2021 HOF Ballot

[triwak]

Since we're about to finally exit this awful year, I thought this would be a good time to start some good-natured discussions, looking forward to better times. I would prefer folks limit their opinions to players who are actually ON THE BALLOT. But opine anything you want, I guess.

(Copied from the HOF website):

Any candidate who receives votes on 75 percent of all ballots cast will earn election to the Hall of Fame.

Fourteen former players are returning to the 2021 BBWAA ballot after receiving at least five percent of the overall vote in 2020:

Curt Schilling 70.0% 9th year
Roger Clemens 61.0% 9th year
Barry Bonds 60.7% 9th year
Omar Vizquel 52.6% 4th year
Scott Rolen 35.3% 4th year
Billy Wagner 31.7% 6th year
Gary Sheffield 30.5% 7th year
Todd Helton 29.2% 3rd year
Manny Ramírez 28.2% 5th year
Jeff Kent 27.5% 8th year
Andruw Jones 19.4% 4th year
Sammy Sosa 13.9% 9th year
Andy Pettitte 11.3% 3rd year
Bobby Abreu 5.5% 2nd year

Debuting on the BBWAA ballot in 2021 are:

Mark Buehrle
A.J. Burnett
Michael Cuddyer
Dan Haren
LaTroy Hawkins
Tim Hudson
Torii Hunter
Aramis Ramírez
Nick Swisher
Shane Victorino
Barry Zito

Let the games begin!!

[Wanaselja]

My guess is Schilling is the only one who gets to 75%. I think Rolen and Helton will see nice gains. Bonds and Clemens I think fall short again.

[triwak]

Honestly, I think Schilling is probably the only inductee this year. (Assuming Bonds and Clemens are still shut out).

Posted at the same moment, Adam!!

[ronniehatesjazz]

Like others have said, only Schilling. Small chance of Vizquel gets in too. Bonds and Clemens get in on their 10th appearance in 2022, which will also see Manny and Sheffield gain a lot of momentum and probably make it in 2023.


My guess is for the players listed:

2021: Curt Schilling
2022: Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Omar Vizquel
2023: Manny Ramirez
2024: Gary Sheffield

[T206BrownHindu]

I think Schilling is the only one this year. Didn’t Vizquel just get into some legal trouble? I don’t think any of the first timers gets over 5 percent (maybe Hudson).

[pclpads]

None on your list really excite me. What has kept Schilling out in the past - his mouth and far right political attitude - may trip him up again.

[Throttlesteer]

Only case for Bonds and Clemens is, they would have gotten in regardless of their cheating. The question becomes how the voters decide to make a statement. They may have to wait another year. But, like many of the other cheaters of the time, they permanently pooped in the MLB record book punch bowl. There's no going back and the records will forever be a mess.

[nat]

Essential for any hall of fame discussion season: http://www.bbhoftracker.com/

Tracks all of the publicly-released ballots up until the election announcement. As of this morning, no one is on track to be elected. Votes-per-ballot are usually lower in the not-announced group than amongst those who announce their ballots, but a few players (eg Omar Vizquel) might get a bump.

[Casey2296]

None on your list really excite me. What has kept Schilling out in the past - his mouth and far right political attitude - may trip him up again.

Sad that politics has to come into play for a HOF vote.

[perezfan]

Since we're about to finally exit this awful year, I thought this would be a good time to start some good-natured discussions, looking forward to better times. I would prefer folks limit their opinions to players who are actually ON THE BALLOT. But opine anything you want, I guess.

(Copied from the HOF website):

Any candidate who receives votes on 75 percent of all ballots cast will earn election to the Hall of Fame.

Fourteen former players are returning to the 2021 BBWAA ballot after receiving at least five percent of the overall vote in 2020:

Curt Schilling 70.0% 9th year
Roger Clemens 61.0% 9th year
Barry Bonds 60.7% 9th year
Omar Vizquel 52.6% 4th year
____________________________

Scott Rolen 35.3% 4th year
Billy Wagner 31.7% 6th year
Gary Sheffield 30.5% 7th year
Todd Helton 29.2% 3rd year
Manny Ramírez 28.2% 5th year
Jeff Kent 27.5% 8th year
Andruw Jones 19.4% 4th year
Sammy Sosa 13.9% 9th year
Andy Pettitte 11.3% 3rd year
Bobby Abreu 5.5% 2nd year

Debuting on the BBWAA ballot in 2021 are:

Mark Buehrle
A.J. Burnett
Michael Cuddyer
Dan Haren
LaTroy Hawkins
Tim Hudson
Torii Hunter
Aramis Ramírez
Nick Swisher
Shane Victorino
Barry Zito

Let the games begin!!

I would say that NONE of the players debuting this year ever get in.

I would also surmise that you can draw a red line under Vizquel, to separate those who have have a legitimate shot, vs. those who don't. The only exceptions might be Sheffield, Manny and Sosa... but that's only if we see more leniency towards "steroid guys" eventually getting in.

I think a lot will depend upon how they deal with Big Papi. He will clearly be a sentimental favorite when his time comes. And if Papi is elected, then I think the door opens for Bonds and Clemens (and perhaps guys like Sheffield, Manny, Sosa and Palmeiro).

I personally hope it does not go down this way, but would not bet against it.

[T206BrownHindu]

Essential for any hall of fame discussion season: http://www.bbhoftracker.com/

Tracks all of the publicly-released ballots up until the election announcement. As of this morning, no one is on track to be elected. Votes-per-ballot are usually lower in the not-announced group than amongst those who announce their ballots, but a few players (eg Omar Vizquel) might get a bump.

Again, this is an off the field issue, but Vizquel was just accused of domestic violence, which may impact outstanding votes.

Not really sure why he’s even in the discussion, anyway.

[triwak]

Essential for any hall of fame discussion season: http://www.bbhoftracker.com/

Tracks all of the publicly-released ballots up until the election announcement. As of this morning, no one is on track to be elected. Votes-per-ballot are usually lower in the not-announced group than amongst those who announce their ballots, but a few players (eg Omar Vizquel) might get a bump.

Interesting. Pretty big bumps indicated for Rolen and Helton.

[perezfan]

Interesting. Pretty big bumps indicated for Rolen and Helton.

Historically, the numbers decline as more votes funnel in. I bet neither one reaches the 50% mark in the end.

[hammertime]

Only case for Bonds and Clemens is, they would have gotten in regardless of their cheating. The question becomes how the voters decide to make a statement. They may have to wait another year. But, like many of the other cheaters of the time, they permanently pooped in the MLB record book punch bowl. There's no going back and the records will forever be a mess.

Also there are a ton of players currently in the HoF who cheated during their playing days...spitballs, sign stealing, etc.

[todeen]

I would say that NONE of the players debuting this year ever get in.



I would also surmise that you can draw a red line under Vizquel, to separate those who have have a legitimate shot, vs. those who don't. The only exceptions might be Sheffield, Manny and Sosa... but that's only if we see more leniency towards "steroid guys" eventually getting in.



I think a lot will depend upon how they deal with Big Papi. He will clearly be a sentimental favorite when his time comes. And if Papi is elected, then I think the door opens for Bonds and Clemens (and perhaps guys like Sheffield, Manny, Sosa and Palmeiro).



I personally hope it does not go down this way, but would not bet against it.I would draw the red line under Scott Rolen. I believe he will get in some day, by the writers or thru a playing days committee.

I also agree with you about David Ortiz.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[Throttlesteer]

Also there are a ton of players currently in the HoF who cheated during their playing days...spitballs, sign stealing, etc.

Solid point. It's debatable whether previous cheating impacted the record books the way PEDs did. But, I agree that cheating has always been one of the uglier sides of the game.

[abothebear]

I have a hard time thinking that voters will be more pumped up about baseball at this point than they were last year. The top of the list probably won't see a lot of positive movement. I hope Rolen sees big gains though. My uninformed guess is that Helton will see a bump, and only Beurle and maybe Hunter from the new guys get enough votes to stick around.

[OldOriole]

My guess is Schilling is the only one who gets to 75%. I think Rolen and Helton will see nice gains. Bonds and Clemens I think fall short again.

This.

As for 2022, it'll be the largest collection of PED users ever assembled. Bonds and Clemens will be holdovers in their last year of eligibility. Sheffield, Sosa, and Manny will still be on the ballot. A-Rod, Big Papi will be joining for the first time. Ugh. 2023 doesn't look much better with the biggest name being Carlos Beltran and his admitted in-game cheating.

I'd be fine if, after Schilling, there were no inductions until Beltre and Mauer come along in 2024.

[rhettyeakley]

I actually like quite a few of the guys on the list to eventually make it into the HOF even though there aren’t any huge names that are absolute no-brainers.

From the link I don’t really understand why Tim Hudson isn’t getting a little more support as a newcomer, his numbers are better than people probably realize.

Schilling should already be in, his personal politics are holding him back (which I think is stupid, even if I don’t agree with him on much of anything.)

Scott Rolen should get in, and will eventually but I like a lot of guys like Jeff Kent to get in someday as well.


All that being said with the way 2020 has been I think it would be fitting if all of the sudden something crazy like Clemens and Bonds getting the nod was to happen.

[Usc1]

I wonder if in the future any of the sign stealing astros are left out as well?

Sign stealing is worse than PEDs!

[Jason19th]

Sad that politics has to come into play for a HOF vote.

I actually don’t think that it’s really his politics that keep Shilling out. When you look at his record in context more guys with his type of record are out then in. Consider Luis Tiant, Lew Burdette , Ron Guidry, Mickie Lolich, Allie Reynolds, Billy Pierce, Mike Cueller, Vida Blue, Kevin Brown, and Bob Welch. Shilling has some big splash moments but that’s not the standard.

[Jason19th]

I wonder if in the future any of the sign stealing astros are left out as well?

Sign stealing is worse than PEDs!

No high school kid ever died or was seriously hurt from By sign stealing

[Huysmans]

Sad that politics has to come into play for a HOF vote.

Pathetic is probably a better word... if that is in fact the case.

[Exhibitman]

The 2021 newbies are probably the worst list I've ever seen. Not one of them is a serious threat to be elected. As for the reruns, we've had the discussion on them before.

Schilling will probably Don Sutton his way in this year. I loathe Schilling: I hate his politics, I hate that he beat the Yankees, I hate his f***ing sock, I hate the Red Sox, I hate that his name is a homophone for the most loathesome bidding method at auctions, I just hate every aspect of him. I'd not vote for him because I think post-play conduct is a consideration, but he does have the chops baseball-wise to justify his election.

[ronniehatesjazz]

Pathetic is probably a better word... if that is in fact the case.

Amen to that! I think it's just a small hurdle but still not right. I think most voters who lean the other side will drop him down a peg or two. That's unfortunate for a borderline guy like Schilling. If he were unquestionably a HOFer I think even far left voters would give him a nod. There would always be one or two voters who would foolishly vote him down for something like that but most would vote for him IMO.

Not the greatest analogy but imagine conservative NBA HOF voters on Lebron in the future. They may despise his politics but how could you seriously vote against him? That would not be the same for a borderline player.

Also, as a side note, I've never understood the allure of Scott Rolen. Overhyped since he was a prospect and I would personally group him in with Harold Baines, but sadly Baines at least is a great guy... cant say the same for Rolen.

[Throttlesteer]

Not the greatest analogy but imagine conservative NBA HOF voters on Lebron in the future. They may despise his politics but how could you seriously vote against him?



Are there any conservative NBA HOF voters? This would surprise me

[Fred]

Only case for Bonds and Clemens is, they would have gotten in regardless of their cheating. The question becomes how the voters decide to make a statement. They may have to wait another year. But, like many of the other cheaters of the time, they permanently pooped in the MLB record book punch bowl. There's no going back and the records will forever be a mess.

Probably right, those knuckleheads could have gotten in without the PEDs. Sadly, most of the PED users kept denying it and basically lost a lot of people's respect. Look at Rafael Palmeiro, swore during testimony he wasn't a user. Not long after that, he was busted.

I give Mark McGwire credit, at least he fessed up to it.

[nat]

Schilling's problem isn't so much his politics exactly, as it is that he says nasty things about journalists, and it's journalists who vote on the hall of fame. Being mean to voters is a pretty good way to get them to not vote for you.

Rolen's support is due to the fact that he was a very good hitter who was also an all-time great defensive player. Among the best four or five defensive third basemen.

[Usc1]

No high school kid ever died or was seriously hurt from By sign stealing

I was speaking in terms of the game. Ask any baseball player and they will state that sign stealing is one of the worst ways to cheat in baseball. It takes all the guess work out of hitting.

I am not speaking of sign stealing by casual observation as well. It is the use of binoculars and electronic devices.

[Jason19th]

The 2021 newbies are probably the worst list I've ever seen. Not one of them is a serious threat to be elected. As for the reruns, we've had the discussion on them before.

Schilling will probably Don Sutton his way in this year. I loathe Schilling: I hate his politics, I hate that he beat the Yankees, I hate his f***ing sock, I hate the Red Sox, I hate that his name is a homophone for the most loathesome bidding method at auctions, I just hate every aspect of him. I'd not vote for him because I think post-play conduct is a consideration, but he does have the chops baseball-wise to justify his election.

I actually think that Sutton is a pretty good comp on a per season basis. But that illustrates my point. Sutton is in as a compiler not a true year to year superstar. He deserves to get in but only based on longevity. He won 110 more games then Shilling.

[Brian Van Horn]

Off subject, but also coming up for a vote in 2021.

[GeoPoto]

Only case for Bonds and Clemens is, they would have gotten in regardless of their cheating. The question becomes how the voters decide to make a statement. They may have to wait another year. But, like many of the other cheaters of the time, they permanently pooped in the MLB record book punch bowl. There's no going back and the records will forever be a mess.

I am agnostic regarding steroid abuse prior to MLB explicitly forbidding it. You want to disqualify (some of) the (almost certain) users, it wont bother me; you want to vote as though nobody used steroids (until the MLB ban), it won't bother me.

But, everybody should acknowledge the following regarding Bonds. His father was the first to have 300 HRs and 300 SBs. In 1998, Barry became the first to have 400 HRs and 400 SBs. Nobody cared. The focus was strictly on McGwire, Sosa, and their season HR race. During 1998, a STL reporter observed a package of steroids in McGwire's locker and wrote about it. Outrage ensued. Not about the evidence of steroid use, but about the breach of the sanctity of the clubhouse and the clubhouse reporters' duty of confidentiality. Tony La Russa, the STL manager, complained loudly and suggested the offending reporter should be banned from the clubhouse. Nobody criticized McGwire.

I don't think Bonds' (apparent) decision to "get in the HR race" despite it requiring steroid use to compete with McGwire and Sosa was outrageous. I think the "system" appeared unconcerned about how you were able to hit 70 HRs in a season. And if you could, you were celebrated like a hero.

So while I agree that believing that Bonds at 400/400 had already had a HoF career is a legitimate basis for voting yes, I don't think it is the only perspective that could justify a yes vote. Bonds was never banned from baseball (like Rose is). MLB (owners, players union, etc.) were complicit in Bonds reaching the point where experimenting with Steroids didn't seem to be breaking a cardinal rule. It seemed to be the only way to be viewed as the most valuable player in MLB. The most valuable player in MLB is what most players aspire to be.

[mattsey9]

Historically, the numbers decline as more votes funnel in. I bet neither one reaches the 50% mark in the end.

Exactly what I was going to post regarding why I don't see Schilling or anyone else getting in this cycle.

[G1911]

None of the new to ballot players even merit much consideration, I think. I hope Torri Hunter gets an honorary single vote though, I liked him.

Clemens, Bonds, Sheffield, Ramirez, Sosa are primarily an ethics based argument instead of a fact-oriented one and are there own category. Petite is a toss up if you ignore the steroid charges.


I would vote for Schilling, he’s not in for political and personality reasons. Very similar to Glavine and Mussina, clearest HOFer on the ballot I think.


Vizquel I would not vote for. 2,968 games, 45.6 WAR. His traditional stats are not very good either, his glove doesn’t overcome his 82 OPS+. He was maybe the fourth or fifth best Shortstop in the league during his prime. Personal favorite, fond memories of his nightly Sports Center highlight reels, but not a HOFer.


Rolen I would vote for. How many 3B in baseball history are better? Unless we want to cut the Hall in half, I think he deserves it when one digs deeper.


Wagner - No, 903 IP is not enough impact on the game for almost anyone. I would only vote for maybe Wilhelm and Rivera among RP’s though, Wagner is better than a a good chunk of the relievers in so his election would not be outrageous.


Helton - would probably vote for, even with the Colorado affect. If I had to pick a 1B from this era not in I would select McGriff first, but he’s not an option.


Jeff Kent - He ranks pretty high among 2B all time I think, better than a significant number in even with his late start. Modern stats punish his defense excessively, I think, holding his WAR down. One of the best 2B bats ever, all time Home Run leader by a wide margin. Late start to career, average D, and a jackass though. I don’t think he gets in, but I’d vote for him over Omar.


Andruw Jones - I get the argument for him, but I’d vote no. His value is all peak, and that peak wasn’t long enough to justify the Hall. Another personal favorite though.


Bobby Abreu - A better case than half the ballot, strikes me very much as an underrated Minoso type player, one who was really good at a ton of things but not great enough in any one thing to get credit for his total value. His case is much stronger than people realize before they delve into the numbers. Worthy of serious consideration.

[Seven]

I think Schilling will be the only one that gets in. Politics have kept him out which quite frankly is a load of crap. I get very annoyed at the Baseball Writers Association, because a good portion of them seem to hold this air of Moral Superiority, and if you don't fir their definition of "Worthy" then you aren't allowed into the Hall of Fame.

I understand the argument for Clemens, and Bonds to not be in the Hall of Fame. But the Hall by definition is a Museum. It celebrates the history of the game. Whether that History looks good or bad, it should still be recognized. Barry Bonds is the Home Run King, Roger Clemens Won Seven Cy Young Awards. Why Not Induct them with an asterisk on their Plaque? I understand they cheated, and cheating is wrong, but to pass over them, time and time again, in a way is more or less saying they didn't exist in my opinion.

It's not like they were banned from baseball. Nor was either suspended or thrown out for breaking the rules because the rules were shaky at best, and the owners certainly didn't care about what they were taking because they were raking in the cash from all the fans that were coming to see these muscle bound freaks of nature hit titanic home runs or throw 100 MPH Gas before it was a regular occurrence.

Any way rant aside. I think Clemens and Bonds should be enshrined in some fashion. Throw an asterisk on their plaque, make it a different color, but to keep them out doesn't make sense to me. But that's just my opinion.

[mattsey9]

My ballot would be the below 10 names. I make no apologies for being a Big Hall advocate...

Roger Clemens
Barry Bonds
Scott Rolen
Gary Sheffield
Todd Helton
Manny Ramírez
Andruw Jones
Sammy Sosa

Mark Buehrle


Write-in: Kenny Lofton

[iwantitiwinit]

Nick Swisher is a lock!!!

[G1911]

My ballot would be the below 10 names. I make no apologies for being a Big Hall advocate...

Roger Clemens
Barry Bonds
Scott Rolen
Gary Sheffield
Todd Helton
Manny Ramírez
Andruw Jones
Sammy Sosa

Mark Buehrle


Write-in: Kenny Lofton

Buehrle over Schilling?

[terjung]

Schilling, yes
Dahlen, yes

all others no.

I loved watching Vizquel play and thought he was a magician at times, but I have never viewed him as a HOFer.

[mattsey9]

Buehrle over Schilling?

Yes.

[Casey2296]

My Ballot is two.

1. Bill "Bad Bill" Dahlen
2. William "Dummy" Hoy

[G1911]

Yes.

Hard to see that in the math.

[slidekellyslide]

Probably right, those knuckleheads could have gotten in without the PEDs. Sadly, most of the PED users kept denying it and basically lost a lot of people's respect. Look at Rafael Palmeiro, swore during testimony he wasn't a user. Not long after that, he was busted.

I give Mark McGwire credit, at least he fessed up to it.

Did he? I just remember him taking the Fifth.

[G1911]

Did he? I just remember him taking the Fifth.

McGwire took the fifth, Palmeiro said in front of the congressional committee "I have never used steroids. Period." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAxo4pCITRM. Heres McGwire admitting to it late https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3STkQC8pVEE

[slidekellyslide]

Thanks...I didn't remember that. He really didn't need to apologize to Bud Selig though who knew exactly what was going on the whole time.

[JollyElm]

I Kent possibly say it enough...Jeff Freakin' Kent!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

An absolute monster run producer at second base. It's pathetic that he isn't enshrined already.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Schilling. If Vizquel makes it he shouldn't, he wasn't even that great a fielder. Rolen I could see but not yet.

[ronniehatesjazz]

My Ballot is two.

1. Bill "Bad Bill" Dahlen
2. William "Dummy" Hoy

Yes on both of them! Particularly Hoy... a 5'6 (or 5'4?) deaf man who amassed over 2,000 career hits despite not playing a game until he was 26 is a story more people need to be aware of.

[G1911]

Dahlen is one of the best players not in, I would vote for him, but I don't see the statistical argument for Hoy. 110 OPS+, 32.6 WAR, .288/.388/.376 slash as a Center Fielder. Old stats or new, nothing seems to put him into the HOF tier looking at his figures. Seems like he's generally ranked correctly, very good player outside the hall.

[todeen]

.



So while I agree that believing that Bonds at 400/400 had already had a HoF career is a legitimate basis for voting yes, I don't think it is the only perspective that could justify a yes vote. Bonds was never banned from baseball (like Rose is). MLB (owners, players union, etc.) were complicit in Bonds reaching the point where experimenting with Steroids didn't seem to be breaking a cardinal rule. It seemed to be the only way to be viewed as the most valuable player in MLB. The most valuable player in MLB is what most players aspire to be.

I agree. I actually support PED users for entry, not because I like them, but because nobody IN POWER cared for 20 years. The home run increased revenue for every team. Your analysis on Bonds being overlooked for McGwire and Sosa is correct, and it bothered him. PED use is a sad story in MLB, but the players should still be enshrined.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[perezfan]

I am agnostic regarding steroid abuse prior to MLB explicitly forbidding it. You want to disqualify (some of) the (almost certain) users, it wont bother me; you want to vote as though nobody used steroids (until the MLB ban), it won't bother me.

But, everybody should acknowledge the following regarding Bonds. His father was the first to have 300 HRs and 300 SBs. In 1998, Barry became the first to have 400 HRs and 400 SBs. Nobody cared. The focus was strictly on McGwire, Sosa, and their season HR race. During 1998, a STL reporter observed a package of steroids in McGwire's locker and wrote about it. Outrage ensued. Not about the evidence of steroid use, but about the breach of the sanctity of the clubhouse and the clubhouse reporters' duty of confidentiality. Tony La Russa, the STL manager, complained loudly and suggested the offending reporter should be banned from the clubhouse. Nobody criticized McGwire.

I don't think Bonds' (apparent) decision to "get in the HR race" despite it requiring steroid use to compete with McGwire and Sosa was outrageous. I think the "system" appeared unconcerned about how you were able to hit 70 HRs in a season. And if you could, you were celebrated like a hero.

So while I agree that believing that Bonds at 400/400 had already had a HoF career is a legitimate basis for voting yes, I don't think it is the only perspective that could justify a yes vote. Bonds was never banned from baseball (like Rose is). MLB (owners, players union, etc.) were complicit in Bonds reaching the point where experimenting with Steroids didn't seem to be breaking a cardinal rule. It seemed to be the only way to be viewed as the most valuable player in MLB. The most valuable player in MLB is what most players aspire to be.

This is exactly why I cannot believe LaRussa got into the HOF so easily. Why the free pass, and blatant double-standard for managers? He knew damn well what was going on and completely espoused it.

And it was even worse when he managed the Athletics with McGwire, Canseco, Giambi and all the other 'roiders. There may have been a year or two of his managing career that was steroid-free, but I sincerely doubt it. He's every bit as guilty as any of them.

And there's also this...

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/30288007/chicago-white-sox-manager-tony-la-russa-charged-dui-stemming-february-arrest-court-docs-show

A repeat offender and stellar guy.

[todeen]

Andruw Jones - I get the argument for him, but I’d vote no. His value is all peak, and that peak wasn’t long enough to justify the Hall. Another personal favorite though.



That first playoff series when Andruw Jones was a rookie - WOW. I was 9 or 10 living in Montana. Barely knew anything about him. He was like watching an acrobat. It was phenomenal to see him. Easily comparable to Griffey in his prime. But I agree his peak wasn't long enough to merit consideration.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[AGuinness]

I'm not the first person to put this opinion out there, but with Bud Selig being enshrined in the Hall of Fame, I think anybody who played in that era (before actual testing) should also be enshrined despite the PED connections. It's pretty grand hypocrisy for the Hall to honor a man who oversaw that era, benefiting from the PEDs and turning his eye to their usage, while keeping the players out.
That said, anybody who failed a test, once testing was implemented, should not get that benefit of the doubt. Manny, Rafael, Sosa, etc.
Clemens and Bonds never failed a test and even if you slashed their stats in half they'd still both be Hall of Famers.

[kmac32]

My guess is nobody. Shilling was involved in some things where he was accused of racism in the last year or so and had to apologize publiclly. With the BLM movement, this hurts his chances and the others while good ball players are not HOF with th exception of Bonds and Sosa and they are embroiled in the accusations of steroids. Do not know if it has ever happened but I say nobody.

[G1911]

That first playoff series when Andruw Jones was a rookie - WOW. I was 9 or 10 living in Montana. Barely knew anything about him. He was like watching an acrobat. It was phenomenal to see him. Easily comparable to Griffey in his prime. But I agree his peak wasn't long enough to merit consideration.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

He was one of my favorites as a kid, for those acrobatic catches and because Braves games were on TV all the time then. I was raised in the Church of Willie Mays and my fathers opinion that Jones was the best defensive CF he'd seen since pretty much anointed Andruw for me. As I recall the late 90's/early 00's, Vizquel and Jones were half the nightly "Web Gems" segment.

Since we need a card, I picked this one up for $1 a few weeks ago. Cards like a Jones relic made 15 year old me excited, it's very nice I can pick up the old relics of stars from the sets I couldn't afford hobby boxes of for almost nothing these days.

[Mike D.]

Schilling will likely be the lone BBWAA electee this year, as others have said.

Of note that he really didn't lose favor for being right wing necessarily, it was tweeting/re-tweeting something about hanging journalists. When you're dealing with an electorate of journalists, it's not a way to gain popularity.

I believe Schilling deleted his Twitter account a while back, which in an election year was probably a good idea and the quiet should put him over the 75% mark.

I'm not a big Vizquel fan, and the domestic abuse charges will obviously hurt him. Time will tell if he gets in in the future.

The new guys will struggle to get a vote, never mind get the 5% to stay on the ballot....although Tim Hudson is closer to a hall of famer than most will think at first blush. Seriously, look at the # of HOF (or HOF-likely) pitchers born after 1970...it's alarming. The voters aren't adjusting to what a HOF pitcher looks like in the "modern game". Guys like Kevin Brown, Johan Santana, and maybe Tim Hudson are the best of the era.

Interesting we've made it through the "ballot glut" and the upcoming classes are a bit thinner. I'm not sure that Beltran gets hurt by the "cheating scandal"...not with both banned managers already back in the game.

And Ortiz is a lock. His situation is very different than that with anyone who tested positive. Heck, even the commissioned said so...

[clydepepper]

Of those who are actually on this ballot:

I want to get in:

Curt Schilling & Billy Wagner

Who I think will get in:

Curt Schilling

Who I don't want in but this may be their window of opportunity:

bonds and clemens



Of those who are not on the ballot, but should be in:

Gil Hodges
Minnie Minoso
Luis Tiant
Tony Oliva

[darwinbulldog]

My vote is for the three a-holes at the top of the list plus Manny.

[mainemule]

Schilling should have been elected a long time ago. He played for some lousy teams early in his career. Only eligible member of 3k k club, other then Clemens, not elected. One of the lowest walk ratios of any SP, especially a strikeout pitcher. Pitched in 4 WS, winning 3 and is the best post-season starter in last 50 years (since Gibson).

[cardsagain74]

I agree. I actually support PED users for entry, not because I like them, but because nobody IN POWER cared for 20 years

I just wish there was uniformity between the cheating of prior generations and the steroid era. Whitey Ford admitted that he doctored the ball worse than Harris from Major League. Mike Schmidt talked about how he and others would take whatever they could get their hands on. And who knows what else used to go on (back when the culture of the game was to accept just about anything but throwing games or betting on your own).

Turning Bonds, Clemens, and the rest into pariahs (while ignoring what used to go on, just because it was "ok" back then or too far back to really know or prove details) is absurd

[packs]

He's not quite a HOFer but I always thought Tim Hudson was an underrated pitcher.

[G1911]

I just wish there was uniformity between the cheating of prior generations and the steroid era. Whitey Ford admitted that he doctored the ball worse than Harris from Major League. Mike Schmidt talked about how he and others would take whatever they could get their hands on. And who knows what else used to go on (back when the culture of the game was to accept just about anything but throwing games or betting on your own).

Turning Bonds, Clemens, and the rest into pariahs (while ignoring what used to go on, just because it was "ok" back then or too far back to really know or prove details) is absurd

I'm not even really against electing Bonds and Clemens, but there is a titanic practical difference. Ford and Schmidt were not able to post video game statistics. Players in the 1970's did not bash 50 home runs with such ease that even mediocre players like Brady Anderson hit 50. They did not post seasons not just setting new records but obliterating them. The difference between greenies and the steroids the sluggers of the 90's/00's used is vast, but no scientific explanation serves as well as just looking at the numbers produced with them.

One would be hard pressed to find a player who never bent or broke a rule for a single play their entire career, but there's a huge difference between Ford and Perry throwing a spitter sometimes and what happened in the steroid era.

[doug.goodman]

Andruw Jones - I get the argument for him, but I’d vote no. His value is all peak, and that peak wasn’t long enough to justify the Hall.

You will have a very hard time finding any Dodger fans who would be in favor of Andruw Jones getting within 20 miles of Cooperstown without having to buy a ticket.

We gave him $36.2 mil, and he gave us 33 hits. In the 35 games I attended before we RELEASED HIM half way thru his deal I was lucky enough to see 4 of them.


And for those of you who suffered thru his atrocious at bats in 2008, let me remind you of the song he walked up the plate to :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-diB65scQU


Bobby Bonilla will put more work into his check from the Mets next year...

[cardsagain74]

I'm not even really against electing Bonds and Clemens, but there is a titanic practical difference. Ford and Schmidt were not able to post video game statistics. Players in the 1970's did not bash 50 home runs with such ease that even mediocre players like Brady Anderson hit 50. They did not post seasons not just setting new records but obliterating them. The difference between greenies and the steroids the sluggers of the 90's/00's used is vast, but no scientific explanation serves as well as just looking at the numbers produced with them.

One would be hard pressed to find a player who never bent or broke a rule for a single play their entire career, but there's a huge difference between Ford and Perry throwing a spitter sometimes and what happened in the steroid era.

The steroid era obviously turned some great players into superhuman ones. But that doesn't mean that the likelihood of cheating turning some past good players into HOFers is such a drastically different concept.

Schmidt may have never had HOF numbers otherwise. And you're really discounting how much it could have helped Ford.

I don't care if cheating means someone hit 65 HRs who would've hit 45, or if it means they hit 38 instead of 25. Both players should be seen similarly. Or at minimum, at least far from the polar opposite of vilifying one group while absolving the other

[T206BrownHindu]

You will have a very hard time finding any Dodger fans who would be in favor of Andruw Jones getting within 20 miles of Cooperstown without having to buy a ticket.

We gave him $36.2 mil, and he gave us 33 hits. In the 35 games I attended before we RELEASED HIM half way thru his deal I was lucky enough to see 4 of them.


And for those of you who suffered thru his atrocious at bats in 2008, let me remind you of the song he walked up the plate to :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-diB65scQU


Bobby Bonilla will put more work into his check from the Mets next year...

I agree. I remember the lazy Andruw Jones as much as the young phenom.

[G1911]

The steroid era obviously turned some great players into superhuman ones. But that doesn't mean that the likelihood of cheating turning some past good players into HOFers is such a drastically different concept.

Schmidt may have never had HOF numbers otherwise. And you're really discounting how much it could have helped Ford.

I don't care if cheating means someone hit 65 HRs who would've hit 45, or if it means they hit 38 instead of 25. Both players should be seen similarly. Or at minimum, at least far from the polar opposite of vilifying one group while absolving the other

The problem is that since it didn't turn ANY excellent players into video game players like steroids did in numerous cases is a strong indication that the cheating was hardly as significant to performance. For this to work, it would have to be only good or below players who used them, while all the true stars did not. The impact is clearly far, far less with greenies

[doug.goodman]

I agree. I remember the lazy Andruw Jones as much as the young phenom.

The biggest paycheck he ever got (by nearly 50% according to Baseball Reference) was the one the Dodgers gave him to play for Rangers.

[MacDice]

If you use the theory that Roger and Barry were Hall of Famers before PED’s than wasn’t Pete Rose a HOFer before gambling?

[Seven]

If you use the theory that Roger and Barry were Hall of Famers before PED’s than wasn’t Pete Rose a HOFer before gambling?

I think Rose is a Hall of Famer but there's also a distinction that needs to be noted. Rose was banned from Baseball by the Commissioner. Bonds and Clemens were never thrown out of the sport, they were never handed lifetime suspensions, hell they never got suspended in the first place. I'm not saying they didn't cheat, but if we're putting all cards on the table, if Cancesco never publishes his book, they're probably in the Hall Already.

[Wildfireschulte]

Is there any doubt that there are a bunch of PED users already in the HOF? Without naming names, I can think of a dozen guys that I suspect. It’s wrong that the writers get to ignore obvious suspicions for some and continue to punish others.

[bounce]

The PEDs happened, I don't mind the statements by holding them out to year 10 if that's what happens, but if for some reason Bonds/Clemens and others DON'T MAKE IT, it becomes similar to the Pete Rose and Joe Jackson farces.


I WOULD VOTE FOR THESE
- Curt Schilling 70.0% 9th year - being a jerk is the main turn off here, but I do think he gets home this year
- Roger Clemens 61.0% 9th year - this is a no brainer, but again I'm fine if people hold out until year 10
- Barry Bonds 60.7% 9th year - ditto Roger
- Manny Ramírez 28.2% 5th year - he was quirky for sure and the PEDs definitely padded stats, but in the end he was clutch and you still gotta hit it
- Sammy Sosa 13.9% 9th year - PEDs padded stats but three 60 HR seasons and 600 total, and was anyone more fun to watch in the late 90s? He's a polarizing guy now and the Cubs spat with him I think has more to do with his low voting than anything. If they'd squash that beef, I think his totals would jump huge. He probably misses out, and he and Big Mac get in together at a later date from the veterans committee. I'd be fine with that at this point, they belong together.
- Andy Pettitte 11.3% 3rd year - I realize this one is somewhat borderline and controversial, but...250 wins, all-time postseason win leader (yes I know it was expanded playoffs but he's ahead by 4 wins I think?), nearly 2500 Ks, and his post-season stats are essentially identical to regular season. PEDs are an issue obviously, but he's a likable guy and teammates loved him. To me, this is the pitcher equivalent to Harold Baines, Tim Raines and a few others. If we're going to treat hitters like that, don't we have to treat some pitchers similarly?

I WANT TO STUDY A LITTLE MORE, BUT I MIGHT CONSIDER THESE
Omar Vizquel 52.6% 4th year - so much of an accumulator, how good was the defense really? It's why I want to look some more. Recent headlines don't help.
Billy Wagner 31.7% 6th year - closers are tough to gauge, so I want to compare to peers and evaluate where he stands in that group.
Gary Sheffield 30.5% 7th year - somewhat of an accumulator, I think what also hurts him quite a bit is he doesn't really have an anchor team to help him along? I guess it's probably Marlins. This to me is a case of a little bit rough personality mixed with too much free agency movement...and of course PEDs, but again we gotta eventually move past that.

I HAVE TROUBLE WITH THESE
Scott Rolen 35.3% 4th year - this guy was a pro's pro, I really like him but I struggle to put the case together. He and Lance Berkman are who I think of when I think just outside looking in.
Todd Helton 29.2% 3rd year - another guy who was a pro's pro, but I think the Colorado bit actually hurts from a stat perspective and again just a struggle to put the whole case together. Put him with Rolen and Berkman.
Jeff Kent 27.5% 8th year - he was really good for a few years, but goodness he was a difficult personality and you don't see too many teammates singing the praises of his locker room demeanor
Andruw Jones 19.4% 4th year - phenomenal talent that had some big moments, but I don't feel like his star burned bright for long enough
Bobby Abreu 5.5% 2nd year - solid player, but not HOF caliber

[Rich Klein]

If you really want to keep informed on the voting; this update is a must

http://www.bbhoftracker.com/

Usually for players such as the top 3, you need to be comfortably past 75 percent to get in. As of today, I doubt anyone will be elected from the new player world. If anyone gets in, my instinct says it is Curt Schilling whom is being kept back from getting in because of his extreme political views.

My instinct and personal belief is if he kept slightly quieter about those, he'd already be in the HOF.

Rich

[slidekellyslide]

Is there any doubt that there are a bunch of PED users already in the HOF? Without naming names, I can think of a dozen guys that I suspect. It’s wrong that the writers get to ignore obvious suspicions for some and continue to punish others.

Piazza, Bagwell, Ivan Rodriguez. <----there you go.

[stlcardsfan]

I laughed out loud at LaTroy Hawkins.

[Ricky]

Greenies didn’t make anyone into a video game number producer. They basically helped players stay awake. Meanwhile, Barry Bonds’ head grew two cap sizes.

[darwinbulldog]

The steroid era obviously turned some great players into superhuman ones. But that doesn't mean that the likelihood of cheating turning some past good players into HOFers is such a drastically different concept.

Schmidt may have never had HOF numbers otherwise. And you're really discounting how much it could have helped Ford.

I don't care if cheating means someone hit 65 HRs who would've hit 45, or if it means they hit 38 instead of 25. Both players should be seen similarly. Or at minimum, at least far from the polar opposite of vilifying one group while absolving the other

I agree. The players who used greenies are the ones who would have used modern PEDs if they had been born 30 years later. Bonds, Clemens, et al. would have been using greenies if they had been born 30 years earlier. Voters shouldn't be punishing or rewarding players based on how good the available PEDs were during their career.

[brianp-beme]

I laughed out loud at LaTroy Hawkins.

From over the years Hawkins is the first HOF candidate that I only have a vague recollection, and only because of his catchy name. What is exactly is the process/requirements to become a candidate?

Brian

[Mike D.]

From over the years Hawkins is the first HOF candidate that I only have a vague recollection, and only because of his catchy name. What is exactly is the process/requirements to become a candidate?

Brian

3. Eligible Candidates -- Candidates to be eligible must meet the following requirements:

A. A baseball player must have been active as a player in the Major Leagues at some time during a period beginning fifteen (15) years before and ending five (5) years prior to election.

B. Player must have played in each of ten (10) Major League championship seasons, some part of which must have been within the period described in 3(A).

C. Player shall have ceased to be an active player in the Major Leagues at least five (5) calendar years preceding the election but may be otherwise connected with baseball.

D. In case of the death of an active player or a player who has been retired for less than five (5) full years, a candidate who is otherwise eligible shall be eligible in the next regular election held at least six (6) months after the date of death or after the end of the five (5) year period, whichever occurs first.

E. Any player on Baseball's ineligible list shall not be an eligible candidate.

[Mike D.]

The above is the rules, but there is some kind of nominating process. Most 10- year major leaguers of note make the ballot once they’ve been retired 5 years.

There are exceptions, though...a couple of years ago Javier Vazquez was inexplicably left off.

[Jason19th]

First I am not saying that LaTroy Hawkins is a hall of famer. But he was a special player. Stealing a line Bill James used about Jesse Orosco, Hawkins was consistent for twenty years in a role that few do well two seasons in a row. Middle relief may not be glamorous, but he pitched in over 1000 games. That is an accomplishment that needs to be remembered. I got the chance to watch him when he pitched with the Brewers late in his career. I never remember thinking oh no here comes LaTroy. He always was prepared and always pitched smart. In addition every story about him tell what great guy he was. He should be a first time inductee in the Hall of Really good

[bbcard1]

Dahlen is one of the best players not in, I would vote for him.

While understanding that's a lot of haters, I like using WAR as my quick "should we talk about this guy anymore" indicator, especially on batters...around 50 is where you can start talking about it. Dahlen is clearly in the conversation using that metric. Here's what troubles me about him. A lot of his biggest stats were accumulated in the pre-1900 days and the game was different then. He only led his league in one meaningful statistic (RBI with 80) and that only once. His WAR tips me toward him, but I would have thought he would have gone in when the Tinkers and Bresnahans were chosen ... but things in the hall are not easy to figure. Schilling should have been in long ago.

[Neal]

No one is inducted in 2021

[Bcwcardz]

Hard to see that in the math.


Cause it’s not there, Buehrle never once won 20 games nor had an era below 3. If someone is picking him over Schilling then it’s personal, not numbers based.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[shagrotn77]

Schilling will be the only player elected in 2021. That much I'm certain of. Bonds and Clemens will likely climb a percentage point or 2, like they've done in recent years, but that won't be enough to get them elected. Will they get in in 2022 in their final year on the modern ballot? Not likely, but it will be interesting with Big Papi and Arod on the ballot for the first time. Will some PED players be treated differently than others by the voters? We shall see.

I do think that the charges of domestic violence against Vizquel may hurt him in the voting. He wasn't getting in in 2021 anyway, but now his chances at induction are murky. He had been on a steady climb.

Speaking of steady climbs, Rolen should take a very deserved nice leap forward next year. He went from 17% in 2019 to 35% in 2020. He was Nolan Arenado before Nolan Arenado. Great hitter and generational talent in the field. Let's get this man in the HOF!

Billy Wagner is another player I'm pulling for. He went from 16% in 2019 to 31% in 2020. Again, absolutely deserving. There are less dominant closers already enshrined in Cooperstown.

Lastly, Jeff Kent by all accounts was/is an absolute jerk. And there may be some PED suspicion there. But, from a statistical standpoint, he's beyond deserving of a spot in Cooperstown. He holds the all-time mark for HR by a 2B, had eight 100+ RBI seasons, won an MVP, and finished with a lifetime .290 BA. Outstanding stats for a traditionally weak position.

[bnorth]

Piazza, Bagwell, Ivan Rodriguez. <----there you go.

Nolan Ryan, Tony Gwynn, and Ricky Henderson in case you want a few more for the list.:)

[Peter_Spaeth]

Jeff Kent always felt to me like a player who wasn't as good as his counting numbers. An unscientific observation for sure. But I think a lot of people feel that way, he isn't getting in I don't think.

[brianp-beme]

Nolan Ryan, Tony Gwynn, and Ricky Henderson in case you want a few more for the list.:)

I don't ever remember Tony being lumped into this group before.

Brian

[Throttlesteer]

I don't ever remember Tony being lumped into this group before.

Brian

Yes, I struggle with Gwynn for sure. Nothing about his performance or physique screams PEDs to me.

[mr2686]

Tony Gwynn using PED's? C'mon, that's just plain silly. PED's don't make you magically stronger or better. They allow you to work out more and recover faster from those workouts. Tony wasn't a workout kinda guy, as you can tell by his physique for many years. Tony's gift was eye/hand coordination and videotape study of his swing.

[Tabe]

Yes, I struggle with Gwynn for sure. Nothing about his performance or physique screams PEDs to me.

He went from a guy hitting under .320 three consecutive seasons with no power from age 30-32 to winning four straight batting titles and challenging .400 while ALSO increasing power. He went from 4 homers in 134 games at age 31 to 16 in 127 seven years later at age 38.

He absolutely fits the profile of a PED guy - significant performance improvement with added power at the really late stages of his career instead of a decline.

[nat]

The context changed. League average slugging percentage was .368 in 1992, .398 in 1993, and .415 in 1994. Rising tides lift all boats, and it lifted Gwynn's.

[bnorth]

The context changed. League average slugging percentage was .368 in 1992, .398 in 1993, and .415 in 1994. Rising tides lift all boats, and it lifted Gwynn's.

If that is true them the rising tide lifted Barry Bonds also and no PEDS were involved. Tony Gwynns numbers are just as silly and Barry Bonds numbers.

[Throttlesteer]

He went from a guy hitting under .320 three consecutive seasons with no power from age 30-32 to winning four straight batting titles and challenging .400 while ALSO increasing power. He went from 4 homers in 134 games at age 31 to 16 in 127 seven years later at age 38.

He absolutely fits the profile of a PED guy - significant performance improvement with added power at the really late stages of his career instead of a decline.

That's very shaky deductive reasoning and the performance benefits really don't add up. PEDs don't help you get the bat on the ball; The do help put the ball over the wall. Gwynn and Ted Williams relationship blossomed in the mid-90's, when the two discussed the art of hitting. Ted's biggest criticism of Tony was his lack of driving the inside pitch for power. Gwynn attributes his additional power (if you consider mid-double digits impressive) to the various ideas Williams provided.

Gwynn had antithesis of the typical PED physique. He was a very large man with lots of belly fat. The body does naturally have to build some muscle to effectively carry around more weight. But, I think it's a MASSIVE stretch to assume Gwynn was on PEDs. There's plenty of interviews of him speaking on the matter and taking ownership of knowing it was going on, but not saying anything. But I would bet a hearty sum he was clean.

Adding a pic of his 1997 Donruss card. Very different appearance from a Bonds or McGwire. The problem with this era is, we'll call any great performances into question because it was out there. What's next, Cal Ripken? Jesus?

[kevtermeg]

I am more interested to see who get in from the BWAAA Golden Days and Early Baseball era's. The next induction I am any interest in is Ichiro in 2023.

Golden Days: December of 2021 for inclusion in the Class of 2022
Early Baseball: December of 2021 for inclusion in the Class of 2022

Since you are asking for my opinion I would vote for Schilling, Bonds and Clemens to get the issue of ped's over with once and for all.

When you think of who has made a big impact on baseball I think of Sy Berger from Topps. Without him who knows what the bb card industry would be like without his influence. If you let him in then Mr Goudey would be next.

Go Tigers!!

[triwak]

I am more interested to see who get in from the BWAAA Golden Days and Early Baseball era's. The next induction I am any interest in is Ichiro in 2023.

Golden Days: December of 2021 for inclusion in the Class of 2022
Early Baseball: December of 2021 for inclusion in the Class of 2022


Agreed about having huge interest in these two Era's committee votes. I still don't really understand why they were delayed (due to Covid). Could they not have been held virtually? The committees are only 16 members, each?

[Mike D.]

Agreed about having huge interest in these two Era's committee votes. I still don't really understand why they were delayed (due to Covid). Could they not have been held virtually? The committees are only 16 members, each?

They have to meet in person so that the dominant members can strong-arm the other voters into electing non-deserving, pet candidates to the Hall (See Tony LaRussa and Harold Baines).

[cardsagain74]

The entire league has been hitting HRs at an unprecedented rate since 1994. It's still happening, well after the steroid crackdown.

There are two other related major changes that haven't even been mentioned:

The baseball itself. I highly doubt it's a coincidence that power numbers permanently went up from the moment the '94-'95 strike was putting the future of the game in big trouble.

And the culture change (throughout baseball, basketball, and football) of modern dietary focus and working out more religiously that started around time. Obviously athletes in general have been more extra bulked up with ridiculously low body fat in the last 25 years.

Stanton hit 59 just three years ago. Not that far from the biggest HR accomplishments (by only three players, no less) during the steroid craze.

Sure, steroids clearly help. But there's a lot more to the "video game" numbers of the last 25 years than that

[GeoPoto]

I agree that steroid users woke everybody up to the advantages of strength training, which has continued (presumably) without steroids. It's off topic, but everybody laments the reduced action caused by swinging for the fences, talks about limiting shifts, etc. Why don't they move back the fences? I realize it is not feasible everywhere, but do it where possible, and create requirements that see to it that new parks comply when built. Golf did it. I think the Mets actually moved the fences in recently. When most players can no longer hit home runs despite strength training, they will go back to hitting line drives.

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

[Misunderestimated]

I think Schilling might be one and only who gets in... His problem isn't really just his politics per se... Since his retirement he has picked fights with the baseball media (see Pedro Gomez) and those are in fact the voters . Alot of voters might not want to hear him speak his mind from the Cooperstown podium about baseball and politics especially when he would be the only inductee.
On the other hand, the increasing number of younger analytics people voting may provide enough votes to offset the people who really don't like him and would invoke the "character clause" against him. Not getting along with media (or the other players) has kept out many players over the years. Look at Santo or Dick Allen. Santo was more (over) qualified than Schilling... Dick Allen also comes to mind.

I think that if you let Manny or Papi in (they are 100% PED guilty) you have to let in the guys we "know" are PED users who also measure up. We can't just let them in because they are "lovable" and keep out less liked guys like Bonds, Clemens, Sosa (who was lovable until he wasn't) etc.

My ballot would be (in order of priority) Bonds Clemens Manny, Sosa, Schilling, Sheffield, Jones and Kent.

[conor912]

There is zero way Papi doesn’t get in. Zero.

[mattsey9]

There is zero way Papi doesn’t get in. Zero.

Bonds is the greatest hitter of the last 60 years, and the BALCO fiasco is keeping him out. Why would the same group of voters induct Ortiz?

That said, I don't completely disagree with you. Ortiz is far more popular with people than Bonds, and that does matter. I don't see it happening on the first ballot though.

[Mike D.]

Didn’t Manny get suspended TWICE for failed tests. I don’t think anyone is grouping him into an “innocent” category.

And two positive tests post testing is SO much different than the Ortiz situation that it’s comical to compare them.

[Seven]

There is zero way Papi doesn’t get in. Zero.

But if Ortiz gets in Bonds and Clemens should get in. You can't say "well these cheaters are okay, but these other cheaters aren't" We can't have it both ways.

[Mike D.]

When Ortiz’s name was leaked as someone who tested positive for something in the pre-test-and-punish days, he was 27, a part-time player, and had 89 career HR to go with a 271/.353/.491 career line.

Post testing (and you know he got tested plenty), he played 12 seasons, hit 452 HR, and hit 290/.387/.569.

Especially since we have no idea what he allegedly tested positive for, and baseball has literally come out and said those results are of little value, I don’t understand why people put him in the same category as people who tested positive once testing was implemented.

[Bigdaddy]

I'm not the first person to put this opinion out there, but with Bud Selig being enshrined in the Hall of Fame, I think anybody who played in that era (before actual testing) should also be enshrined despite the PED connections. It's pretty grand hypocrisy for the Hall to honor a man who oversaw that era, benefiting from the PEDs and turning his eye to their usage, while keeping the players out.
That said, anybody who failed a test, once testing was implemented, should not get that benefit of the doubt. Manny, Rafael, Sosa, etc.
Clemens and Bonds never failed a test and even if you slashed their stats in half they'd still both be Hall of Famers.

This. Selig should not only never have been voted into the Hall, he should have been fired. He had the power to stop the steroid usage before it became a problem and he chose to look the other way. The story of his tenure - never address a problem until it goes public. If he is in the Hall, then the bar has been set and Bonds and Clemens and the others should be right in there with him. Maybe in their own room.

[Mike D.]

Agree on Selig. It’s his fault that we can’t have a decent HOF debate without it quickly degrading into a conversation on steroids....who did what when, who we suspect with no evidence, etc.

Agreeing on who is a hall of fame player is difficult enough without this - but the debate is a lot more fun!

[conor912]

But if Ortiz gets in Bonds and Clemens should get in. You can't say "well these cheaters are okay, but these other cheaters aren't" We can't have it both ways.

There’s the “should be” and then there’s the “is”. I realize Papi’s name has swirled in PED rumors for years, but this is a prime example of how likability plays such a huge role. Clemens and Bonds are ornery assholes and always have been. Ortiz is a God in a lot of baseball circles, including for heroics off the field and in the community. I’m not saying he gets first ballot, but he gets in, no doubt. Also, if he wasn’t a lock before Edgar got in, he certainly is now that the DH has been legitimized by the Hall.

I can’t speak to Papi’s PED involvement, but don’t be shocked if we do “get it both ways” and he gets in while Bonds and Clemens don’t. It wouldn’t be the first time a media darling has coasted in while other equally deserving players have had to fight tooth and nail for their plaque. It’s a (wildly) imperfect system.

[G1911]

Selig isn't blameless, but didn't he propose penalties in 1994 that the Player's Union shot down? What was he supposed to do exactly before the changing winds and public pressure forced the players into testing?


I do not understand how one can allege that not only did Gwynn use steroids (which is possible), but that going from 4 to 16 home runs (an 11 home run gap at the low end of the scale which has happened without steroids many times in baseball history) is the same thing as Barry Bonds setting records and is proof he did. Also, Gwynn had a similar homer year before the example used here, in 1986 when he hit 14. Apparently he used steroids in 1986, 1997, 1998 and possibly 1999 but not the rest of his career.


I too suspect Ortiz will be inducted as a popular fan favorite regardless of his test. He alone among those for whom there is some significant evidence of use seems to be given a complete free pass by the media and fans for steroids. He should be held to the same standard as the other players who used before the formal penalties like Bonds (whether that's ignore it and let them all in, or punish it and keep them out), but I suspect he will not be held to the same standard.

[Rich Klein]

I do not understand how one can allege that not only did Gwynn use steroids (which is possible), but that going from 4 to 16 home runs (an 11 home run gap at the low end of the scale which has happened without steroids many times in baseball history) is the same thing as Barry Bonds setting records and is proof he did. Also, Gwynn had a similar homer year before the example used here, in 1986 when he hit 14. Apparently he used steroids in 1986, 1997, 1998 and possibly 1999 but not the rest of his career.



For those wondering about one-year spike in players hitting home runs, check out 1970 some time. Jim Hickman, Cito Gaston, Bert Campaneris amongst others had a spike. Heck Tommy Harper had a 30/30 season that year and was never year 30 homers again. One year homer sometimes spike. Oh, and Gwynn mentioned he wanted to have more power that year. And check out Ichiro Suzuki in batting practice during his career. He would routinely put balls in the upper decks.

Rich

[Popcorn]

If Larry Walker got in how does Tod Helton not get in also.. numbers are identical.

[Ricky]

Ortiz tested positive once for “something”. .. where is the evidence that he was a PED user?

[todeen]

Also, if he wasn’t a lock before Edgar got in, he certainly is now that the DH has been legitimized by the Hall.



My dad is an Edgar fan. He was worried about him getting into the HOF. I told him, "He'll get in because the writers want to legitimize the role of DH before he gets on the ballot." I agree, Ortiz wil get into the Hall. I have assumed that Bonds, Clemens, and ARod would max out their chances on the ballot but would eventually get in. They have to get in to clear the path for more favorable players like Ortiz.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[G1911]

Ortiz tested positive once for “something”. .. where is the evidence that he was a PED user?

When he tested positive once for "something".

[G1911]

If Larry Walker got in how does Tod Helton not get in also.. numbers are identical.

Walker was a defensively excellent outfielder who played a significant number of games with other teams and performed well there (1991 and 1994 especially he was fantastic, and even his final year in St. Louis at 38 posted a 130 OPS+). Helton was a 1B who never played a game for another team. I support Helton, but Walker's case appears stronger.

[Tabe]

To be clear, I said Gwynn fit the profile - didn't say he used.

As for his power spike, it wasn't one year - it was multiple. And he more than quadrupled his output (4x as many in fewer games). His previous high was 14 - in 33 more games. I'm just saying he had a BIG jump in production during his old man years, the hallmark of a steroid user.

[bxb]

If you really want to keep informed on the voting; this update is a must

http://www.bbhoftracker.com/

Usually for players such as the top 3, you need to be comfortably past 75 percent to get in. As of today, I doubt anyone will be elected from the new player world. If anyone gets in, my instinct says it is Curt Schilling whom is being kept back from getting in because of his extreme political views.

My instinct and personal belief is if he kept slightly quieter about those, he'd already be in the HOF.

Rich

I see Schilling has just topped 75% on the tracker, and is the only one so far.

[Mike D.]

Walker career WAR - 72.7
Helton career WAR - 61.8

I expect a lot of the difference is driven by defense and base running.

I personally think both belong in the HOF.

[packs]

To be clear, I said Gwynn fit the profile - didn't say he used.

As for his power spike, it wasn't one year - it was multiple. And he more than quadrupled his output (4x as many in fewer games). His previous high was 14 - in 33 more games. I'm just saying he had a BIG jump in production during his old man years, the hallmark of a steroid user.


I don't think this premise makes much sense at all. Why would Gwynn start using PEDs at 37 years old? He had nothing left to prove. Every other major PED user DID have something to prove. Whether that be the ridiculous home run chase for Bonds, Sosa, and McGwire or Roger Clemens' refusal to accept he was toast at 30 years old.

But why would Gwynn go his whole HOF career as one of the greatest hitters of all time and then at 37 decide to use steroids to hit 17 home runs?

Isn't it just a little more likely the ball got livelier in 1997, just before the home run chase one year later?

[Mike D.]

I see Schilling has just topped 75% on the tracker, and is the only one so far.

Looking at the list of SP sorted by career WAR, it’s kind of surprising it’s taken Schilling this long.

He’s 26th all-time (BB-R WAR) and of the 25 pitchers ahead of him, only Clemens isn’t in the HOF.

The average WAR for a HOF SP is 73.3, and that average includes Young and Johnson over 160.

BTW, lovers of old time baseball will know that Jim McCormick is next on the list and also not in the Hall.

[packs]

He didn't win any Cy Youngs, he never led the league in ERA and he was never the best pitcher on any winning team he was on (Randy and Pedro were). Schilling is no more a HOFer than Tim Hudson is. They were both very good but never elite, as evidenced by Schilling's 300 K seasons in which he received no Cy Young votes for one and finished 4th in the other. That should tell you how his contemporaries viewed him as well.

[mainemule]

He didn't win any Cy Youngs, he never led the league in ERA and he was never the best pitcher on any winning team he was on (Randy and Pedro were). Schilling is no more a HOFer than Tim Hudson is. They were both very good but never elite, as evidenced by Schilling's 300 K seasons in which he received no Cy Young votes for one and finished 4th in the other. That should tell you how his contemporaries viewed him as well.

Hudson got a late ring with SF but how do you discount Schilling's post-season successes? Schilling was the better pitcher then Pedro in 04 and was ace of Phillies in 93. Schilling was elite when it mattered.

[packs]

Hudson got a late ring with SF but how do you discount Schilling's post-season successes? Schilling was the better pitcher then Pedro in 04 and was ace of Phillies in 93. Schilling was elite when it mattered.

Yeah but so are a lot of people that aren't HOFers. Who was more clutch than el Duque?

Schilling's entire case comes down to two three year periods where he was very good but not elite. You don't get into the HOF because you had 6 very good seasons, during which you won zero Cy Young awards.

[todeen]

I personally don't like the argument that player XYZ wasn't the best on the team, or best at pitching position. Why can't two hall of fame players reside on the same team? If two reside on the same team, one will always be considered better than the other. There are different tiers of players. Let's consider truly great teams like the 90s Atlanta Braves who have multiple pitchers in the HOF. It is absurd to think that only one of Glavine, Smoltz, Maddux should be enshrined while the others are left out.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[packs]

I personally don't like the argument that player XYZ wasn't the best on the team, or best at pitching position. Why can't two hall of fame players reside on the same team? If two reside on the same team, one will always be considered better than the other. There are different tiers of players. Let's consider truly great teams like the 90s Atlanta Braves who have multiple pitchers in the HOF. It is absurd to think that only one of Glavine, Smoltz, Maddux should be enshrined while the others are left out.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

Not really. Glavine won 2 Cy Young Awards. Smoltz won a Cy Young too. So of the three, all of them won Cy Youngs.

Cy Young is not the definition of a HOF career, but if you're at all borderline like Schilling is, you need one.

Schilling's entire case boils down to 2 three year periods and I don't think he was good enough in either one to be considered a HOF pitcher. He was just very good.

[Mike D.]

Does Lou Gehrig get dinged for playing with Babe Ruth?

I don’t buy the argument that things a player can’t control should hurt them.

And it’s hard to argue Schilling wasn’t the Red Sox best pitcher in 2004...Johan Santana was just a little better...not much Schilling could do about that.

[packs]

A player like Schilling has nothing in common with Lou Gehrig, an obvious all time great who, by the way, still managed to win 2 MVP awards.

And Johan wasn't just a little better. Johan received every first place vote in 2004.

[Mike D.]

Schilling did have a non-traditional path to a hall of fame career. He took a while to get established, and then mixed some mediocre or injury-marred seasons between stretches of greatness.

But I consider Tim Hudson a borderline hall of famer. Schilling has 20+ more career WAR than that.

That career strikeout to walk ratio, for a high-k pitcher, is nuts!

[Mike D.]

And Johan wasn't just a little better. Johan received every first place vote in 2004.

Looking at vote totals isn’t really the way to go...look at the stats. Yes, Santana was clearly better and a worthy CY winner...but Schilling was closer to Santana (~1 WAR) by more than double than the #3 SP. Hell, three relievers rounded out the top 5 in the CY voting that year.

I’m not saying Schilling is Gehrig level, but he’s well above the HOF average for his position, and clearly deserving.

[packs]

To each their own and there is a fair argument for Schilling but for me personally you've got to put up stronger numbers over a longer period of time for Schilling to be HOF worthy. His stretches of greatness were not so great that they blew the league out of the water.

His case really comes down to his work from 97-99 and 2001, 2002 and 2004. When I look at the seasons he had, I don't see a guy who put Koufax-like numbers that would have you overlook everything before and after.

[Throttlesteer]

I don't think this premise makes much sense at all. Why would Gwynn start using PEDs at 37 years old? He had nothing left to prove. Every other major PED user DID have something to prove. Whether that be the ridiculous home run chase for Bonds, Sosa, and McGwire or Roger Clemens' refusal to accept he was toast at 30 years old.

But why would Gwynn go his whole HOF career as one of the greatest hitters of all time and then at 37 decide to use steroids to hit 17 home runs?

Isn't it just a little more likely the ball got livelier in 1997, just before the home run chase one year later?

Agreed. Keep in mind, the Rockies came around in 1993 and the NL West did get to play a fair number of games in that park. It's not a huge lift, but it does warrant some consideration. Gwynn wasn't chasing anything but getting the bat on the ball. As I pointed out, Gwynn entertained a lot of the insights he learned from Ted Williams, including his approach to inside pitches. Hitting 17 HR at age 37 isn't all that eyebrow raising for the average player. A hitter as talented as Gwynn could easily make adjustments to hit a paltry number such as 17.

While it's not impossible, it's highly-improbable Gwynn took PEDs. A similar argument could be made for Cal Ripken's streak of games. In fact, it plays to that scenario more than it would Gwynn's. For the record, I think it's silly to entertain either thought.

[G1911]

If Schilling doesn't belong, we need to rip out most of the pitchers elected the last few years.

WAR isn't everything, but Schilling is almost the same value wise as Mussina and Glavine. The only arguments I can see that are consistent with the statistics for keeping Schilling out is that A) we should rip a bunch of people out because the Hall is too big and stop adding people who were not the very very best at their position, or B) some people are upset about his politics and/or rude comments and want him treated differently from everyone else. If Schilling made rude and nasty comments but did it while espousing the political narrative the writers like, I think he would be in already.

Pitcher WAR
Mussina 82.8
Glavine 80.7
Schilling 79.5
Smoltz 69.0
Halladay 64.2

[todeen]

To each their own and there is a fair argument for Schilling but for me personally you've got to put up stronger numbers over a longer period of time for Schilling to be HOF worthy. His stretches of greatness were not so great that they blew the league out of the water.

His case really comes down to his work from 97-99 and 2001, 2002 and 2004. When I look at the seasons he had, I don't see a guy who put Koufax-like numbers that would have you overlook everything before and after.

There are plenty of arguments (that I agree with), that it's hard to compare modern players to players of bygone eras. Especially for pitchers, the stats of wins, complete games, shutouts and innings pitched have all become meaningless compared to pitchers from 30+ years ago. Felix Hernandex is a good example of a modern Sandy Koufax. His career burned bright and then burned out. No one is talking about Felix Hernandez entering the Hall of Fame. If he had retired 3 seasons earlier, would he have been considered hall worthy? The argument now is that he just didn't do enough. When Madison Bumgarner pitched three times in the 2014 WS, people were freaking out. But it wasn't that superhuman compared with bygone eras when some pitchers threw both games of a doubleheader! Bumgarner's career has nose-dived as well. Are his WS feats enough to carry him to enshrinement?

Just making a modern comparison, Clayton Kershaw has just 25 complete games. Curt Schilling had 83! We all talk about Kershaw's future enshrinement, but he hasn't even gone the distance of a complete game in 33% of the games that Schilling did. How would these 50+ games affect Kershaw's loss record, his ERA, walks, WHIP, etc. Kershaw has won 20 games twice, while Schilling did it three times. Kershaw has struck out 300+ batters just once. Schilling did it three times.

If Kershaw has another seven seasons of mediocre pitching (to reach Schilling's 20), battling injuries, will we still talk about him as a hall of fame pitcher? If Kershaw's career follows that of Felix Hernandez, and he becomes worse than a league average pitcher will we still talk about Kershaw as a lock for the hall of fame. Personally, I think Hernandez did enough for the teams he was pitching for, and he should be enshrined.

We have to realign what it means to be a hall of fame pitcher in today's MLB. Yesterday's ideals just aren't working anymore. There will not be another Koufax who puts up superhuman numbers in just 12 seasons. Kershaw is comparable to Koufax. But will Koufax hang up his cleats and call it a career? Are 175 wins enough to be voted in? Or would voters be upset that he didn't pitch longer?

[Ricky]

When he tested positive once for "something".

Nope. Players have had positive tests for taking cough medicine with the wrong ingredients. There’s no evidence that Ortiz took PEDs. Unless you think his roly-poly body is evidence.

[G1911]

Nope. Players have had positive tests for taking cough medicine with the wrong ingredients. There’s no evidence that Ortiz took PEDs. Unless you think his roly-poly body is evidence.

If test results are not evidence, then there is no evidence that anyone used steroids or that there was a steroid era at all. I eagerly await this standard of evidence being applied to anyone but David Ortiz.

[packs]

Good point on Felix. I just don't see a HOFer in Schilling. Johan wasn't a HOFer either but when you sum up his career you get 2 Cy Youngs, 3 ERA titles, 3 strike out titles and the pitching triple crown. Even though Johan isn't a HOFer, his career highlights sound like a player who was. Schilling doesn't have that. Though he did have considerable postseason success, which does typically tip the scale in favor of a player.

[G1911]

Considering how often the voters blow it, and that many years there are multiple pitchers with Cy Young quality seasons and other years there are none and some one wins it by default, I don't see how this is a good metric.

I'll take Schillling, Mussina or Glavine over Lincecum or Santana easily. The Hall is explicit about measuring career achievement, not single season.

[rhettyeakley]

He didn't win any Cy Youngs, he never led the league in ERA and he was never the best pitcher on any winning team he was on (Randy and Pedro were). Schilling is no more a HOFer than Tim Hudson is. They were both very good but never elite, as evidenced by Schilling's 300 K seasons in which he received no Cy Young votes for one and finished 4th in the other. That should tell you how his contemporaries viewed him as well.

As far as the numbers go I feel like you are looking for reasons to exclude Schilling. His HOF metrics are really all there, there has never been a need to be the absolute best at your position to be an eventual HOFer, it is how guys like Tony Perez (who I love) get in.

I have seen a lot of your posts in the past and it is pretty obvious politically where you are (and there is nothing wrong with that and I am mostly in the same category) but it seems like you just kind of hate Schilling, which is understandable.

[packs]

You don't need to analyze me. I've discussed why I don't think Schilling belongs and there's no politics involved. I think he's a compiler and among the best of them. But I don't generally think compilers belong in the HOF. When I think of the comparable borderline guys of his generation who got in, like Mussina and Halladay, I can't help but see them as being in a much higher class of pitchers than Schilling and those guys weren't slam dunks to get in either. They both did get in, but I think their level is the benchmark for others, and I don't think Schilling was as good as they were.

[rhettyeakley]

You don't need to analyze me. I've discussed why I don't think Schilling belongs and there's no politics involved. I think he's a compiler and among the best of them. But I don't generally think compilers belong in the HOF. When I think of the comparable borderline guys of his generation who got in, like Mussina and Halladay, I can't help but see them as being in a much higher class of pitchers than Schilling and those guys weren't slam dunks to get in either. They both did get in, but I think their level is the benchmark for others, and I don't think Schilling was as good as they were.

Relax man nobody is analyzing you, you just aren’t making a great argument other than that he doesn’t “feel” like a HOFer to you.

You are in the minority if you think Schilling and Mussina (you called him borderline) are not HOF caliber. Your metrics just aren’t the metrics for what it actually takes to get into the HOF. FAR lesser pitchers have made the HOF.

On a side note: It is so much more difficult to be a “compiler” of stats than most think so I have never understood why that term is used derisively. If it was so easy then it would have been don’t more, part of being a great player is lasting and not flaming out like so many have.

[triwak]

On a side note: It is so much more difficult to be a “compiler” of stats than most think so I have never understood why that term is used derisively. If it was so easy then it would have been don’t more, part of being a great player is lasting and not flaming out like so many have.

THIS!! I have never understood how keeping oneself in playing condition, and continuing to PRODUCE well enough to remain on a big league roster, is somehow a bad thing??? It's a results oriented game, and if you can't make the 25-man, you're out. Compilers are success stories.

[Mike D.]

Good point on Felix. I just don't see a HOFer in Schilling. Johan wasn't a HOFer either but when you sum up his career you get 2 Cy Youngs, 3 ERA titles, 3 strike out titles and the pitching triple crown. Even though Johan isn't a HOFer, his career highlights sound like a player who was. Schilling doesn't have that. Though he did have considerable postseason success, which does typically tip the scale in favor of a player.

I actually think that Santana makes it at some point, or at least gets serious consideration. Someone mentioned a “reconsideration” of what a HOF starting pitcher is in the current/recent era...there’s a good chance that when that happens, Santana may be one of the best of his era despite a short career.

[Throttlesteer]

THIS!! I have never understood how keeping oneself in playing condition, and continuing to PRODUCE well enough to remain on a big league roster, is somehow a bad thing??? It's a results oriented game, and if you can't make the 25-man, you're out. Compilers are success stories.

Most all-time records are a result of "compilers". Sure, some hold other records as well. But it takes compiling numbers to be the "All-time xxxxx leader".

[Mike D.]

Most all-time records are a result of "compilers". Sure, some hold other records as well. But it takes compiling numbers to be the "All-time xxxxx leader".

And it’s really hard to be a compiler if you’re not very good.

Besides, 20 years of 120 hits and a .240 BA doesn’t a HOFer make! :D

[packs]

I think it's possible to be a compiler and not be all that great. Jamie Moyer is a good example. He has 269 wins and a 4.25 career ERA and gave up the most home runs in major league history while pitching for 25 seasons. But he's still number 35 all time on the win list.

[G1911]

I think it's possible to be a compiler and not be all that great. Jamie Moyer is a good example. He has 269 wins and a 4.25 career ERA and gave up the most home runs in major league history while pitching for 25 seasons.

Nobody is trying to put Moyer in the Hall, but being 3% better than the league's ERA for 25 years and 4,000 innings in a low-inning era is a marvelous achievement.

[packs]

I'm not saying he's a HOFer. I'm just pointing out there are guys who hang around and put up some big numbers in the end.

[Mike D.]

I'm not saying he's a HOFer. I'm just pointing out there are guys who hang around and put up some big numbers in the end.

Guys like that are rare, but sure make baseball fandom more fun.

Interestingly, BB-R has Moyer at 49.8 WAR in over 4,000 IP. Santana at 51.7 in roughly half the innings total.

[G1911]

I remain unclear how a 127 ERA+ and the 2nd best among all retired pitchers in K/W ration is a compiler. Schilling's IP is on the lower end of the HOF scale. If he is a compiler, one cannot come up with more than maybe 20-25 pitchers with good careers that are not compilers.

[packs]

Relax man nobody is analyzing you, you just aren’t making a great argument other than that he doesn’t “feel” like a HOFer to you.

What's wrong with "feel"? Isn't feel a big reason players like Edgar Martinez and Vlad get in? If you look at B-R, none of Vlad's HOF WAR or JAWS figures measure up to averages but if you saw Vlad play, he felt like a HOFer, at least to me. I always felt like I was watching one. Larry Walker too.

Re: Schilling and compiling. The number I'm referring to is the 3,000 K's. It's a magic number for pitchers (except Clemens; CC and Verlander not yet eligible for voting). I understand all the reasons for him and the 3,000 K's I think is a big one for him, along with his postseason performance. I just didn't think he was a HOFer. It's fine with me if he does get in.

[Misunderestimated]

To me Schilling is a HOFer based on his Peak and his Post-season performance. His wins are low even for the era. He is one of the great post-season pitchers 11-2 - ERA 2.23 -- 4-1 World Series ERA 2.06 in 7 starts.... Great numbers given when he pitched. All and all he's probably better on the merits than most of inducted Starting Pitchers

He's not getting in because of the "character clause." He courted the problem with outspoken statements against the writers (electors)... According to Jay Jaffe's marvelous Cooperstown CasebookSchilling has long public feuds with big times sportswriters dating back to his career... when he didn't get votes he immediately claimed he was not getting in because he was an outspoken conservative.....Before the 2016 election he retweeted something that advocated lynching journalists (he later claimed it was "sarcasm")... Before he offered his "sarcasm" explanation/excuse some journalists belonging to the BBWAA (i.e. voter) had written that this had jettisoned Schilling's candidacy under the character clause. Schilling's vote dropped in 2017...

I wrote above that I would vote for him on the "merits" of his career. Still, I see why writers who like to use the "character clause" to keep players in or out for other things, like presumed PED use.

[Ricky]

If test results are not evidence, then there is no evidence that anyone used steroids or that there was a steroid era at all. I eagerly await this standard of evidence being applied to anyone but David Ortiz.

But what were the test results? There were numerous false positives in the 03 results AND the tests did not distinguish between legal substances that you could get over the counter and illegal substances. After ‘03, Ortiz was tested repeatedly and was always negative, and he put up his best numbers after that. There was only that one result and because the test results were destroyed, it’s been difficult for Ortiz to clear his name.

[davidb]

Perhaps others have mentioned this idea but I have always advocated for a separate wing/room in Cooperstown for a "PED ERA ". Great players put up astounding numbers and should be recognized in some way by MLB.

[Tabe]

To me Schilling is a HOFer based on his Peak and his Post-season performance. His wins are low even for the era. He is one of the great post-season pitchers 11-2 - ERA 2.23 -- 4-1 World Series ERA 2.06 in 7 starts.... Great numbers given when he pitched. All and all he's probably better on the merits than most of inducted Starting Pitchers

He's not getting in because of the "character clause." He courted the problem with outspoken statements against the writers (electors)... According to Jay Jaffe's marvelous Cooperstown CasebookSchilling has long public feuds with big times sportswriters dating back to his career... when he didn't get votes he immediately claimed he was not getting in because he was an outspoken conservative.....Before the 2016 election he retweeted something that advocated lynching journalists (he later claimed it was "sarcasm")... Before he offered his "sarcasm" explanation/excuse some journalists belonging to the BBWAA (i.e. voter) had written that this had jettisoned Schilling's candidacy under the character clause. Schilling's vote dropped in 2017...

I wrote above that I would vote for him on the "merits" of his career. Still, I see why writers who like to use the "character clause" to keep players in or out for other things, like presumed PED use.
There's also the whole ripping off the state of Rhode Island for millions of dollars thing, too.

I agree - Schilling is being kept out because of his personality/politics/etc.

[Tabe]

I take issue with the notion that Schilling was never elite. He was most certainly elite in 2001 and 2002. WAR of 8.8 and 8.6 those two years. Led the league in FIP and WHIP one year. 316 Ks with 1.1 BB/9 - that's elite, my friends. And the following year, he put up 6.0 WAR while missing a third of the season. And then 7.8 for Boston in 2004. So 31.2 WAR in 3-2/3 seasons.

He most definitely got up into elite territory.

[Mike D.]

The "feels like" thing reminds me of a line of thinking I was running through the other night..."when a player becomes a Hall of Famer in most folks mind". We all know about guys who "felt like a hall of famer" in their 20's but then faded...the two big examples often given are Don Mattingly and Dale Murphy.

But some guys have weird paths (like Schilling). The guy I was thinking about specifically was Adrian Beltre. He's pretty much a consensus "yes" these days, maybe a first ballot guy.

But man, was he a LOT of "things" in his long career.


A young phenom (in majors @ 19)

A solid if unspectacular young player

A guy who had a monster year

A big free agent signing

A disappointment (LA years)

A guy who signed a one-year "pillow contract"

A guy who put on a great run in his 30's

A 3,000 hit sure thing Hall of Famer

[Mike D.]

There's also the whole ripping off the state of Rhode Island for millions of dollars thing, too.

I agree - Schilling is being kept out because of his personality/politics/etc.

Yeah...that....sucked.

Unfortunately, the folks in charge around here didn't take my suggestion to make him sign autographs for $20 a pop until he paid off the debt...

...while chained upside down from the statue of Roger Williams in Providence. :mad:

[packs]

The "feels like" thing reminds me of a line of thinking I was running through the other night..."when a player becomes a Hall of Famer in most folks mind". We all know about guys who "felt like a hall of famer" in their 20's but then faded...the two big examples often given are Don Mattingly and Dale Murphy.

But some guys have weird paths (like Schilling). The guy I was thinking about specifically was Adrian Beltre. He's pretty much a consensus "yes" these days, maybe a first ballot guy.

But man, was he a LOT of "things" in his long career.


A young phenom (in majors @ 19)

A solid if unspectacular young player

A guy who had a monster year

A big free agent signing

A disappointment (LA years)

A guy who signed a one-year "pillow contract"

A guy who put on a great run in his 30's

A 3,000 hit sure thing Hall of Famer



Beltre is a good one.

Another guy I "feel like a HOFer" toward is Yadier Molina. Nothing crazy sticks out stats wise from a counting perspective but he's sure feels like HOFer to me having watched him play.

[Mike D.]

Beltre is a good one.

Another guy I "feel like a HOFer" toward is Yadier Molina. Nothing crazy sticks out stats wise from a counting perspective but he's sure feels like HOFer to me having watched him play.

I don't disagree on Molina. I struggle with him a bit since his stats don't really scream "Hall of Famer", but when you mix in the defense, the intangibles like leadership and team success....I could see him making it.

Catcher is pretty underrepresented in the hall...will be interesting to see what happens with a lot of recent catchers...Posada, Posey, Mauer, and Molina.

[Ricky]

Yeah...that....sucked.

Unfortunately, the folks in charge around here didn't take my suggestion to make him sign autographs for $20 a pop until he paid off the debt...

...while chained upside down from the statue of Roger Williams in Providence. :mad:

As a fellow Rhode Islander, schilling is a dirty word in this state...

[G1911]

Yadier's traditional numbers don't yell Hall of Fame, and he's a below league average bat (OPS+ of 98) for a career in an era which has seen numerous above league average bats at catcher. WAR, which heavily rewards being a catcher and alive as well as defense is awfully low too, only 40.1. He is surprisingly similar to Jason Kendall statistically.

Posada has a significantly better bat. I would vote for Mauer. Posey was on track but looks like he may have burned out at 31.

[hammertime]

Perhaps others have mentioned this idea but I have always advocated for a separate wing/room in Cooperstown for a "PED ERA ". Great players put up astounding numbers and should be recognized in some way by MLB.

So then also a deadball wing? A pre-integration wing? A greenies wing? Or we could just stick to one hall and accept that baseball has had a varied and flawed yet, taken as a whole, great history?

[Throttlesteer]

So then also a deadball wing? A pre-integration wing? A greenies wing? Or we could just stick to one hall and accept that baseball has had a varied and flawed yet, taken as a whole, great history?

I would agree with this. There are too many "what ifs" and "whatabouts" to try and play moral high ground with the Hall. Many have cheated, some have been caught, many have been accused. It's a shame the records will forever be tainted. But there's just too much we don't know.

[Seven]

Interesting to note that current first time voters, have all voted for Bonds and Clemens. So far three ballots have been made public by people who are voting for the first time.

On the subject of "tainted records." I truly don't think any record is "tainted" There has been doping going on in the sport since the dawn of the 20th century. On the subject of Records, some are quite ridiculous, and should be separated by era in my opinion. Maybe a Pre/Post World War Two for the pitching records.

It's downright impossible for any pitcher to come close to Cy Young's Win Record. Rotations are sometimes 6 pitchers nowadays, we're lucky if pitchers crack 250 innings as well. I'm not sure when the next time we see a 300 game winner is. Let alone 400 and 500.

[slidekellyslide]

Interesting to note that current first time voters, have all voted for Bonds and Clemens. So far three ballots have been made public by people who are voting for the first time.

On the subject of "tainted records." I truly don't think any record is "tainted" There has been doping going on in the sport since the dawn of the 20th century. On the subject of Records, some are quite ridiculous, and should be separated by era in my opinion. Maybe a Pre/Post World War Two for the pitching records.

It's downright impossible for any pitcher to come close to Cy Young's Win Record. Rotations are sometimes 6 pitchers nowadays, we're lucky if pitchers crack 250 innings as well. I'm not sure when the next time we see a 300 game winner is. Let alone 400 and 500.

Yes, the qualifications for pitchers needs to be really looked at...when you have a young superstar throwing a shutout in the World Series and he gets pulled in the 6th because the manager is a "stat head" there's not much the player can do about that. It's a new era for pitchers. Complete games are getting really rare. Only one man in the last 20 years has a season with double digit complete games pitched. James Shields with 11 and this year the leader in both leagues had 2 which you might say is okay since the season was short, but the Major League leader in 2019 only had 3.

[shagrotn77]

Is there really a discussion about Yadier Molina's HOF candidacy? He's a first-ballot lock. Guaranteed.

[conor912]

Class of 2022:
Clemens
Bonds
Ortiz
A-Rod

You read it here first :)

[Gnep31]

Tony Gwynn using PED's? C'mon, that's just plain silly. PED's don't make you magically stronger or better. They allow you to work out more and recover faster from those workouts. Tony wasn't a workout kinda guy, as you can tell by his physique for many years. Tony's gift was eye/hand coordination and videotape study of his swing.

Regardless of the science, PED's do allow for massive muscle growth in a very short amount of time. My roommate put on 15 lbs of muscle in one cycle while playing football in college his freshman yr. I have seen countless examples of similar muscle growth and increased on field performance from my time playing and coaching.

If you think it was 'ok' for our idols to cheat by using PED's then you have never seen HS or college kids die or have serious health issues because of PED use. Most had no chance of getting drafted, but they did go from average players to local or regional All Stars.

Allowing them into the Hall justifies/condones their actions and they should not be in.

Regarding Schilling - I believe he should be in. I support his not taking a knee to the left....pun intended :D

[Mike D.]

I’m interested to see what happens with relievers in the coming years. Wagner is in the ballot now. Joe Nathan comes on in a couple years. I feel they’re both deserving, but do they get the votes? WAR and other measures are tough with relievers, and raw save totals don’t tell the whole story.

[Throttlesteer]

Regardless of the science, PED's do allow for massive muscle growth in a very short amount of time. My roommate put on 15 lbs of muscle in one cycle while playing football in college his freshman yr. I have seen countless examples of similar muscle growth and increased on field performance from my time playing and coaching.

If you think it was 'ok' for our idols to cheat by using PED's then you have never seen HS or college kids die or have serious health issues because of PED use. Most had no chance of getting drafted, but they did go from average players to local or regional All Stars.

Allowing them into the Hall justifies/condones their actions and they should not be in.

Regarding Schilling - I believe he should be in. I support his not taking a knee to the left....pun intended :D

So you're saying we should just not allow anyone from that era into the Hall? Honestly, the argument around Gwynn is ridiculous and a giant reach. He never immediately put on muscle; If anything, it was fat. No, I cannot guarantee he didn't take them. But we're now going to operate under ridiculous assumptions because there's a chance he might have? Do we kick out Ripken? What about Ricky Henderson? Heck Greg Maddux, Frank Thomas, shall I keep going???

There are obvious cheaters, those that are highly-suspicious, those that didn't get caught, and those that actually performed but happened play in the same era. You can't make this the Cooperstown Witch Trials.

[darwinbulldog]

So you're saying we should just not allow anyone from that era into the Hall? Honestly, the argument around Gwynn is ridiculous and a giant reach. He never immediately put on muscle; If anything, it was fat. No, I cannot guarantee he didn't take them. But we're now going to operate under ridiculous assumptions because there's a chance he might have? Do we kick out Ripken? What about Ricky Henderson? Heck Greg Maddux, Frank Thomas, shall I keep going???

There are obvious cheaters, those that are highly-suspicious, those that didn't get caught, and those that actually performed but happened play in the same era. You can't make this the Cooperstown Witch Trials.

I think Canseco pretty much confirmed that Rickey Henderson was using.

[FrankWakefield]

Cy Young AVERAGED 37 games started over 22 seasons. And then he pitched relief a few games each year. And those weren't 162 game seasons. No pitcher today will get that many starts. The pitchers won't throw that often, and the management won't allow it. Golly, a player's agent, his wife, his Mama, lots of folks will try to stop that much pitching in a season.

I'm not a fan of PEDs. But I'm not in favor of punishing the guys who fooled with that before MLB banned certain substances. For the guys who persisted in that knowing the consequences of getting caught, I'm thinking they get suspended by MLB. And good with letting the Hall prohibit enshrinement.

I think the BBWA voters are generally an ill informed lot, when compared to writers of the 30s through 60s.

I'm a lifelong fan of the Cardinals. I'd like to see Rolen get in, but I think he was right on what I considered a somewhat wide dividing line separating those who should be in, and everyone else. I think way to many have gone in the last 30 years or so.

Of those listed back on page one as returning or new candidates, I think Helton and Bonds should be in the Hall. And Rolen would be an acceptable addition. When you get past those guys it seems they are putting someone in just to have an induction... I think of a Hall of Famer as being the likes of Wagner, Cobb, Ruth, Gehrig, Young, Mathewson, Hornsby, Sisler, DiMaggio, Musial, Traynor, Johnson, Gibson, Koufax, Combs, Mantle, Alexander, Maddux, Ryan, Niekro, Grove, Kaat, Frisch, Clemente, O Smith, Seaver, Foxx, Cochrane... there are others, and some will take exception to some I've listed. We aren't talking good players, nor the best when they played. In my mind, and to butcher the language used by the court in the decision about Lajoie's league jumping 120 years ago... consider the night sky on a clear night, and all of the stars overhead in the firmament, then pick out those brightest, most vivid stars; those are the stars that should be in the Hall. And I find it sad that we already have several of what I consider dim stars.

[RCMcKenzie]

Kaat I remember seeing the back of his baseball card when I was a kid, and thinking he played for a very long time. I only saw the very end of his career. You could start up a rival hall down the street with the players that are not in the HOF. Joe Jackson, Pete Rose, Barry Bonds, Don Mattingly, Kirk Gibson, Roger Maris, and on and on.

[Mike D.]

The career value of players being elected is actually going UP, and the number of players elected who played in each decade going down.

For every Ruth and Cobb, there are a lot of veteran committee picks that are just not worthy.

Think about it....in the last 30 years, how many truly undeserving players have been elected? Babies stands out like a sore thumb because there are so few others.

A few borderline guys for sure (Rice, Morris) but most would consider them at least borderline.

Here’s a list of HOFers by year https://www.mlb.com/news/hall-of-fame-inductions-by-year

[packs]

Just off the top of my head over the last decade the ones that stand out to me are:

Jack Morris
Lee Smith
Harold Baines
Trevor Hoffman
Bobby Cox
Whitey Herzog

I don't believe any of these inductees were HOFers. Hoffman's WAR is half of Rivera's, which goes to show how much less the closer he was. Smith is even lower than him. Never understood the criteria for managers. Cox and Herzog won exactly one world series. So have a lot of people.

[brianp-beme]

Think about it....in the last 30 years, how many truly undeserving players have been elected? Babies stands out like a sore thumb because there are so few others.

I assume you meant Baines, but babies do stand out because they are quite often so cute.

Brian

[Mike D.]

I assume you meant Baines, but babies do stand out because they are quite often so cute.

Brian

Ha ha...yes, as someone who has been to the HOF with young children, I feel strongly that babies don’t belong! :D

[Mike D.]

Just off the top of my head over the last decade the ones that stand out to me are:

Jack Morris
Lee Smith
Harold Baines
Trevor Hoffman
Bobby Cox
Whitey Herzog

I don't believe any of these inductees were HOFers. Hoffman's WAR is half of Rivera's, which goes to show how much less the closer he was. Smith is even lower than him. Never understood the criteria for managers. Cox and Herzog won exactly one world series. So have a lot of people.

I was talking players...managers, owners, GM’s, and umpires...your guess is as good as mine!

The “modern closer” is such a new thing that we’re still figuring it out. Eck has a high WAR due to time as a starter. Wilhelm was unique in his era. Gossage, Fingers, and Sutter were an earlier era than the modern closer era. Rivera is clearly the gold standard of this era, but who else from the modern era belongs? Probably not a lot of guys, but probably not zero.

Hoffman and Smith both got in on raw save total numbers...which we know isn’t the best approach. I think Nathan and Wagner are best candidates, but could see it being hard to reach consensus.

[Throttlesteer]

Just off the top of my head over the last decade the ones that stand out to me are:

Jack Morris
Lee Smith
Harold Baines
Trevor Hoffman
Bobby Cox
Whitey Herzog

I don't believe any of these inductees were HOFers. Hoffman's WAR is half of Rivera's, which goes to show how much less the closer he was. Smith is even lower than him. Never understood the criteria for managers. Cox and Herzog won exactly one world series. So have a lot of people.

I think too much emphasis is put on WAR. It's a useful statistic, but not all-encompassing and troubling when applied to relievers. Rivera was the better pitcher without a doubt. But if relievers have a spot in the Hall, it's silly to say Hoffman isn't a HOFer.

[Gnep31]

So you're saying we should just not allow anyone from that era into the Hall? Honestly, the argument around Gwynn is ridiculous and a giant reach. He never immediately put on muscle; If anything, it was fat. No, I cannot guarantee he didn't take them. But we're now going to operate under ridiculous assumptions because there's a chance he might have? Do we kick out Ripken? What about Ricky Henderson? Heck Greg Maddux, Frank Thomas, shall I keep going???

There are obvious cheaters, those that are highly-suspicious, those that didn't get caught, and those that actually performed but happened play in the same era. You can't make this the Cooperstown Witch Trials.

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Not a single one should be in the Hall.

Once you reward them you legitimize their actions. Young athletes then can justify doing it themselves.

I've always believed two wrongs don't make it right. That goes the same for 2, 5, 10 or a 100 wrongs.

[conor912]

I think too much emphasis is put on WAR.

Good God y’all. What is it good for?

[Mike D.]

If baseball had stepped up and implemented testing as soon as a sniff of steroids was evident, the “nobody in” thing would make sense.

Since the sport buried its head in the sand for two decades, it’s not really possible to know who did what and when. You either elect nobody who played from 1985-2005 or you have what we have now.

Oh, except instead of sand, it was money. Which they shared with players who were using.

[rats60]

If baseball had stepped up and implemented testing as soon as a sniff of steroids was evident, the “nobody in” thing would make sense.

Since the sport buried its head in the sand for two decades, it’s not really possible to know who did what and when. You either elect nobody who played from 1985-2005 or you have what we have now.

Oh, except instead of sand, it was money. Which they shared with players who were using.

"Baseball" if you mean Commissioner and Owners tried to implement testing with the 1994/5 agreement with the players. That was the first contract after Congress passed laws making steroids illegal and Fay Vincent sent his letter in 1991 pointing out that this made them illegal under Baseball's existing drug policy. The player's union refused to implement testing until 2002.

[Mike D.]

"Baseball" if you mean Commissioner and Owners tried to implement testing with the 1994/5 agreement with the players. That was the first contract after Congress passed laws making steroids illegal and Fay Vincent sent his letter in 1991 pointing out that this made them illegal under Baseball's existing drug policy. The player's union refused to implement testing until 2002.

I was referring to the overall "baseball" (maybe the "royal" baseball?) - players, owners, sportswriters, and even us fans all deserve some of the blame.

We all know that at that time, the players and owners had a really bad relationship - we're talking the era that started with collusion and ended with the strike.

And 1994 was already too late...fans at Fenway Park were chanting "ster-oids" every time Canseco came to the plate as far back as '88...so I'm thinking maybe '85 or '86 when folks in the game "knew"?

But anyway, my point was really that it's too bad that it's come to this...discussions of HR shifts, back-nee, and the like is just....not as fun as a HOF discussions SHOULD be, ya know?

[darwinbulldog]

Good God y’all. What is it good for?

:D

[Tabe]

No way is Joe Nathan a HOFer. For me, to get in, a reliever needs to be dominant for a long time (bye bye, Eck). Nathan wasn't. Neither was Trevor Hoffman. I think the standard needs to be high - closers are pitching one inning at a time and they're coming in with no one on base. A 3.00 ERA for a closer is nothing. Guys should be in 1.50 - 2.50 range A LOT. That's why I think Billy Wagner is the guy among relievers right now - 15 years as a reliever, he had one ERA over 3.00 (6.18 during an injury-shortened year), with five ERAs under 2.00, finishing with a 2.31 for his career (187 ERA+). He wasn't better than Nathan - he was A LOT better than Nathan.

[rats60]

I was referring to the overall "baseball" (maybe the "royal" baseball?) - players, owners, sportswriters, and even us fans all deserve some of the blame.

We all know that at that time, the players and owners had a really bad relationship - we're talking the era that started with collusion and ended with the strike.

And 1994 was already too late...fans at Fenway Park were chanting "ster-oids" every time Canseco came to the plate as far back as '88...so I'm thinking maybe '85 or '86 when folks in the game "knew"?

But anyway, my point was really that it's too bad that it's come to this...discussions of HR shifts, back-nee, and the like is just....not as fun as a HOF discussions SHOULD be, ya know?

The problem is that everything had to be negotiated and there was such a poor relationship between owners and players, as you stated, that getting agreement on steroids was pretty much impossible until the majority of players realized the problem. Baseball's drug policy agreed to in the 70s only covered illegal drugs. The NFL didn't even start testing until 1987 and steroids. Do anything before that was never happening.

The next agreement after that was 1990 and at that point Congress hadn't acted on steroids, so they weren't illegal under Baseball's drug policy. Getting the players to accept an expansion of drug policy while dealing with collusion just wasn't going to happen.

In 1994-95, the next contract, owners knew steroids were now covered under drug policy and illegal so they asked for testing but the players refused. Without testing it was going to take a player getting caught and arrested, maybe convicted for MLB to suspend a player.

I agree, the HoF discussions based on the on field performance are much more fun. How much should modern analytics count vs. more old school methods. Modern analysis says Yadi Molina isn't a HOFer, but some feel he is 1st ballot because his defense isn't captured by advanced metrics. Guys with shorter careers with high peaks vs. guys with longevity but low peaks, etc.

[Mike D.]

I agree, the HoF discussions based on the on field performance are much more fun. How much should modern analytics count vs. more old school methods. Modern analysis says Yadi Molina isn't a HOFer, but some feel he is 1st ballot because his defense isn't captured by advanced metrics. Guys with shorter careers with high peaks vs. guys with longevity but low peaks, etc.

Those conversations got plenty heated without the whole steroids thing, for sure!

The interesting thing to me is that 95% of the time, analytics and “traditional” stats paint a similar picture. A list of the top 100 players by WAR and an internet vote of the top 100 players would be more similar than different.

It’s the borderline cases where things get interesting...and it’s like everything else...if people use solid logic and are open minded, we can have great debates. If not, it’s like every other conversation on the internet. :)

Molina doesn’t scream “HOF” to me...several other catchers ahead of him on my list. But there may be reasons that stats don’t record - that doesn’t tend to be the case, but I for one am willing to be convinced.

[Mike D.]

No way is Joe Nathan a HOFer. For me, to get in, a reliever needs to be dominant for a long time (bye bye, Eck). Nathan wasn't. Neither was Trevor Hoffman. I think the standard needs to be high - closers are pitching one inning at a time and they're coming in with no one on base. A 3.00 ERA for a closer is nothing. Guys should be in 1.50 - 2.50 range A LOT. That's why I think Billy Wagner is the guy among relievers right now - 15 years as a reliever, he had one ERA over 3.00 (6.18 during an injury-shortened year), with five ERAs under 2.00, finishing with a 2.31 for his career (187 ERA+). He wasn't better than Nathan - he was A LOT better than Nathan.

No disagreement from me that Wagner is the next in line by a solid margin. I think Nathan is next best candidate...but “the line” very well be between them.

I have a few Nathan cards in my PSA sub pile, though, just in case (but more Wagner cards”.

Are there other relievers I’m overlooking?

[PowderedH2O]

The strangest thing is this: We talk about these big home run surges and how steroids made the totals go up so much... yet, if you compare 2019 to any of the "steroid era" years, they make the steroid era guys look like 98 pound weaklings. 58 guys hit 30 homers in 2019. 130 guys hit over 20 homers in 2019. Compare those numbers to 30-35 years ago... In 1988 FIVE guys hit 30 home runs. Is juicing going on now? Or is it just the fact that so many guys are throwing 98 mph and so many hitters are working out 2 hours a day?
Is it possible that some of the surges of the late 1990's are just surges due to these same factors and we are attributing steroids to too much of it?

BTW, I think once Selig got in the Hall, then that should just throw out the steroid issue once and for all. Put Palmeiro in. Despite being a cheater and a liar, he still has more legitimacy than Selig.

[Frank A]

MAN_EEEEE MAN_EEEEE MAN_EEEEE. He's one of my favorite players. Hope he gets in. Quite a character.

[Throttlesteer]

The strangest thing is this: We talk about these big home run surges and how steroids made the totals go up so much... yet, if you compare 2019 to any of the "steroid era" years, they make the steroid era guys look like 98 pound weaklings. 58 guys hit 30 homers in 2019. 130 guys hit over 20 homers in 2019. Compare those numbers to 30-35 years ago... In 1988 FIVE guys hit 30 home runs. Is juicing going on now? Or is it just the fact that so many guys are throwing 98 mph and so many hitters are working out 2 hours a day?
Is it possible that some of the surges of the late 1990's are just surges due to these same factors and we are attributing steroids to too much of it?

BTW, I think once Selig got in the Hall, then that should just throw out the steroid issue once and for all. Put Palmeiro in. Despite being a cheater and a liar, he still has more legitimacy than Selig.

I think it's different when all ships rise. Clearly the dynamics of the game have changed and whether it's a juiced ball, nutrition, or other changes, it's clearly MORE of an even playing field. Having a few hit monstrous numbers with the rest of the pack far behind is more concerning.

[Mike D.]

Also, don’t disagree that we’re in an offensive era, but comparing to 1988 isn’t exactly wise. Maybe try 1998.

1988 was VERY early in the steroid era, and an offensive lull after the rabbit-ball in 1987.

[Jason19th]

No way is Joe Nathan a HOFer. For me, to get in, a reliever needs to be dominant for a long time (bye bye, Eck). Nathan wasn't. Neither was Trevor Hoffman. I think the standard needs to be high - closers are pitching one inning at a time and they're coming in with no one on base. A 3.00 ERA for a closer is nothing. Guys should be in 1.50 - 2.50 range A LOT. That's why I think Billy Wagner is the guy among relievers right now - 15 years as a reliever, he had one ERA over 3.00 (6.18 during an injury-shortened year), with five ERAs under 2.00, finishing with a 2.31 for his career (187 ERA+). He wasn't better than Nathan - he was A LOT better than Nathan.

I actually take a bit of an opposite view with relievers. I think we should be rewarding the guys who are truly dominate for 4-5 years rather then the guys who are pretty good for a long career. I look at a guy like Dick Radatz in the mid 1960, Mike Marshall in the 1970’s. Guys who were working 150-20 innings of relief and just carrying teams. Radatz over a three year period won 40 games and saved another 70 while keeping an era under 2.5. Marshall pitched 179 innings one year and then followed it up with 208 the next. Predictable both guys petered out pretty quick. But their greatness is clear .

[howard38]

I'm not for voting in contemporary RPs unless they lapped the field like Mariano Rivera & I'm on the fence about guys from the 60s & 70s who threw more innings. But I wanted to give a shout out to John Hiller who was one & done on the ballot but IMO was as good or better than his direct contemporaries including Rollie Fingers & Sparky Lyle.

[Mike D.]

Relievers are tough...you either have a crazy high standard or you end up electing a LOT of guys - a lot of relievers have 3-5 runs...but not many go 10+.

[perezfan]

I'm not for voting in contemporary RPs unless they lapped the field like Mariano Rivera & I'm on the fence about guys from the 60s & 70s who threw more innings. But I wanted to give a shout out to John Hiller who was one & done on the ballot but IMO was as good or better than his direct contemporaries including Rollie Fingers & Sparky Lyle.

Agree with this. For a Reliever to get into the Hall, the Bar should be set ridiculously high. Too many are in Cooperstown already, IMHO.

[YazFenway08]

Are the names under consideration for the Early Baseball Era already known? I think this vote was moved into late 2021 but wasn’t sure if the ballot was already set before Covid hit.

[Tabe]

I actually take a bit of an opposite view with relievers. I think we should be rewarding the guys who are truly dominate for 4-5 years rather then the guys who are pretty good for a long career. I look at a guy like Dick Radatz in the mid 1960, Mike Marshall in the 1970’s. Guys who were working 150-20 innings of relief and just carrying teams. Radatz over a three year period won 40 games and saved another 70 while keeping an era under 2.5. Marshall pitched 179 innings one year and then followed it up with 208 the next. Predictable both guys petered out pretty quick. But their greatness is clear .

I was specifically referring to modern closers, guys throwing 65-70 innings while only coming in with no one on base. I would use a slightly different standard on guys throwing 130+ innings.

[Tabe]

No disagreement from me that Wagner is the next in line by a solid margin. I think Nathan is next best candidate...but “the line” very well be between them.

I have a few Nathan cards in my PSA sub pile, though, just in case (but more Wagner cards”.

Are there other relievers I’m overlooking?

Francisco Rodriguez? Not that I'd vote for him either.

[sreader3]

Todd Helton was a great fielding first baseman. While his range was about average, he was the best I ever saw at scooping bad throws out of the dirt -- an especially valuable skill at Coors Field where the afternoon sun is brutal. Also an incredibly tough out at the plate. Before his eye-hand went south in 2012, Todd would toy with pitchers, flicking his wrists and fouling balls off to create 10-12 pitch at bats at will before walking or doubling into the gap. By far the most professional combination hitter/fielder I ever had the privilege of watching in his hey day. Fewer strikeouts per plate appearance than Babe Ruth. Hell, Geoff Jenkins (who played six fewer years) K'ed more times than Todd. I hope he gets in.

(Edited to add: I love Scott Rolen as a player. But he struck-out in 19.1% of his at bats, compared to 14.8% for Helton. And he only drew 899 walks compared to 1335 for Helton. Tough for me to see how Rolen gets in and Helton gets left out, if that happens--which may happen).

[Mike D.]

Francisco Rodriguez? Not that I'd vote for him either.

What, that bum? He's got a losing W-L record for his career (52-53) :D

He's got the save total, although worth fewer WAR than either Wagner or Nathan, but yeah, he's probably in the conversation, especially at that level below Wagner.

If Jonathan Papelbon wasn't basically done at age 34, I think he'd have had a a chance...but hard to make the HOF with only 725 IP.

[Tabe]

What, that bum? He's got a losing W-L record for his career (52-53) :D

He's got the save total, although worth fewer WAR than either Wagner or Nathan, but yeah, he's probably in the conversation, especially at that level below Wagner.

If Jonathan Papelbon wasn't basically done at age 34, I think he'd have had a a chance...but hard to make the HOF with only 725 IP.

I mean, if we're putting in closers with five great or near-great seasons and lots of bad ones, like Eck, then Rodriguez is a lock.

[toledo_mudhen]

I have often wondered - Just Why Is It that Gil Hodges has never been enshrined? Did he like kill somebodies cat or something?

[alaskapaul3]

There aren't any serious new 2021 guys , but Torii Hunter was a maniac in CF against that baggie.

I like when guys at least 'get the nod' for their second year of eligibility like Abreu and hopefully, Hunter.

[Mike D.]

I mean, if we're putting in closers with five great or near-great seasons and lots of bad ones, like Eck, then Rodriguez is a lock.

We’ll, Eckersley is a bit more than “just a closer who was dominant for 5 years”.

He did 150 games as a starter, and was kind of the prototype for the modern closer. Won a CY and an MVP. Then had a 5 non-dominant years as a closer that saw him save an additional 150 saves.

In total, it adds up to HOF...kind of a compiler with a dominant stretch.

As a total aside on Eck....I find it amusing that he’s a broadcaster now (and he’s actually REALLY good) - in the early 80’s if you told a Red Sox fan that two players from that era would be broadcasters, and that it’d be Eck and Rice, they’d throw you and your time machine right out of the Cask n Flaggin! :D

[triwak]

Are the names under consideration for the Early Baseball Era already known? I think this vote was moved into late 2021 but wasn’t sure if the ballot was already set before Covid hit.

I have wondered about this also. Can't seem to find any info on the ballots for EITHER Era's committee (there were to be two), prior to their postponement. Would be nice to know. Perhaps the whole ballot-selection process was also postponed until 2021?

[Cooper1927]

Looks like it’s not an every year thing...

https://baseballhall.org/hall-of-famers/rules/eras-committees


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kenny Cole]

They probably need yet another committee for consideration of eligible Negro League players. I doubt anyone one the Early Baseball Committee knows come here from sic 'em about who should be elected from the Negro Leagues, and that is one area where there are still plenty of deserving players IMO.

[Tabe]

We’ll, Eckersley is a bit more than “just a closer who was dominant for 5 years”.

He did 150 games as a starter, and was kind of the prototype for the modern closer. Won a CY and an MVP. Then had a 5 non-dominant years as a closer that saw him save an additional 150 saves.

In total, it adds up to HOF...kind of a compiler with a dominant stretch.

As a total aside on Eck....I find it amusing that he’s a broadcaster now (and he’s actually REALLY good) - in the early 80’s if you told a Red Sox fan that two players from that era would be broadcasters, and that it’d be Eck and Rice, they’d throw you and your time machine right out of the Cask n Flaggin! :D

Couple things:

1) His Cy and MVP were a joke. He wasn't even remotely deserving of either one.

2) Eck was elected because of his relief years. Period. And they simply weren't that good.

[Mike D.]

Couple things:

1) His Cy and MVP were a joke. He wasn't even remotely deserving of either one.

2) Eck was elected because of his relief years. Period. And they simply weren't that good.

Joke or not, he did win them. Sadly, players seldom get credit for awards they should have won or dinged for awards they shouldn’t have.

And if Eck got elected for just those 5 years, why not other relievers with 5 great years? Do you think the “first modern closer” thing was a big bump? Stanger things have happened!

[Mike D.]

Interestingly, Clemens had the highest pitching WAR in 1992, the year won his Cy Young (Messina was 2nd and also a deserving choice).

He also had the highest WAR in 1990, the year Bob Welch won (Clemens was 2nd, but led in WAR 10.4 vs 2.9).

So...he won 7 Cy Young awards, but should have won 2 more. Crazy!

[Tabe]

Joke or not, he did win them. Sadly, players seldom get credit for awards they should have won or dinged for awards they shouldn’t have.

And if Eck got elected for just those 5 years, why not other relievers with 5 great years? Do you think the “first modern closer” thing was a big bump? Stanger things have happened!

There's no doubt he got in for being the "first modern closer". I don't see that as being worth much but the voters clearly did.

There's a LOT of guys who had 5 great years as relievers (I wouldn't say Eck even had 5...). That's kinda my whole point. His career as a reliever, at the end of the day, was nothing special.

[Throttlesteer]

The idea that certain positions shouldn't be in the Hall is confusing. If they're a significant part of the game for the generation, shouldn't they have candidates for the Hall? Should kickers be in the Football HOF? What about defensive-minded defensemen in the NHL?

We celebrate scoring and love to promote the offensive aspects of the game. But, there are a number of players who were the best of their generation and helped teams win in other ways. It's unfortunate great relievers or amazing defensive talents won't get a nod (with a few exceptions).

[Tabe]

The idea that certain positions shouldn't be in the Hall is confusing. If they're a significant part of the game for the generation, shouldn't they have candidates for the Hall? Should kickers be in the Football HOF? What about defensive-minded defensemen in the NHL?

We celebrate scoring and love to promote the offensive aspects of the game. But, there are a number of players who were the best of their generation and helped teams win in other ways. It's unfortunate great relievers or amazing defensive talents won't get a nod (with a few exceptions).

They don't put kick returners in the Hall. They basically don't put punters in there. Reason being they play so little. Closers are the same. They play 65 innings out of more than 1400 each year. And then only under ridiculously favorable circumstances (no outs, nobody on, with a lead, one inning only). So, if you're going to be that limited, you better be incredibly good for a long time.

[shagrotn77]

I have often wondered - Just Why Is It that Gil Hodges has never been enshrined? Did he like kill somebodies cat or something?

I hope you're not a big Ted Williams fan, because this might turn your stomach. In 1993, when he served as head of the HOF Veteran's Committee, Williams DISALLOWED Roy Campanella's votes because he couldn't be present for the meeting. Nevermind the fact that Campy was sick and passed away a few months later. His vote would have given Hodges the 12 (75%) that he needed for induction. Why Williams was allowed to do this, I have no idea. But I lost an absolute ton of respect for him when I heard the story. I don't know if there was bad blood between him and Campy, him and Hodges, or both, but it was a truly awful thing to do.

[mr2686]

I hope you're not a big Ted Williams fan, because this might turn your stomach. In 1993, when he served as head of the HOF Veteran's Committee, Williams DISALLOWED Roy Campanella's votes because he couldn't be present for the meeting. Nevermind the fact that Campy was sick and passed away a few months later. His vote would have given Hodges the 12 (75%) that he needed for induction. Why Williams was allowed to do this, I have no idea. But I lost an absolute ton of respect for him when I heard the story. I don't know if there was bad blood between him and Campy, him and Hodges, or both, but it was a truly awful thing to do.

Had not heard that. Wow, that really sucks.

[packs]

Every now and then there's a post about Ted Williams and why his memorabilia doesn't sell for more. Someone always brings up him not being a Yankee but more often than not I hear a story like that one. Doesn't make me want to buy his cards.

[Mike D.]

Every now and then there's a post about Ted Williams and why his memorabilia doesn't sell for more. Someone always brings up him not being a Yankee but more often than not I hear a story like that one. Doesn't make me want to buy his cards.

For every story like this, though, there's one about his involvement with the Jimmy Fund or his advocating for Negro League greats to be inducted into the HOF...people are complicated!

[packs]

For every story like this, though, there's one about his involvement with the Jimmy Fund or his advocating for Negro League greats to be inducted into the HOF...people are complicated!

True enough. Anecdotal of course but I don't tend to hear many good stories about Ted Williams the person.

[Ricky]

Williams likely held a grudge in this case... there must have been some history. Maybe Campy didn't support Phil Rizzuto in 1987, who Williams strongly supported?
https://www.upi.com/Archives/1987/03/03/In-a-controversial-meeting-that-sent-Ted-Williams-storming/3402541746000/

[h2oya311]

We’ll, Eckersley is a bit more than “just a closer who was dominant for 5 years”.

He did 150 games as a starter, and was kind of the prototype for the modern closer. Won a CY and an MVP. Then had a 5 non-dominant years as a closer that saw him save an additional 150 saves.

In total, it adds up to HOF...kind of a compiler with a dominant stretch.

As a total aside on Eck....I find it amusing that he’s a broadcaster now (and he’s actually REALLY good) - in the early 80’s if you told a Red Sox fan that two players from that era would be broadcasters, and that it’d be Eck and Rice, they’d throw you and your time machine right out of the Cask n Flaggin! :D

Awesome post! 100% agree. Eck had insane control, from what I recall. In fact, when Ron Shandler does fantasy baseball analysis of pitchers and they have a 6.0 or 7.0+ K/BB ratio and insane BPVs (base performance values), he notes that they are "Eck-like" or in "vintage Eck territory". Something to that effect.

[Tabe]

Awesome post! 100% agree. Eck had insane control, from what I recall. In fact, when Ron Shandler does fantasy baseball analysis of pitchers and they have a 6.0 or 7.0+ K/BB ratio and insane BPVs (base performance values), he notes that they are "Eck-like" or in "vintage Eck territory". Something to that effect.

He had a couple amazing years but a career 3.25 K/BB is nothing special.