2021 HOF Ballot
 

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!!

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.

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!!

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

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).

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

This
 

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.

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.

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

Sign stealing is worse than PEDs!

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

Nick Swisher is a lock!!!

Buehrle over Schilling?

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.

Yes.

My Ballot is two.

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

Hard to see that in the math.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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/...ourt-docs-show

A repeat offender and stellar guy.

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

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.

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.

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.

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...

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

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

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).

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

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

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.

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...

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

I laughed out loud at LaTroy Hawkins.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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