1,600+ hits and awful defense, I don't care how important he was to the Yankees. I think the days of any position player making the HOF with those kind of numbers are over.

[HRBAKER]

I agree, fine, fine player - not a HOFer.
KG Jr. and Vlad both yes.

[Touch'EmAll]

From deep down in my heart, honestly and no joke, I think Bo should be in the HOF.

[HRBAKER]

No, no chance.

[Shoebox]

But I don't think there is anyway it could happen.

From deep down in my heart, honestly and no joke, I think Bo should be in the HOF.

[btcarfagno]

Posada was by far the best of his entire era. Pudge and Piazza were cheating. No one was better.

Mauer had a good season in 2008 and a great one in 2009, and then played 82 games in 2011, when Posada retired.

So Posada plays steady, powerful baseball as a regular for 14 years but his entire era is eclipsed by Mauer's two good (one special) seasons?

Also we're talking about the best clean catcher in the league over a career. There are maybe 2 or 3 great catchers at any given time, who usually burn out after a few good seasons. It is not the same as Jack Morris.

Jorge Posada didn't even reach 1700 hits in his career. He was a vital part of some great teams but he was never considered the best at his position during his career. Ever. You can retrofit the "clean" tag however you may wish. You have no idea who did and who didn't. All we have are the stats and the memories of him as a player. He was always the fourth or fifth best hitter on his own team. Even in his best five year period he would have been considered, at best, the third best catcher in the game. His stats say he was not a Hall of Fame player. Really not close. Ted Simmons puts him to shame, and both were switch hitters. Simmons couldn't get 5% on his first ballot.

Tom C

[rats60]

Posada was by far the best of his entire era. Pudge and Piazza were cheating. No one was better.

Mauer had a good season in 2008 and a great one in 2009, and then played 82 games in 2011, when Posada retired.

So Posada plays steady, powerful baseball as a regular for 14 years but his entire era is eclipsed by Mauer's two good (one special) seasons?

Also we're talking about the best clean catcher in the league over a career. There are maybe 2 or 3 great catchers at any given time, who usually burn out after a few good seasons. It is not the same as Jack Morris.

Mauer becomes the only catcher in baseball history to win 3 batting titles plus wins a MVP and 3 other top 8 finishes and he only had 2 good seasons? Mauer has an OPS+ of 133, higher than every catcher currently in the Hof. He absolutely has eclipsed Posada's career. After 11 seasons he's already at 46.3 war exceeding Posada's 44.7. His 7 year peak of 38.5 not only blows Posada away, but exceeds all time greats like Mickey Cochrane, Bill Dickey, Yogi Berra and Carlton Fisk. Mauer is easily the best catcher of 2004-2013.

As far as your claim that Piazza cheated, there is no proof. His 62% in the last election suggest that most writers don't believe it and his election to the hof is likely.

[conor912]

There is no way Posada is getting into the HOF with 1,600+ hits and awful defense, I don't care how important he was to the Yankees. I think the days of any position player making the HOF with those kind of numbers are over.

Awful defense? You don't win that many rings as a team with awful defense behind the plate. Either way, I'm not saying I think he should be in, I'm saying I think he'll get in based on the team he was on. Phil Rizzuto got in strictly for being on the great Yankee teams in the 50's. His career numbers are a joke compared to the rest of the HOF. Compare his numbers to Posadas and they are freakishly similar, down to identical lifetime batting avgs. Posada even had more hits and did it from both sides of the plate. I'm not making an argument for him over anyone else, I'm just saying don't be surprised if/when he gets in.

[Greg Sonk]

The difference between Vlad and Killebrew, Sheffield, etc. is a .318 career batting average.

I'll assume this was directed at me since I brought them up in the same breath.

Batting average is not a stat which I believe to be very useful when compared to some others that we have at our disposal. However, I understand that many voters do, and as such, consider it relevant to the discussion. Without getting into sabermetrics, the best counter to this argument would be OBP, as we need a stat that has nothing to do with power and simply frequency of "success" at the plate. Here Vlad is then only .003 better than Killebrew and .014 worse than Sheffield. I would characterize that as very comparable. I would hope that we can avoid the walks do/don't matter argument in 2015.

Over their careers, you're talking about guys with very close OBPs and WRC+ of 136, 141, and 142, respectively. Career fWar actually has Vlad at 56.5 versus Sheffield at 62.4 and Killebrew at 66.1, which I must admit mildly surprised me, as I expected Sheffield to be slightly ahead of Killebrew rather than the reverse. Vlad's career was 6 years shorter than the other two, and all had roughly 3-4 elite (6+ fWAR) years.

I don't see a huge difference there at all.

[Fred]

Trevor Hoffman? Oh please no. And if Jorge Posada gets more than 5% of the vote Ted Simmons should go apeshit on the BBWAA.

Tom C

Ok, what's wrong with Hoffman? 600 saves, a sub 3 ERA, more than a K an inning. The guy was not only a great closer with one of the highest save conversion percentages, he is an also an incredible humble role model. No, he shouldn't get in because he's a great role model but I tell you what, he's cut from the same type of cloth as Jeter, Mariano, Tony Gwynn and a few other incredible team players. He dominated at his position. Yeah, I'll give Mariano an edge on being the better closer but Trevor was no slouch as a closer.

[Robextend]

Awful defense? You don't win that many rings as a team with awful defense behind the plate. Either way, I'm not saying I think he should be in, I'm saying I think he'll get in based on the team he was on. Phil Rizzuto got in strictly for being on the great Yankee teams in the 50's. His career numbers are a joke compared to the rest of the HOF. Compare his numbers to Posadas and they are freakishly similar, down to identical lifetime batting avgs. Posada even had more hits and did it from both sides of the plate. I'm not making an argument for him over anyone else, I'm just saying don't be surprised if/when he gets in.

Posada was a very good hitter, but they won despite his defense...he was not known as a good defensive catcher.

It is tough to compare a modern day player to one that played half a century before him. And besides that, I believe there is many on this board that believe Rizzuto is truly not a hall of famer either. And if we are comparing the success of the two...Rizzuto has had at least double the world series wins as Posada. No argument in Posada's favor has been very convincing, I really don't think he gets in. You might as well say Jason Varitek deserves to get in too...

[btcarfagno]

Ok, what's wrong with Hoffman? 600 saves, a sub 3 ERA, more than a K an inning. The guy was not only a great closer with one of the highest save conversion percentages, he is an also an incredible humble role model. No, he shouldn't get in because he's a great role model but I tell you what, he's cut from the same type of cloth as Jeter, Mariano, Tony Gwynn and a few other incredible team players. He dominated at his position. Yeah, I'll give Mariano an edge on being the better closer but Trevor was no slouch as a closer.

He's a closer. Which means he wasn't good enough to be a starter. Someone who played a total of less than 1100 innings in the major leagues does not deserve to be in the Hall. Saying he might be the second best relief pitcher of all time carries about as much weight with me as someone who was the second best pinch hitter of all time.

Tom C

[LincolnVT]

Hoping for 2016!

[bbcard1]

He's a closer. Which means he wasn't good enough to be a starter.

Tom C

That's not at all what being a closer means. Personally, I would be all for Lee Smith and Hoffman is a no brainer.

[Robextend]

I'm really torn when it comes to closer's. Can they be considered failed starters...maybe, but they are an accepted part of the game these days and there probably should be a place for them in the HOF. With that said, I would think you need to be a completely dominant one to get in, and I am not sure there are any in that I would consider dominant.

Even Eckersley, who is regarded as a top closer of all-time...take a look at his 11 year stretch as closer as far as ERA:

1987 - 3.03
1988 - 2.35
1989 - 1.56
1990 - 0.61
1991 - 2.96
1992 - 1.91
1993 - 4.16
1994 - 4.26
1995 - 4.83
1996 - 3.30
1997 - 3.91

His dominance fizzled after 5 years or so...his starting numbers were good, but certainly not HOF worthy as maybe a Smoltz would be considered.

So why is Eckersley in the HOF?

[btcarfagno]

That's not at all what being a closer means. Personally, I would be all for Lee Smith and Hoffman is a no brainer.

Of course that is what it means. Hoffman began his professional career as a closer in the minors because his pitch repertoire was not good enough to be a starter. There was a REALLY good reason why Hoffman was an 11th round draft choice. Admittedly he was great at what he was asked to do. But going max effort for 15-20 pitches at a time does not make someone a Hall Of Famer.

Tom C

[EvilKing00]

Griffey, vlad and chipper imo should get in 1st ballot

[Greg Sonk]

He's a closer. Which means he wasn't good enough to be a starter. Someone who played a total of less than 1100 innings in the major leagues does not deserve to be in the Hall. Saying he might be the second best relief pitcher of all time carries about as much weight with me as someone who was the second best pinch hitter of all time.

Tom C

Obviously I agree with you wholeheartedly, but please don't even dignify "closer" as a position. He pitches. Relief pitchers are inherently less valuable than equivalent starters because they don't throw as many innings. There's no argument to be made to the contrary.

We have all this evidence that points to the relative value of relievers to starters and we still see media members saying Hoffman had excellent longevity while simultaneously questioning Pedro's. Can't account for willful ignorance.

[refz]

The championships will probably or eventually land Posada in the hall.

[Robextend]

The championships will probably or eventually land Posada in the hall.

4 champions did not do anything for Bernie Williams, who was twice the hitter Posada was.

[btcarfagno]

Actually I made a mistake. I forgot Hoffman started as an infielder in the minors, so his draft spot was due to his bat being terrible. That said, however, they did not try to make him a starter. He was a reliever because of his limited amount of major league pitches.

Tom C

[JollyElm]

Debating the relevance of closers (regardless of which side of the fence your opinion lies on) is quite similar to the lingering debates regarding the election of place kickers to the NFL Hall of Fame in Canton.

With kickers, they spend almost the entire game on the bench and come in when needed. If they make game winning kicks (Vinatieri), they are celebrated. If they go wide right (Norwood), their name is forever attached to a single moment of failure.

Closers are an integral part of the game. Ask any Mets fan when was the last time they had anyone…ANYONE…who could seal a victory for us and they will laugh at you. A team absolutely needs that guy. But when you're talking about baseball overall, it seems closers are very much denigrated for the small amount of time they are actually in the game. As others have said, gone are the days of the Gossage, Smith, Sutter 'long saves.' Now it seems the most time a closer is in the game is a single inning. It's ridiculous how that aspect of the game has changed so much and it (along with other things people have said in this thread) will always work against them being enshrined.

[dgo71]

4 champions did not do anything for Bernie Williams, who was twice the hitter Posada was.

Exactly. The cronyism of the old veterans committee is thankfully a thing of the past. Posada the player is the one going up for consideration, not the 1998 Yankees as a team. No way is he a HOFer.

[kailes2872]

I know we're talking about future HOF ballots, but it's amazing how dominate Pedro was for a 7-8 span in the middle of his career. From '97 - '03 he led the league in ERA 5 years with era's of 2.89 and an injury plagued year of 2.39 as his other years. Averaged over 250k's and this is all in the AL without the pitcher hitting and obvious steroid era. This is probably the most dominate a pitcher has been for a 7 year span in the last 50 years. He also won 3 Cy Young's and came in 2nd two more times. 2.20 Era for this 7 years, amazing

If Pedro developed arthritis and retired after the '04 season, we would be talking about him like Koufax.

P.S. - I am not saying that Griffey was on any performance enhancers, I just find it a bit odd how a gangly guy hit for so much power early in his career and then broke down the last half. I don't know what the indicators are, however, in this world where we are quick to declare if someone was a user and someone else was not a user, our crowd sourced justice is quick to declare him innocent (which he very well may be) and so many others that might have had acne on their back, or hit home runs despite a small stature are quickly declared guilty. I hate this time of year because Bond and Clemens were HOFers before they were ever suspected of using.

[dgo71]

Actually I made a mistake. I forgot Hoffman started as an infielder in the minors, so his draft spot was due to his bat being terrible. That said, however, they did not try to make him a starter. He was a reliever because of his limited amount of major league pitches.

Tom C

One third of 1st Round picks never get even a day in the big leagues. Meanwhile, Piazza was selected in a round that doesn't even exist anymore. I think draft position is the weakest barometer you could have selected to make a case against, or for, a player's HOF worthiness.

The front office decided to groom Hoffman as a closer because they recognized the need to have an effective closer at the big league level and he had a howitzer for an arm. That's not at all to say he could not have started had the organization chosen to go that way. We'll of course never know, but many quality big league starters were two-pitch guys in the low minors. That's why the minor leagues exist, to develop players.

[eastonfalcon19]

1st Ballot upcoming years- Griffey, C.Jones, Big Unit, Pedro, Vlad, Smoltz, Hoffman (should get in because his change-up was so filthy), Thome.

I can see Piazza and Biggio getting in as well. Clemens deserves to get in even though he was accused of PEDs.

Where does Omar Vizquel fit in with the Hall? Do you think he has a shot at getting in?

[dgo71]

I hate this time of year because Bond and Clemens were HOFers before they were ever suspected of using.

I hear this statement a lot around this time of year. The fact is nobody knows for sure when these guys started using, so saying they were "already HOFers" is a huge assumption. For that matter, maybe without PEDs these guys suffer a career-ending injury. Maybe they put up 8 straight horrible seasons and their career line is just mediocre. A player isn't a HOFer 7 years into their career, it's the whole body of work. And these guys' bodies of work are tainted. I don't feel the least little bit sorry for them and regardless of when they started or how long they used, if they cheated, they in no way deserve the game's highest honor.

[bnorth]

If Pedro developed arthritis and retired after the '04 season, we would be talking about him like Koufax.

P.S. - I am not saying that Griffey was on any performance enhancers, I just find it a bit odd how a gangly guy hit for so much power early in his career and then broke down the last half. I don't know what the indicators are, however, in this world where we are quick to declare if someone was a user and someone else was not a user, our crowd sourced justice is quick to declare him innocent (which he very well may be) and so many others that might have had acne on their back, or hit home runs despite a small stature are quickly declared guilty. I hate this time of year because Bond and Clemens were HOFers before they were ever suspected of using.

I will come right out and say it I honestly think Griffey Jr in the first part of his career was a major steroid user. I also believe Pedro was a serious user. I also think Griffey should be in on the first ballot, Pedro not so much.

[Robextend]

1st Ballot upcoming years- Griffey, C.Jones, Big Unit, Pedro, Vlad, Smoltz, Hoffman (should get in because his change-up was so filthy), Thome.

I can see Piazza and Biggio getting in as well. Clemens deserves to get in even though he was accused of PEDs.

Where does Omar Vizquel fit in with the Hall? Do you think he has a shot at getting in?

No way Vizquel should get in...3 all star games in 24 yrs in the majors. Maybe if he played in the Ozzie Smith era, things would be different. In the offensive explosion he played in, I don't know how he can possibly get in. Amazingly by playing 21 years he got dangerously close to 3,000 hits. But then I ask, if he got 3,000 hits...would that make Omar Vizquel a HOFer? Or would the 3,000 hit mark finally not be automatic (assuming Biggio gets in and we disregard PED guys)?

[bbcard1]

Of course that is what it means. Hoffman began his professional career as a closer in the minors because his pitch repertoire was not good enough to be a starter. There was a REALLY good reason why Hoffman was an 11th round draft choice. Admittedly he was great at what he was asked to do. But going max effort for 15-20 pitches at a time does not make someone a Hall Of Famer.

Tom C

In order to keep the tone civil, I will say your arguments make no sense and your statements reflect no understanding of baseball in the post-1970s era.

[dgo71]

Phil Rizzuto got in strictly for being on the great Yankee teams in the 50's. His career numbers are a joke compared to the rest of the HOF. Compare his numbers to Posadas and they are freakishly similar, down to identical lifetime batting avgs.

The difference being that a completely biased Vets Committee, which does not exist in the same format anymore, elected Scooter to the HOF. If Posada was eligible in 1990 I'd say you're absolutely correct. But in today's voting format, Posada has no chance. Don Mattingly is more revered in Yankee lore than Posada, WS rings or not, and Mattingly will be lucky to scrape out 10% of the votes this year.

[eastonfalcon19]

Yeah I don't see Vizquel getting in either right away but I could see him getting in down the road. The same thing with Fred McGriff ending his career with 493 HRS. If he had indeed reached the 500 club would that of made him an automatic pick?

Could McGriff eventually get in with his numbers?

[clydepepper]

Exactly. The cronyism of the old veterans committee is thankfully a thing of the past. Posada the player is the one going up for consideration, not the 1998 Yankees as a team. No way is he a HOFer.

Bernie is a victim of playing a position which usually has the greatest hitters, while Posada played a position whose ranks are thin in Cooperstown. Piazza and Ivan are HOFers and Ted Simmons should go in before Posada is considered, and should have gone in before Ray Schalk or Rick Ferrell.

[clydepepper]

I will come right out and say it I honestly think Griffey Jr in the first part of his career was a major steroid user. I also believe Pedro was a serious user. I also think Griffey should be in on the first ballot, Pedro not so much.

As much as I hate to say this, the writer may be juicing based on the above post. :D

[bnorth]

As much as I hate to say this, the writer may be juicing based on the above post. :D

I 100% juiced off and on for close to 20 years and regardless of that his career seriously points to him also juicing.

[rgpete]

Griffey Jr no problem ,Vlad should get it hopefully. Got a chance to meet Vlad in 96 at Mercer County Waterfront Park Trenton NJ, during the Eastern League Southern Division Playoffs. It was nice when Trenton was with Boston.

[Exhibitman]

On the juicers, it seems to me that the game has to decide whether integrity plays a role in the HOF. Bonds and Clemens were likely HOFers without the steroids but we will never know that in the end because they cheated, as have A-Roid and Palmiero and several others, which we know for a fact. I don't care if they can jack a ball into the upper deck or throw 100 mph. If I ever have a grandson and if I ever get to take him to Cooperstown I'd really prefer not to have to explain how the PED jocks are role models. I'd rather show him the stats these guys have and explain that they cheated and because of that they have never been given the honor of election to the hall. And yes, I do realize that there are some pretty shitty people in the HOF--racists, drunks, and jerks--but their presence is not a reason to add some more bad apples to the barrel. That said, if there is nothing in the Mitchell Report on a guy and nothing else showing he used I don't see how you can justify keeping him out on the basis of PED use.

[HRBAKER]

I fail to see the reason to be sympathetic to someone's plight for the HOF when they chose to cheat for the money, the fame, the records, the contracts. Being snubbed by the voters is part of paying the piper to me. It is no less of a HOF to me without these guys in it and that goes for Mr. Rose as well.

[btcarfagno]

In order to keep the tone civil, I will say your arguments make no sense and your statements reflect no understanding of baseball in the post-1970s era.

I would say that my statements reflect an opinion shared by the new generation of number crunchers who understand that the position of a "closer" is nothing but a statistic generated position on a baseball team. Just because major league managers are dumb enough to manage to a stat does not make the position of "closer" any more important. The best arm in the bullpen needs to be used in the most high leverage situation. But there is no statistic for that so we can't have that. So we just keep it simple for everyone involved and save the best arm in the pen for the last inning. Even if the game ends up not getting that far because some lesser pitcher blew it before that point.

A save is a stat that is managed to. The only one in baseball really, although occasionally a manager will manage to the win stat too.

Good relief pitchers are like good pinch hitters. Use them in key situations. They can generally be found on the scrap Heep, and ones that are good for a long time are not easy to find. But that does not make them Hall Of Fame worthy.

If you do not think very good relievers and closers can be found from the leftovers of other teams, ask Neal Huntington the current GM of the Pirates. His closers the past six or seven years have been a failed minor league starter, another team's seventh inning guy, and a player who spent the majority of the year prior to coming to the Pirates in the minors.

I would therefore submit that my thoughts on the subject are more in line with current baseball theory than is the idea that Trevor Hoffman is is any way shape or form a Hall Of Famer.

Tom C

[Kenny Cole]

I hear this statement a lot around this time of year. The fact is nobody knows for sure when these guys started using, so saying they were "already HOFers" is a huge assumption. For that matter, maybe without PEDs these guys suffer a career-ending injury. Maybe they put up 8 straight horrible seasons and their career line is just mediocre. A player isn't a HOFer 7 years into their career, it's the whole body of work. And these guys' bodies of work are tainted. I don't feel the least little bit sorry for them and regardless of when they started or how long they used, if they cheated, they in no way deserve the game's highest honor.

And Bonds still leads in homers, walks, intentional walks, etc. No one wanted to pitch to him. And MLB hasn't taken any of those stats away. Nor can it. Same with Clemens. Saying they cheated as a reason to keep him out is sort of silly IMO, because the laundry list of those who cheated but are in the HOF is long and vaunted. It includes Mays and Mantle (greenies) among others. MLB won't deal with the PED issue, because it can't, being that it was so complicit.

When all is said and done, I don't suppose it really matters much what the voters think. I mean, we complain about their votes every election. And when all that complaining is over, Bonds will still have hit more home runs than anyone else in MLB ever. You can pretend otherwise, but every time you look up the stats, Bonds will be the number one guy. Clemens will still have won more Cy Youngs than anyone else. The guys who were never proven to have used (oh, that would include Bonds, who never failed a drug test but lets exclude him for purposes of this discussion) such as Bagwell and Piazza will still be getting screwed based on some silly "suspicion" that they may have, and none of the stats that are currently oh so important to the HOF discussion will have changed.

PEDs happened. Baseball turned a blind eye because it brought the fans back after the strike and made the owners a lot of money. The same writers who are so sanctimonious about it now weren't so much then, because their columns got them readers and, thus, money. The whole current HOF voting dynamic is bullshit and all the hypocrisy is rather sickening IMO. By any metric that is now in use other than the emotional "he cheated," which can be applied to many of the people already elected, Bonds is a HOFer. So is Clemens. So is Pudge. So are many others.

It is amazing to me that some of the same people who are so against Bonds and Clemens are so in favor of Rose, who violated the most basic rule -- the one that is posted on the door of every clubhouse -- that explicitly says that if you bet on baseball, you are banned for life. Now, that is a rule that is hard to miss, unlike the loosey-goosey steroid baloney that everyone now retrospectively wants to say was so hard and fast in the day. When baseball chooses to address PED usage, one way or the other, which will never happen because it was so complicit, maybe I'll change my stance. Until then, my position is that although the HOF is rapidly becoming largely irrelevant, Bonds and Clemens are the two most deserving ELIGIBLE outsiders looking in. OK, my rant is done.

[rgpete]

I have no love for most relievers but come on. Mariano Rivera was one of the greatest pitchers of all time. How can you say he's not a HOFer?

Mariano Rivera is not in the same Category as Nolan Ryan, Tom Seaver, Steve Carlton, Cy Young , Sandy Koufax etc

[howard38]

I really hope they are done putting relievers in. I don't want to see Hoffman in, don't want to see Rivera in and no one that made a living pitching one inning. How many of these saves are 2-3 runs, or facing the bottom of a lineup?

There are guys that were real good pitchers putting in 3-4x more time on the mound because they were better pitchers. Hoffman, Rivera, Wagner and any current closer are failed starters at some point in their career. I think it's laughable they get consideration but a guy like Jim Kaat could be a good pitcher over 4500 innings and we consider guys with 1000 or so innings to be worthy.

Bruce Sutter being in kills me and he pitched for awhile when relievers actually had to work. Basically any post-LaRussa A's relievers are no for me. Craig Kimbrel could have 15 more seasons like he's already had, be the best one inning reliever by far and I wouldn't even consider him.
Mariano Rivera was not really a failed starter as he was only given the chance to start ten games as a rookie. Prior to that he had been a very good starter in the minors. He may have been given another chance to start in his sophomore year but he was so good as a reliever in the playoffs that he was made the Yankees set-up man instead.

[conor912]

IMO there's no way career closers should get in and not career DH's. I am from Boston where David Ortiz is a God, regardless of steroid speculation. There is no arguing that he was one of the most clutch, most feared hitters in the game for the better part of a decade, yet when he becomes eligible you're going to hear cries from every corner of the baseball world that he doesn't deserve it because he never played in the field. As for Hoffman and the other closers, electing a guy who threw 40 pitches/week for his entire career is a joke.

[HRBAKER]

The stats although certainly there seem to be of limited importance to a number of writers who question their legitimacy.

[Kenny Cole]

The stats although certainly there seem to be of limited importance to a number of writers who question their legitimacy.

Yeah, and that's one of the things that I find to be so ironic and hypocritical. The stats are really important when one is championing a given player for induction. Black Ink, Gray Inc., HOF monitor, HOF standards, pure stats and advanced metrics. However, those same stats become "suspect," potentially illegitimate, and thus irrelevant when that same person is arguing against the induction of someone else. Funny how that works.

[johnmh71]

Every time one of the roid guys comes onto the ballot, it should force the Veterans Committee to take a hard look at some of the guys who dominated their era legitimately in the past. I would rather see them put in one of those guys from the 16 team days before one of the offenders.

[HRBAKER]

Yeah, and that's one of the things that I find to be so ironic and hypocritical. The stats are really important when one is championing a given player for induction. Black Ink, Gray Inc., HOF monitor, HOF standards, pure stats and advanced metrics. However, those same stats become "suspect," potentially illegitimate, and thus irrelevant when that same person is arguing against the induction of someone else. Funny how that works.

That is what PEDs have given us.

[bcbgcbrcb]

To say that Bonds and Clemens should be in the Hall because their stats were good enough before PED's makes no sense. The same thing could have been said for Joe Jackson and Pete Rose. Does it look like those two will be getting in any time soon? Ever?

[Kenny Cole]

Every time one of the roid guys comes onto the ballot, it should force the Veterans Committee to take a hard look at some of the guys who dominated their era legitimately in the past. I would rather see them put in one of those guys from the 16 team days before one of the offenders.

So who dominated their era "legitimately"? I think the assumption that occurred is one of the biggest problems I have with this whole discussion. I would suggest that most of them cheated (wasn't it Durocher who said that "if you're not cheating, you're not trying"), and that your tolerance for the type of cheating that occurred really forms the basis for your viewpoint about who should be elected to the HOF. Are there levels of cheating such that some types are ok, while others should keep one out of the HOF? Please discuss.

[bcbgcbrcb]

To me, the only valid argument for Bonds and Clemens is that you resign yourself to the fact that during the era of their playing careers, the majority of players were using PED's so if "all" of their contemporaries were doing it, the playing field was level and these two excelled in this environment above all others. Of course, now that opens the door for those players who were one level below the performance of Bonds & Clemens, namely Palmeiro, Ramirez, Pudge, etc. At least now you are judging everyone the same way as always, by stats and not PED use.

I know many people will hate reading this argument but it makes sense.

[Kenny Cole]

To say that Bonds and Clemens should be in the Hall because their stats were good enough before PED's makes no sense. The same thing could have been said for Joe Jackson and Pete Rose. Does it look like those two will be getting in any time soon? Ever?

Phil, I absolutely didn't say that. Rose doesn't get in because, as I said earlier, he violated the one rule -- the one that says that if you bet on baseball you are kicked out and ineligible -- that is on every clubhouse door. I am more sympathetic to Jackson's plight, since I believe that Comiskey and his cronies were evil bastards who are far worse character-wise than the players who they screwed.

Bonds and Clemens were probably HOFers before there was ever a PED issue involving them. But that's not the biggest issue to me. Rather, IMO, PEDs were a fact of baseball during most of their tenure and, at a minimum, I think baseball condoned it. I think it is hypocritical to jump on the bandwagon and shoot at them while idolizing the earlier HOF players who also cheated and/or suffered from even worse character flaws. Their body of work made them HOFers just as much as the racists, killers, thieves, other drug users and other cheaters are. I understand that my position here is probably in the minority, but at least it has the virtue of being consistent.

[btcarfagno]

Mariano Rivera was not really a failed starter as he was only given the chance to start ten games as a rookie. Prior to that he had been a very good starter in the minors. He may have been given another chance to start in his sophomore year but he was so good as a reliever in the playoffs that he was made the Yankees set-up man instead.

Rivera was a solid minor league starter who was always old for the league he was in. His final full year in the minors he had good but not great numbers....only about a strikeout every other inning. Then he got lit up like a Christmas tree as a 25 year old starter in the majors. Perhaps not a failed starter but, at age 26 with a good arm but few quality pitches and solid but unspectacular minor league numbers as a starter....he was removed from that role. There was certainly a reason for it.

Tom C

[btcarfagno]

One third of 1st Round picks never get even a day in the big leagues. Meanwhile, Piazza was selected in a round that doesn't even exist anymore. I think draft position is the weakest barometer you could have selected to make a case against, or for, a player's HOF worthiness.

The front office decided to groom Hoffman as a closer because they recognized the need to have an effective closer at the big league level and he had a howitzer for an arm. That's not at all to say he could not have started had the organization chosen to go that way. We'll of course never know, but many quality big league starters were two-pitch guys in the low minors. That's why the minor leagues exist, to develop players.

He was drafted out of college....so had he been a pitcher in college his being drafted in the 13th round suggest a pitcher with plenty of flaws. So in the case of a college pitcher, being drafted in the 13th round tells me that you are not especially highly regarded as a pitcher. This turns out to be a non issue because he was not a college pitcher, but a college junior being drafted in the 13th round as a pitcher screams future reliever.

Tom C

[kailes2872]

I hear this statement a lot around this time of year. The fact is nobody knows for sure when these guys started using, so saying they were "already HOFers" is a huge assumption. For that matter, maybe without PEDs these guys suffer a career-ending injury. Maybe they put up 8 straight horrible seasons and their career line is just mediocre. A player isn't a HOFer 7 years into their career, it's the whole body of work. And these guys' bodies of work are tainted. I don't feel the least little bit sorry for them and regardless of when they started or how long they used, if they cheated, they in no way deserve the game's highest honor.

Fair statement. My only point was that even their biggest critics accused Clemens of juicing only once he got to Toronto (192 wins in Boston and 3 Cy Young's prior to that). The two guys in SF accused Bonds in (I believe) '98 or '99 - as he was jealous of the hype and $'s given to Mac and Sosa. If that is to be believed, he had a nice career and 3 MVPs up until that point.

If they retire at that point, they are short career guys with lots of major awards and black numbers. If they flat line and do a 2nd half of the career that is 1/2 of the first, it is like Albert after the FA signing in LA, but probably still on pace for an induction (probably not first ballot, but it seems that it was trending).

If there was a sign on the clubhouse door that said - if you use Steroids or HGH and are caught - or there is circumstantial evidence in your hat size, chin, or back acne - then you will be banned from the game and not allowed into the HOF, then I would line up next to the torch and pitchfork guys. There wasn't. It was the evolution of the greenies culture of the past decade/generation as a way to help the guys get through 6 months and 162 games. That is just my opinion though. It will be heavy banter for the next 72 hours and then we will put it back on the shelf until this time next year when we revisit.

[Duluth Eskimo]

This is the 800 lb elephant in the room that people who love Griffey refuse to consider. He was a great guy and an incredible ball player, but come on. He guy fell apart after pretty much being the most athletic talent in baseball.

P.S. - I am not saying that Griffey was on any performance enhancers, I just find it a bit odd how a gangly guy hit for so much power early in his career and then broke down the last half. I don't know what the indicators are, however, in this world where we are quick to declare if someone was a user and someone else was not a user, our crowd sourced justice is quick to declare him innocent (which he very well may be) and so many others that might have had acne on their back, or hit home runs despite a small stature are quickly declared guilty. I hate this time of year because Bond and Clemens were HOFers before they were ever suspected of using.[/QUOTE]

[dgo71]

And Bonds still leads in homers, walks, intentional walks, etc. No one wanted to pitch to him. And MLB hasn't taken any of those stats away. Nor can it. Same with Clemens. Saying they cheated as a reason to keep him out is sort of silly IMO, because the laundry list of those who cheated but are in the HOF is long and vaunted. It includes Mays and Mantle (greenies) among others. MLB won't deal with the PED issue, because it can't, being that it was so complicit.

When all is said and done, I don't suppose it really matters much what the voters think. I mean, we complain about their votes every election. And when all that complaining is over, Bonds will still have hit more home runs than anyone else in MLB ever. You can pretend otherwise, but every time you look up the stats, Bonds will be the number one guy. Clemens will still have won more Cy Youngs than anyone else. The guys who were never proven to have used (oh, that would include Bonds, who never failed a drug test but lets exclude him for purposes of this discussion) such as Bagwell and Piazza will still be getting screwed based on some silly "suspicion" that they may have, and none of the stats that are currently oh so important to the HOF discussion will have changed.

PEDs happened. Baseball turned a blind eye because it brought the fans back after the strike and made the owners a lot of money. The same writers who are so sanctimonious about it now weren't so much then, because their columns got them readers and, thus, money. The whole current HOF voting dynamic is bullshit and all the hypocrisy is rather sickening IMO. By any metric that is now in use other than the emotional "he cheated," which can be applied to many of the people already elected, Bonds is a HOFer. So is Clemens. So is Pudge. So are many others.

It is amazing to me that some of the same people who are so against Bonds and Clemens are so in favor of Rose, who violated the most basic rule -- the one that is posted on the door of every clubhouse -- that explicitly says that if you bet on baseball, you are banned for life. Now, that is a rule that is hard to miss, unlike the loosey-goosey steroid baloney that everyone now retrospectively wants to say was so hard and fast in the day. When baseball chooses to address PED usage, one way or the other, which will never happen because it was so complicit, maybe I'll change my stance. Until then, my position is that although the HOF is rapidly becoming largely irrelevant, Bonds and Clemens are the two most deserving ELIGIBLE outsiders looking in. OK, my rant is done.

I didn't see anyone deny that Bonds hit more HRs than anybody. The fact is he cheated to get there, and now nobody will ever know what he would have done without cheating. It's the doubt that makes the steroid scandal such a murky issue.

Comparing the medical steroids of this day and age to greenies is another favored arguement of steroid-era supporters, but it's about as apples-to-oranges as you can get. Steroids improve muscle regeneration, make you stronger, faster, even improve your vision and eye-hand coordination. Greenies are basically the same as a cup of coffee. A jolt of caffeine. It's like saying a Porsche and a Kia are both cars.

It's true, Bonds never failed a drug test. Because they didn't test for HGH and testosterone then. So it's not at all surprising that he never failed a test that was never administered. However, does anyone truly believe that his dramatic and magical uptick in power in his late 30's, so dramatic that in the 130+ history of the game it had never happened before, was completely natural? Maybe it was his ego that caused his head to grow two cap sizes? Anyone who says Bonds did not juice is delusional, and I'm sorry that I cannot think of a nicer way to put that, but it's true.

Steroids may not have been in MLB's little rulebook, but there was definitely a U.S. LAW making them illegal to use in the context these athletes were taking them. I don't know, but I'd think if it's illegal in the United States it would stand to reason they shouldn't be allowed in the game. The rulebook doesn't say I shouldn't run out to the mound and stab the pitcher either. Some things need to be assumed. If these guys thought steroids were A-OK then why was it done in such secrecy and why was there such a stigma on anyone who outted it, such as Canseco? They knew full well what they did was wrong.

I do completely agree with your stance on the writers and MLB itself however. It makes me sick to think a writer (can't remember who right now) actually said he didn't vote for Biggio because Biggio knew guys were using and didn't say anything. Really? Pot calling the kettle black if ever there was such a thing. And MLB certainly created this mess by condoning it, so their stance now is ironic and sad. However, the hypocrisy of these two entities doesn't justify the actions of those who knowingly cheated IMO.

[HRBAKER]

350 Home Runs after the age of 35 - simply amazing.

[dgo71]

Fair statement. My only point was that even their biggest critics accused Clemens of juicing only once he got to Toronto (192 wins in Boston and 3 Cy Young's prior to that). The two guys in SF accused Bonds in (I believe) '98 or '99 - as he was jealous of the hype and $'s given to Mac and Sosa. If that is to be believed, he had a nice career and 3 MVPs up until that point.

This is when the accusations surfaced. It does not mean the player had just began using at that point. Maybe it was, but maybe it was 5 years earlier or more. Again, we'll never know, nor will we know what the "true" numbers might have been. They may have still been stellar. Maybe not though. That pesky doubt, that they brought upon themselves, is why they are penalized today.

[Kenny Cole]

I didn't see anyone deny that Bonds hit more HRs than anybody. The fact is he cheated to get there, and now nobody will ever know what he would have done without cheating. It's the doubt that makes the steroid scandal such a murky issue.

Comparing the medical steroids of this day and age to greenies is another favored arguement of steroid-era supporters, but it's about as apples-to-oranges as you can get. Steroids improve muscle regeneration, make you stronger, faster, even improve your vision and eye-hand coordination. Greenies are basically the same as a cup of coffee. A jolt of caffeine. It's like saying a Porsche and a Kia are both cars.

It's true, Bonds never failed a drug test. Because they didn't test for HGH and testosterone then. So it's not at all surprising that he never failed a test that was never administered. However, does anyone truly believe that his dramatic and magical uptick in power in his late 30's, so dramatic that in the 130+ history of the game it had never happened before, was completely natural? Maybe it was his ego that caused his head to grow two cap sizes? Anyone who says Bonds did not juice is delusional, and I'm sorry that I cannot think of a nicer way to put that, but it's true.

Steroids may not have been in MLB's little rulebook, but there was definitely a U.S. LAW making them illegal to use in the context these athletes were taking them. I don't know, but I'd think if it's illegal in the United States it would stand to reason they shouldn't be allowed in the game. The rulebook doesn't say I shouldn't run out to the mound and stab the pitcher either. Some things need to be assumed. If these guys thought steroids were A-OK then why was it done in such secrecy and why was there such a stigma on anyone who outted it, such as Canseco? They knew full well what they did was wrong.

I do completely agree with your stance on the writers and MLB itself however. It makes me sick to think a writer (can't remember who right now) actually said he didn't vote for Biggio because Biggio knew guys were using and didn't say anything. Really? Pot calling the kettle black if ever there was such a thing. And MLB certainly created this mess by condoning it, so their stance now is ironic and sad. However, the hypocrisy of these two entities doesn't justify the actions of those who knowingly cheated IMO.

Wow, seriously? Greenies, which were just as illegal as peds, are OK because they were really sort of like coffee? Spare me. Your allusion to running out and stabbing the pitcher applies equally to them. That argument is bullshit and I imagine you know it. Greenies were used because the players believed that they improved eye-hand coordination. And they were used pretty much every game back then. But it wasn't common knowledge and so we couldn't express what I'm sure is now our collective disdain for that form of cheating when we were arguing about the HOF. Knowing what we now know you wouldn't say Mays or Mantle should be elected, right? They were cheaters, true?

Fast forward 20 years and that type of cheating is OK because now we're really upset about the newest form that it has taken. Cheating is cheating. It has happened since the game began and it continues to this day. Give me a freaking break.

[dgo71]

You clearly don't understand the difference in the effects of amphetamines vs steroids. Let alone that greenies were prescribed by team doctors in many instances, which is perfectly legal, as opposed to some back alley pharmacist who is selling metabolic steroids. Guys like Mantle took them because he was out late every night drinking. So yeah, it's basically coffee, and forms of amphetamine can be bought over the counter at any truck stop. They woke players up, they didn't turn long fly outs into home runs.

[howard38]

Rivera was a solid minor league starter who was always old for the league he was in. His final full year in the minors he had good but not great numbers....only about a strikeout every other inning. Then he got lit up like a Christmas tree as a 25 year old starter in the majors. Perhaps not a failed starter but, at age 26 with a good arm but few quality pitches and solid but unspectacular minor league numbers as a starter....he was removed from that role. There was certainly a reason for it.

Tom C
Of course there was a reason for it but the reason was not failure, which was my only point.

[btcarfagno]

Of course there was a reason for it but the reason was not failure, which was my only point.

The reason was they saw the high likelihood of him flaming out as a starter and figured his limited pitch selection and good arm lent itself to a role in the bullpen. They saw a flawed starter who likely would not help them much in that role. Flawed....failed....semantics really.

Tom C

[rats60]

IMO there's no way career closers should get in and not career DH's. I am from Boston where David Ortiz is a God, regardless of steroid speculation. There is no arguing that he was one of the most clutch, most feared hitters in the game for the better part of a decade, yet when he becomes eligible you're going to hear cries from every corner of the baseball world that he doesn't deserve it because he never played in the field. As for Hoffman and the other closers, electing a guy who threw 40 pitches/week for his entire career is a joke.

Ortiz without steroids is a borderline case. When you look at advanced metrics, he is behind other 1b like Keith Hernsndez, Will Clark, Fred McGriff and Norm Cash. He does have a good OPS and post season success. War of 47.7 is not good. He may have had a chance to eventually get in if clean.

The problem is that he failed a drug test early in his Red Sox career. That taints everything he did in Boston. He sure wasn't very good in Minnesota. Piazza and Bagwell are struggling to get in with much stronger resumes and weaker connections to steroids. I don't see any way Ortiz even gets 40% of the vote, let alone 75.

[rats60]

Wow, seriously? Greenies, which were just as illegal as peds, are OK because they were really sort of like coffee? Spare me. Your allusion to running out and stabbing the pitcher applies equally to them. That argument is bullshit and I imagine you know it. Greenies were used because the players believed that they improved eye-hand coordination. And they were used pretty much every game back then. But it wasn't common knowledge and so we couldn't express what I'm sure is now our collective disdain for that form of cheating when we were arguing about the HOF. Knowing what we now know you wouldn't say Mays or Mantle should be elected, right? They were cheaters, true?

Fast forward 20 years and that type of cheating is OK because now we're really upset about the newest form that it has taken. Cheating is cheating. It has happened since the game began and it continues to this day. Give me a freaking break.

Cheating? Do you consider the pre 1920 spit ball pitchers cheaters? Should we try to get them kicked out of the hof? Baseball didn't make greenies illegal until the 70s. Baseball's drug policy was broad and included steroids at that time. I hate the guys who want to say steroids weren't illegal until they started testing for them in the 2000s, because it's not true. Fay Vincent sent a memo to all teams in 1991 stating that to all teams because he was aware of their widespread use in baseball.

As far as Bonds, it is very naive to believe he started using in 98-99. Steroids were in the Giants clubhouse in the late 80s. He had a major jump in production when he moved from a hitters park in 92 to a pitchers park in 93. It is far more likely that he began using in 93. His production jumped again when he hooked up with Balco,the best in the business, in 2000-01.

[Kenny Cole]

You clearly don't understand the difference in the effects of amphetamines vs steroids. Let alone that greenies were prescribed by team doctors in many instances, which is perfectly legal, as opposed to some back alley pharmacist who is selling metabolic steroids. Guys like Mantle took them because he was out late every night drinking. So yeah, it's basically coffee, and forms of amphetamine can be bought over the counter at any truck stop. They woke players up, they didn't turn long fly outs into home runs.

Well, I'm up this morning drinking my greenies, er, coffee. I understand the difference between the two, and they both represent a method of cheating. You can buy various forms of peds over the counter too, or at least used to be able to. How many players have been suspended for taking a banned substance (ironically often an amphetamine) that they bought in an over the counter cold, allergy or cough medicine? And right or wrong, the perception was that the greenies increased hand-eye coordination, which presumably translates into an increased ability to hit the ball. See ball more clearly, move bat faster, hit ball better, you know, that sort of thing. The difference is simply not nearly so much as you have talked yourself into believing.

The fact of the matter is that cheating has been around as long as baseball has been around. If you have convinced yourself that ped usage is a type of cheating that is worse than other types, so be it. But don't try to delude yourself, or me, that one is perfectly OK and the other isn't.

[darwinbulldog]

Unless we assume that pitchers are disproportionately more likely to get caught when they cheat (i.e., stupider), there is pretty good evidence that pitchers were more likely than hitters to have been juicing. That is, a higher percentage of pitchers than of position players used PEDs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/18/sports/baseball/18steroids.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

I'm very surprised that we are now heavily into the PED time frame of HOF balloting and no one has commented on the fact that the most recent selectees are almost all pitchers, Maddux, Glavine, Pedro, Big Unit, Smoltz (most likely) with only Frank Thomas being a position player. This could continue with guys like Schilling & Mussina garnering more votes as the PED position players begin to show up more and more on future ballots. Is it realistic to think that the only "clean" players during this era were pitchers? Why do we assume that they were not using?

In my opinion, Bagwell was a user. His minor league and amateur resume just do not add up to his major league power numbers. I know anything's possible but.......

Piazza's minor league numbers match up somewhat better but did anyone see him during is first year or two in the minors? Was there a big difference in body size and type from his major league physique?

I would also like to make a comprehensive list of known users who finished with the best career stats. Off the top of my head, these are the ones that I can think of:

Bonds
McGwire
Sosa
Sheffield
Clemens
Pettitte
Palmeiro
M. Ramirez
I. Rodriguez
A. Rodriguez
Bagwell (IMHO)
J. Gonzalez
M. Tejada
Braun
Canseco

Does anyone else have any others that would be surefire HOF'ers based on their career stats?

[darwinbulldog]

I concur with this. I would just say that Aaron, Mays, and Mantle were cheating the best way they knew how and that Bonds and Clemens were cheating the best way they knew how. Given the scientific advancements of the decades that separated them, Bonds and Clemens were able to get better stuff than their predecessors. But I see no particular reason to believe that if Bonds and Clemens had been born earlier that they wouldn't have been using greenies or that if Aaron, Mays, and Mantle had been born later that they wouldn't have been using PEDs.

Well, I'm up this morning drinking my greenies, er, coffee. I understand the difference between the two, and they both represent a method of cheating. You can buy various forms of peds over the counter too, or at least used to be able to. How many players have been suspended for taking a banned substance (ironically often an amphetamine) that they bought in an over the counter cold, allergy or cough medicine? And right or wrong, the perception was that the greenies increased hand-eye coordination, which presumably translates into an increased ability to hit the ball. See ball more clearly, move bat faster, hit ball better, you know, that sort of thing. The difference is simply not nearly so much as you have talked yourself into believing.

The fact of the matter is that cheating has been around as long as baseball has been around. If you have convinced yourself that ped usage is a type of cheating that is worse than other types, so be it. But don't try to delude yourself, or me, that one is perfectly OK and the other isn't.

[packs]

It blows my mind that there could possibly be people who don't view Mariano Rivera as a HOFer, let alone one of the greatest pitchers of all time.

Arguments over him being a failed starter don't hold water to me. He wasn't a failed starter. He found his role and dominated in it. Your starter can pitch a great game. But until you finish the game, it's not a win. So unless your position is that starters should have to pitch 9 innings every time they pitch, your argument that relief pitchers aren't important doesn't make a lot of sense.

You don't win until the 9th inning is over. Mariano owned that 9th inning. And in the post-season you were more or less doomed: 8 - 1 with an 0.70 ERA and 42 saves.

That's 50 post-season wins for your team when you had Rivera in the pen. That cannot be denied or diminished. Not to mention that before he even pitched the baseball, you already knew what he was going to throw. And you still couldn't hit it. He was exceptional and extraordinary, everything a HOFer should be.

[jbhofmann]

Adderall is not a substance that will turn deep flys into HRs but it is a banned performance enhancing drug.

Greenies cannot be simply dismissed just because the league didn't recognize the benefits of taking them.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Eventually it will come to light that someone (or more) already in the HOF used PED's during the 1986-2006 era. What happens then?

That's why the more I think about it, the era should just be documented as the steroids era and we should go on with our HOF selections as normal based on stats taken in context of their own era, etc. Those with the best numbers will get in and life will go on........

Jose Canseco, source of much of the known info, has indicated that up to 75% of Major Leaguers were users at some point. He has been right on just about everything that he has told so far, so why doubt him now.......

If Canseco is correct, how can you really differentiate who did and did not?

[darwinbulldog]

I think there's at least as much reason to suspect Rickey Henderson as to suspect Bagwell or Piazza.

Eventually it will come to light that someone (or more) already in the HOF used PED's during the 1986-2006 era. What happens then?

That's why the more I think about it, the era should just be documented as the steroids era and we should go on with our HOF selections as normal based on stats, etc. Those with the best numbers will get in and life will go on........

[bcbgcbrcb]

Wasn't it obvious enough to MLB when Luis Gonzalez hit 57 home runs in the early 2000's.........

[bcbgcbrcb]

Well, Glenn, Henderson played on the same Oakland teams with McGwire, Canseco, etc. so..........

[triwak]

That's why the more I think about it, the era should just be documented as the steroids era and we should go on with our HOF selections as normal based on stats taken in context of their own era, etc. Those with the best numbers will get in and life will go on........


100% agree!

[btcarfagno]

It blows my mind that there could possibly be people who don't view Mariano Rivera as a HOFer, let alone one of the greatest pitchers of all time.

Arguments over him being a failed starter don't hold water to me. He wasn't a failed starter. He found his role and dominated in it. Your starter can pitch a great game. But until you finish the game, it's not a win. So unless your position is that starters should have to pitch 9 innings every time they pitch, your argument that relief pitchers aren't important doesn't make a lot of sense.

You don't win until the 9th inning is over. Mariano owned that 9th inning. And in the post-season you were more or less doomed: 8 - 1 with an 0.70 ERA and 42 saves.

That's 50 post-season wins for your team when you had Rivera in the pen. That cannot be denied or diminished. Not to mention that before he even pitched the baseball, you already knew what he was going to throw. And you still couldn't hit it. He was exceptional and extraordinary, everything a HOFer should be.

Rivera pitched about 1 inning per game in 40% of the games the Yankees played in. 70 or so innings per year. I simply cannot see anyone who played less than 5% of the innings that his team played during the season as being a Hall Of Famer. No matter how much he dominated in those 5% of team innings. Now....he was easily the best ever for what he was. No one even close really. To me, the best of a flawed bunch who played so few innings is simply not Hall Of Fame worthy.

And yes, he was a flawed starter. He was a two pitch pitcher when he came up. He got lit up as a starter where he got exposed the second time through the lineup. He was put into the bullpen where his limited arsenal would get better results. Then he perfected the cutter and that pitch was so good that until the last few years of his career he was a one pitch pitcher. He would never get away with that as a starter.

I certainly respect the opinions of those who believe he should be there, and he likely will be a first ballot inductee. I simply do not value the position of relief pitcher much.

Tom C

[bnorth]

I think there's at least as much reason to suspect Rickey Henderson as to suspect Bagwell or Piazza.

Suspect Rickey LOL Rickey looked like he was juicing so hard at the end of his career that it was amazing he was not walking around with a needle sticking out his butt cheek.

To those comparing greenies to coffee, WOW. Ok to be fair 1 greenie would be like coffee if you could down 50 gallons of it in 5 minutes.

My all-time favorite player is Wade Boggs. He was never caught cheating(in baseball) but like your favorite player I can guarantee he did. Whether it was greenies, steroids, corked bat or something else they cheated. The poster boy of baseball Mickey Mantle did do greenies, had a corked bat, and was rumored to do steroids. Yes steroids were in sports during his time and the 50 years before his time. I am not saying Mantle did steroids because it was way before my time, just that it was rumored he and Maris both juiced.

Also David Ortiz should never be allowed in the HOF unless it is to visit with friends.

Right or wrong these are my opinions and till proven wrong I stand by them.

[glchen]

I don't think that greenies matter that much. I'm in the camp that it's more like coffee. Look for modern steroids, people have a lot of stats like for Bonds, pre-steroids, he hit X many home runs per year, and post (suspected) steroid use, his HR production went way up.

For any of the suspected greenie users, are there any stats out there that show that before the player used greenies, his stats were ordinary and that after he started using greenies, BOOM, he had HOF numbers? I don't know if anyone has ever shown this.

[packs]

There is a huge difference between greenies and steroids in my opinion. Unless I'm mistaken, greenies don't alter your body in the sense that a 165 pound player (like Pudge was when he came up) will morph into a 200 plus pound player in a season or two (like Pudge did) from taking greenies.

Greenies and steroids are both I guess PEDs, but they are in totally different leagues. You can't pop a greenie and go from hitting 40 homers to 70 homers. You can do that with steroids. I would argue that a greenie enables a player to play to their standard of play. Steroids enables a player to play above and beyond their standard of play. That's a big difference to me.

[dgo71]

There is a huge difference between greenies and steroids in my opinion. Unless I'm mistaken, greenies don't alter your body in the sense that a 165 pound player (like Pudge was when he came up) will morph into a 200 plus pound player in a season or two (like Pudge did) from taking greenies.

Greenies and steroids are both I guess PEDs, but they are in totally different leagues. You can't pop a greenie and go from hitting 40 homers to 70 homers. You can do that with steroids. I would argue that a greenie enables a player to play to their standard of play. Steroids enables a player to play above and beyond their standard of play. That's a big difference to me.

Bingo.

[MVSNYC]

I was on the HOF's website, and they have nice write ups about each candidate...thought this sentence was interesting about Biggio:

"Only player in baseball history with at least 3,000 hits, 600 doubles, 400 stolen bases and 250 home runs."

http://baseballhall.org/hof/2015-bbwaa-ballot

[sycks22]

Suspect Rickey LOL Rickey looked like he was juicing so hard at the end of his career that it was amazing he was not walking around with a needle sticking out his butt cheek.

To those comparing greenies to coffee, WOW. Ok to be fair 1 greenie would be like coffee if you could down 50 gallons of it in 5 minutes.

My all-time favorite player is Wade Boggs. He was never caught cheating(in baseball) but like your favorite player I can guarantee he did. Whether it was greenies, steroids, corked bat or something else they cheated. The poster boy of baseball Mickey Mantle did do greenies, had a corked bat, and was rumored to do steroids. Yes steroids were in sports during his time and the 50 years before his time. I am not saying Mantle did steroids because it was way before my time, just that it was rumored he and Maris both juiced.

Also David Ortiz should never be allowed in the HOF unless it is to visit with friends.

Right or wrong these are my opinions and till proven wrong I stand by them.


Guarantee Boggs cheated? He looked more like a beer vendor than a ball player. Did the 'roids or whatever you possibly claim he took help him flare thousands of balls to left field? He wasn't fast, didn't have much power and had an average arm. Which part of his game was aided by juicing? Just because someone is good doesn't mean they cheated.

[Runscott]

Enjoying the discussion on MLB Network. Costas seems to understand what the HOF actually is, much better than most. There's a doofus on there who is hanging in the conversation purely through yelling. I'm thinking we should invite him to join our forum.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Let's look at it this way, if we go my route and allow for steroid use since it was massively prevalent from around 1986 - 2006, the only ones hurt that way were the minority of players who were "clean" and never cheated, correct?

Give me a list of those "clean" players during this era whose stats warrant HOF selection. I bet we don't get much past a half-dozen or so, which is a far less impact than banning everyone we think or know did PED's. Anyway, those half-dozen or so would likely get in the Hall anyway. By doing this, we avoid the annual arguments about who did PED's, suspected of PED's, etc. which will never be definitively proven.

[Runscott]

Let's look at it this way, if we go my route and allow for steroid use since it was massively prevalent from around 1986 - 2006, the only ones hurt that way were the minority of players who were "clean" and never cheated, correct?

Give me a list of those "clean" players during this era whose stats warrant HOF selection. I bet we don't get much past a half-dozen or so, which is a far less impact than banning everyone we think or know did PED's. Anyway, those half-dozen or so would likely get in the Hall anyway. By doing this, we avoid the annual arguments about who did PED's, suspected of PED's, etc. which will never be definitively proven.

The PED users are already hurting the clean players, just by creating a log-jam on the ballot. You can only cast 10 votes. Go ahead and remove all the stats of the PED users for us - that way we can see who remains. Also, remove all the stats of clean players when they faced steroid users such as Clemens, or the stats of clean pitchers when they faced guys like Sosa, Bonds, McGwire, etc. (it's a long list). After you've removed all the PED-induced stats, show us the new stats of the top remaining players.

[Runscott]

No plot twists this time: Biggio, Martinez, Smoltz, Johnson. I was surprised Bagwell got over 55%.

Prediction for next year: Griffey Jr. and Piazza.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Agree with Scott for next year, Griffey & Piazza, that's it.

[Runscott]

Thoroughly enjoying the interviews with the HOF inductees - everyone but Johnson so far. Hoping we get to hear a good interview with Griffey Jr next year.

[darwinbulldog]

Harumph.

[Runscott]

I heard an interesting comparison of Raines and Mattingly. The argument against Mattingly is not enough great years. All Raines did was play a lot longer;however, he had fewer HOF years than Mattingly.

[darwinbulldog]

All Raines did was play a lot longer;however, he had fewer HOF years than Mattingly.

By my count, Raines had 6 "HOF years" (1983-1987, 1992) and Mattingly had 4 (1984-1987). How did they define a HOF year?

[Runscott]

Not sure Glenn, but it sure is nice to be able to post someone else's opinions on this, rather than my own, to avoid nasty fights with forum members who think my opinions are rubbish :)

[earlywynnfan]

I came in at the end: Scott's opinions are rubbish.

Now, what are we talking about?

Actually, to start throwing stacks of 2 cents around:
Piazza and Jr. next year...
Greenies did give an advantage, although not as much as steroids...
David Ortiz is a giant cheater...
Want to see Raines get in so my collection is more valuable...
Mattingly is NOT a HOFer, sorry yankees fans...
With the clarity of hindsight, would anybody draft Biggio for their team over Piazza, knowing what they would do in their careers?


Ken

[bnorth]

Guarantee Boggs cheated? He looked more like a beer vendor than a ball player. Did the 'roids or whatever you possibly claim he took help him flare thousands of balls to left field? He wasn't fast, didn't have much power and had an average arm. Which part of his game was aided by juicing? Just because someone is good doesn't mean they cheated.

I never said Boggs did steroids, I said cheated.

Since most are way smarter than me in this area and was not stupid enough to try them I will describe how they really work. Your level of steroid use is what makes the difference. Its like Barry Bonds and his few insane years and Roger Clemens and his amazing long career.

Heavy users: These guys but up insane #s but only for a few years because your body just cant handle it. Look at Giambi, Bonds, and McGwire and how after they had the big steroid years they had crazy injuries.

Moderate users: These were the guys that put up really good #'s for a longer time before the injuries hit them.

Light/occasional user: These are the smart guys. Because they never had huge years but had long productive careers. This is the 75% of baseball players Canseco was talking about. They used them to stay healthy. IMHO at this level of use they received the same benefits as the guys using Greenies.

[Runscott]

I will offer one tiny bit of potential rubbish: I would trade Mattingly's 1989 for Raines' 1992.

[deadballfreaK]

Pleased with this year's class and I'll enjoy the inductions, but generally the HOF has gotten so screwed up that I'm not that interested. Plenty of guys in because they had high up cronies greasing the skids. Deserving guys who just played in the wrong city don't get a sniff. Now we have PED use. No way to decide who did and didn't. I generally just keep my own HOF in my head.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Not sure why Sheffield's name keeps coming up on MLB Channel all day for HOF. He was a known user, if Bonds & Clemens aren't getting in, no way Sheffield is. People are forgetting BALCO?

As an aside, since we talked all day about how dominating Randy Johnson & Pedro were as pitchers, just a moment to reflect back on 1986 and Mike Scott. You will recall the NY Mets were unstoppable that season, except when they played Houston and Mike Scott pitched. I'll always remember the NLCS, with Scott shutting out the Mets in Game 1 and again in Game 4 and then Game 6 going on forever with the Mets knowing that a loss would mean facing Scott again in Game 7. Of course the Mets ended up winning the longest playoff game in NL history and avoided Mike Scott in Game 7. To this day, both Darryl Strawberry & Dwight Gooden, the team's two biggest stars in 1986 will tell you that there was no way they were going to win a Game 7 against Scott.

[wolf441]

Not sure why Sheffield's name keeps coming up on MLB Channel all day for HOF. He was a known user, if Bonds & Clemens aren't getting in, no way Sheffield is. People are forgetting BALCO?

As an aside, since we talked all day about how dominating Randy Johnson & Pedro were as pitchers, just a moment to reflect back on 1986 and Mike Scott. You will recall the NY Mets were unstoppable that season, except when they played Houston and Mike Scott pitched. I'll always remember the NLCS, with Scott shutting out the Mets in Game 1 and again in Game 4 and then Game 6 going on forever with the Mets knowing that a loss would mean facing Scott again in Game 7. Of course the Mets ended up winning the longest playoff game in NL history and avoided Mike Scott in Game 7. To this day, both Darryl Strawberry & Dwight Gooden, the team's two biggest stars in 1986 will tell you that there was no way they were going to win a Game 7 against Scott.

+1 on Sheffield.

and Scott was clearly scuffing the ball in 1986.

[bcbgcbrcb]

C'mon, Steve, now that would be cheating.............

[Tabe]

I'm really torn when it comes to closer's. Can they be considered failed starters...maybe, but they are an accepted part of the game these days and there probably should be a place for them in the HOF. With that said, I would think you need to be a completely dominant one to get in, and I am not sure there are any in that I would consider dominant.

Even Eckersley, who is regarded as a top closer of all-time...take a look at his 11 year stretch as closer as far as ERA:

1987 - 3.03
1988 - 2.35
1989 - 1.56
1990 - 0.61
1991 - 2.96
1992 - 1.91
1993 - 4.16
1994 - 4.26
1995 - 4.83
1996 - 3.30
1997 - 3.91

His dominance fizzled after 5 years or so...his starting numbers were good, but certainly not HOF worthy as maybe a Smoltz would be considered.

So why is Eckersley in the HOF?
I've been asking that for awhile now. I didn't think he belonged when he got elected.

[Tabe]

Awful defense? You don't win that many rings as a team with awful defense behind the plate. Either way, I'm not saying I think he should be in, I'm saying I think he'll get in based on the team he was on. Phil Rizzuto got in strictly for being on the great Yankee teams in the 50's. His career numbers are a joke compared to the rest of the HOF. Compare his numbers to Posadas and they are freakishly similar, down to identical lifetime batting avgs. Posada even had more hits and did it from both sides of the plate. I'm not making an argument for him over anyone else, I'm just saying don't be surprised if/when he gets in.

Yes, awful defense. 7 times in 17 years he had a negative dWAR. He was a bad defensive catcher. That's just a fact.

[Runscott]

Phil - thanks for the 86 memories. What an almost-magic year for Houston. I remember very well thinking "just get us to Scott". He was superman that year.

Regarding Sheffield, I watched mlb channel all day, and I didn't think there was much pro-Sheffield except for the one goober who wanted to ignore peds.

[baseball tourist]

Jr. next year...
Greenies did give an advantage, although not as much as steroids...
David Ortiz is a giant cheater...
Want to see Raines get in
Mattingly is NOT a HOFer, sorry yankees fans...


I have paraphrased Ken, as I agree with most....and would add:

-as a Jays fan I am sad to see Carlos Delgado fall off the ballot;
-rooting for McGriff for the same reason (former Jay);
-Mariano isn't a HOF'er in my book nor are any closers, relivers or strictly DHs;

[UnVme7]

I think cheating is cheating. Whether it's PED's or a corked bat. In my opinion, yes, I do feel Piazza, Biggio, Bagwell and Thome used. I would vote for Thome but I never saw Bagwell as a HOF caliber player.

That being said, it's a known fact that Jim Rice and Pete Rose used corked bats. Should we kick Jim Rice out?

Also too-- about a year ago, a Mickey Mantle game used bat had surfaced that was corked. It was being auctioned off as such, and the Mantle family found out about the auction and threatened to sue the auction house if they did not remove the auction due to ruining the family name, etc. It was removed and that was that. So take that for what you will....

[tjb1952tjb]

Yeah I don't see Vizquel getting in either right away but I could see him getting in down the road. The same thing with Fred McGriff ending his career with 493 HRS. If he had indeed reached the 500 club would that of made him an automatic pick?

Could McGriff eventually get in with his numbers?

I've always thought the Crime Dog deserves more love.......underappreciated.

[EvilKing00]

I'm very surprised that we are now heavily into the PED time frame of HOF balloting and no one has commented on the fact that the most recent selectees are almost all pitchers, Maddux, Glavine, Pedro, Big Unit, Smoltz (most likely) with only Frank Thomas being a position player. This could continue with guys like Schilling & Mussina garnering more votes as the PED position players begin to show up more and more on future ballots. Is it realistic to think that the only "clean" players during this era were pitchers? Why do we assume that they were not using?

In my opinion, Bagwell was a user. His minor league and amateur resume just do not add up to his major league power numbers. I know anything's possible but.......

Piazza's minor league numbers match up somewhat better but did anyone see him during is first year or two in the minors? Was there a big difference in body size and type from his major league physique?

I would also like to make a comprehensive list of known users who finished with the best career stats. Off the top of my head, these are the ones that I can think of:

Bonds
McGwire
Sosa
Sheffield
Clemens
Pettitte
Palmeiro
M. Ramirez
I. Rodriguez
A. Rodriguez
Bagwell (IMHO)
J. Gonzalez
M. Tejada
Braun
Canseco

Does anyone else have any others that would be surefire HOF'ers based on their career stats?

sheffield

[bcbgcbrcb]

Steve:

Sheffield is on my list there.......

[bcbgcbrcb]

Regarding Tim Raines' candidacy, have we all forgotten the drugs? The same issue seemed to derail Dave Parker's HOF chances many years ago. I realize that Raines was a little better player than Parker for his career, although Parker had a higher peak IMHO. Although less qualified, Keith Hernandez too.........

[bcbgcbrcb]

I just took a look at the eligible players for the HOF going out to 2019, which is as far forward as you can go right now. I do not see any names going forward who have good enough numbers to get in but have strong suspicions of PED use. This does not include the confirmed users that I have already listed elsewhere in this thread (just added Ortiz to my list today).

The way I see it then, the only questionable names going forward are: Bagwell, Piazza & Kent (I might be in the minority on him). I think Bagwell is a user and should not get in, Piazza is a good possibility but nothing definitive so I would be willing to let him in at this point & Kent is also a good possibility, but no evidence. With poor defense and base running, I would say that he's on the borderline but it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world if he gets in either.

To me, none of the confirmed users get in until after Bonds & Clemens, which isn't happening anytime soon, maybe never.

So I guess going forward, the cloudy issue of who used and didn't use PED's may not be hovering over the HOF vote for too much longer. Ultimately, the decision will have to be made as to whether any confirmed PED users will get in though.........

[h2oya311]

It's amazing how quickly Rafael Palmeiro fell off the HOF ballot and off the radar for discussion. He had the sweetest left-handed swing I ever saw (even better than Griffey's), and at the time his career ended, was one of only three players with 500 HR and 3,000 hits. In fact, I don't know if anyone else has even accomplished that yet.

Anyone remember him? I haven't heard his name mentioned in several years.

As for Biggio, I couldn't be happier! It was only a matter of time. Just cause all you East and Left Coasters had never heard of him doesn't mean he wasn't a huge influence on the people in the Houston metropolitan area. He was the key ingredient to the rotating list of names that comprised the killer B's. No major league pitcher wanted to face the Astros line-up that featured Biggio, Bagwell, and D. Bell (or Berkman or Beltran in later years).

Before someone like J. Kent gets in, I'd love to see Crime Dog or Dale Murphy get their due. Murphy was the equivalent of A. Dawson during the '80s. He just didn't have as long of a playing career. The stats don't burst any eye-balls, but they did during the early to mid '80s when 30 HR was a Herculean accomplishment. They got swamped when the juice hit the game. Too bad IMO. Murphy is the kind of guy the HOF needs to have in its halls.

[Jobu]

Quite a thread here. My responses to a number of topics:

Mariano Rivera is 100% a HOFer. He was dominant for his entire career and is the greatest to play his position. Ranking the relative worth of different positions is a slippery slope. Even if you aren't a fan of closers, the top few guys at each position deserve to be in - once you move beyond the top 1-2 players at each spot for the era I can understand arguing against certain positions. The fact that Mo wasn't a successful starter at 21 years of age should not be a factor - lots of young guys with 1-2 awesome pitches struggle until they find a third and there is no reason to suggest Mo wouldn't have developed another pitch to become a great starter.

I think the PEDers will get in eventually. Right now they are paying the price for cheating, and getting caught for many of them, which I think is 100% fair. They did everything they could to win games, just like guys from every era (as has been pointed out here by many). Once they are in people will always look at their numbers and say "yeah, but...", epecially following not getting elected for a number of years, which to me is enough. If you were the best during an era when everyone cheated you belong in - the alternative is having a 20-year strectch of baseball where the guys who were clearly the best players are not included in the group that is supposed to contain the best players.

[bnorth]

I would have liked to see Fred McGriff get in. I actually collected baseball cards for a couple years before I ever watched baseball. Either the first or second game I ever went to was the Twins vs The Jays in Minnesota. I was amazed by what seemed like 100's of "McGriff is McGreat" signs. So after that game I followed his career and McGriff was McGreat.

[packs]

I've been reading a lot of articles from people who hold similar views on PEDs and the need to "prove" something when it comes time to punishing players. I've come away with this:

The HOF is entirely based on opinions: the opinion that someone was a HOFer. So if a voter has the opinion that someone cheated, that's all that matters. You don't have to prove anything. You just have to be of the opinion. Same principle that was used to vote in seemingly less-than HOFers.

[bcbgcbrcb]

I know, Derek. I grew up wanting to draft Dale Murphy every year in fantasy baseball leagues during the 1980's. To me, he comes out to be about the same as Don Mattingly with a little longer peak time and a little longer career overall. This makes him just a little more deserving than Mattingly, in my opinion. Maybe one day, he gets the Veteran's Committee vote.........

As far as McGriff, I think he is one of the most harmed players from the steroids era which made everyone's numbers so big. I also think McGriff gets in one day via Veteran's Committee vote, much more likely than Murphy, in my opinion.

[rats60]

-Mariano isn't a HOF'er in my book nor are any closers, relivers or strictly DHs;

Then should we kick out all the Negro League players? I am a small hall guy, but I also think we should be inclusive of all players. I want DHs and relieves but only the best. They are important to the game. Yes to Rivera, no to Hoffman. Hoffman was an accumulator, only 2 time Rolaids winner. Yes to Big Hurt and Molitor, no to Edgar and Ortiz.

[rats60]

I think the PEDers will get in eventually. Right now they are paying the price for cheating, and getting caught for many of them, which I think is 100% fair. They did everything they could to win games, just like guys from every era (as has been pointed out here by many). Once they are in people will always look at their numbers and say "yeah, but...", epecially following not getting elected for a number of years, which to me is enough. If you were the best during an era when everyone cheated you belong in - the alternative is having a 20-year strectch of baseball where the guys who were clearly the best players are not included in the group that is supposed to contain the best players.

I disagree. I don't think they ever get in. Joe Jackson has a better case and he has been waiting since 1936, 78 years. If you want to put Joe in next year, start t he clock on Rose, Bonds, and Clemens. When you get to 79 years of waiting, put them in.

[earlywynnfan]

Regarding Tim Raines' candidacy, have we all forgotten the drugs? The same issue seemed to derail Dave Parker's HOF chances many years ago. I realize that Raines was a little better player than Parker for his career, although Parker had a higher peak IMHO. Although less qualified, Keith Hernandez too.........

Thank you for bringing this up! Raines seems to be the darling of the knowledgeable fans of non-steroid users. Yet he's a guy who slid headfirst so he wouldn't break his crack vial in his back pocket!

[Jobu]

I think Rose and Jackson are different than PED users. They aren't in because they tried to lose, fix games, or bet so frequently that it is hard to think they never factored their bets into how the game was played (I know there are arguments that Jackson didn't throw the series, but that is the accepted reason). The PED guys, on the other hand, tried everything they could to win, likely including sacrificing some years off the end of their lives, and PED use has nothing to do with throwing games.

I disagree. I don't think they ever get in. Joe Jackson has a better case and he has been waiting since 1936, 78 years. If you want to put Joe in next year, start t he clock on Rose, Bonds, and Clemens. When you get to 79 years of waiting, put them in.

[ElCabron]

So much stupid. This thread is filled with so much stupid.

-Ryan

[darwinbulldog]

Thank you for bringing this up! Raines seems to be the darling of the knowledgeable fans of non-steroid users. Yet he's a guy who slid headfirst so he wouldn't break his crack vial in his back pocket!

Powdered cocaine, sir. Get your facts straight.

[conor912]

Thank you for bringing this up! Raines seems to be the darling of the knowledgeable fans of non-steroid users. Yet he's a guy who slid headfirst so he wouldn't break his crack vial in his back pocket!

Why did he need crack while running the base paths? Did he carry his pipe, wallet and car keys in his other pocket?

[rats60]

I think Rose and Jackson are different than PED users. They aren't in because they tried to lose, fix games, or bet so frequently that it is hard to think they never factored their bets into how the game was played (I know there are arguments that Jackson didn't throw the series, but that is the accepted reason). The PED guys, on the other hand, tried everything they could to win, likely including sacrificing some years off the end of their lives, and PED use has nothing to do with throwing games.

Actually Joe Jackson was banned for knowing about the fix. There is no evidence that he took money or tried to lose a game. His stats for the 1919 World Series were very good.

The more important fact in Jackson's case was that throwing games in those days wasn't looked down on. Guys like Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker are known to have fixed a game. It was just that the spotlight of the World Series gave the game a black eye.

[Bored5000]

I think the PEDers will get in eventually. Right now they are paying the price for cheating, and getting caught for many of them, which I think is 100% fair. They did everything they could to win games, just like guys from every era (as has been pointed out here by many). Once they are in people will always look at their numbers and say "yeah, but...", epecially following not getting elected for a number of years, which to me is enough. If you were the best during an era when everyone cheated you belong in - the alternative is having a 20-year strectch of baseball where the guys who were clearly the best players are not included in the group that is supposed to contain the best players.

I don't think Bonds, Clemens, Palmeiro, etc. will ever get in. Look at sprinter Ben Johnson from the 1980s and the East Germans of the 1970s. It has been a quarter century since Johnson lost his gold medal and 35-40 years since the East Germans were at their peak. In that time, Johnson and the East Germans have not been viewed more legitimately.

It seems hard to believe that the PED users in baseball will be viewed more legitimately a generation from now or two generations from now when that has not been the case in other sports.

[Runscott]

Ryan - a hearty +1

McGriff definitely makes the HOAF, as does Delgado and many who somehow made the HOF. I also think there should be a HOL (hall of longevity) for some of the guys receiving forum tears.

[ALR-bishop]

According to the WSJ, the following have received a vote for the HOF

2014--Jacques Jones
2013--Aaron Sele
2012--Eric Young
2011-- Benito Santiago
2010-- David Segui
2009--Jesse Orosco
2008--Shawon Dunston
2007--Jay Buhner
2006--Walt Weiss
2005-- Terry Steinbach
1980-- Sonny Jackson

[Runscott]

Al, I'm wondering if these weren't cases of a buddy voting for them just so they could say they received a vote. If they only gave each voter 5 votes, that might change.

[conor912]

Al, I'm wondering if these weren't cases of a buddy voting for them just so they could say they received a vote. If they only gave each voter 5 votes, that might change.

Agreed. Anyone who legitimately thinks Jay Buhner belongs in the Hall should not be allowed to vote, period. It still irks me that guys like Jermaine Dye even make it on the ballot to begin with.

[dgo71]

It still irks me that guys like Jermaine Dye even make it on the ballot to begin with.

That's a great point. I thought the ballot was given a sanity check before being made final and some names were removed from consideration. Maybe that doesn't happen though, because every year there is outrage that someone voted for a guy who is on the ballot that had no business getting a vote. Well, if he doesn't deserve even 1 vote what the heck is he doing on the ballot in the first place? I agree that those guys named above are in no way HOFers and it's a joke to think otherwise. So just pull them off the ballot altogether. To me if their name is on the ballot then it doesn't stand to reason that someone shouldn't have the right to vote for them, regardless of how much sense it might make.

[Kenny Cole]

Al, I'm wondering if these weren't cases of a buddy voting for them just so they could say they received a vote. If they only gave each voter 5 votes, that might change.

Scott, they tried that in 1946. It made the problem worse, not better. In times when there is a logjam and a number of candidates that are arguably qualified, lessening the number of candidates that can be voted for dilutes the vote for each of them and helps ensure that no one gets enough votes. I'm sure the problem was more acute in 1946, but I really don't see that as a fix that is workable. Most of the voters argue, and I think that I tend to agree, is that the fix is not to arbitrarily limit the number of votes that can be cast to 10. That way, if you want to vote for your buddy or hometown hero just because, it doesn't hurt the ones who are actually qualified and might deserve a vote.

[Runscott]

Gotcha. I personally do not have a problem with Sonny Jackson getting a vote. It is stupid but it does not put him in the hall.

[earlywynnfan]

Remember after Jim Deshaies retired, he said all he wanted to make his career complete was one HOF vote? He seemed to be having fun, and very down-to-earth. Some voter gave him one.

[Tabe]

That's a great point. I thought the ballot was given a sanity check before being made final and some names were removed from consideration.
It IS given a sanity check.

From the HOF site:


A. BBWAA Screening Committee -- A Screening Committee consisting of baseball writers will be appointed by the BBWAA. This Screening Committee shall consist of six members, with two members to be elected at each Annual Meeting for a three-year term. The duty of the Screening Committee shall be to prepare a ballot listing in alphabetical order eligible candidates who (1) received a vote on a minimum of five percent (5%) of the ballots cast in the preceding election or (2) are eligible for the first time and are nominated by any two of the six members of the BBWAA Screening Committee.