HOF Future Eligibles
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom C

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Nick

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

David Ortiz

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Any chance ?
 

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

No, no chance.

I Love Bo Jackson as Much As Anyone....
 

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

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

Tom C

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom C

Griffey
 

Hoping for 2016!

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

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

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

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

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

So why is Eckersley in the HOF?

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

Tom C

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom C

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Could McGriff eventually get in with his numbers?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom C

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is what PEDs have given us.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom C

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

Tom C

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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