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.

HOF PED wing
 

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.

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.

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.

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

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:

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

Class of 2022:
Clemens
Bonds
Ortiz
A-Rod

You read it here first :)

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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-fam...ctions-by-year

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 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

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.

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.

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.

Good God y’all. What is it good for?

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.

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?

: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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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'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.

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+.

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.

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 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.

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

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).