2022 Baseball Hall of Fame - tracker
 

Anyone here following the disclosed ballots for 2022 HOF? Looks like David Ortiz will be a first ballot HOFer. Steriod era big names guys getting close.

Here's a link to the well known tracker:

https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?...K9u16pmWGGlQsI

Ortiz *might* get in, but it's far from a lock. The numbers always drop once the non-public votes are incorporated. If Ortiz doesn't make it, this would be the second year in a row that the committee didn't elect anyone.

Carlos Beltran is the only first-ballot player with a shot to get in next year, though I think his ties to the Astros cheating scandal will hurt him a lot. You may see Scott Rolen as the only inductee next year, unless Todd Helton takes a big step forward this year. Then we could have 2.

checking
 

I check it each day, gives me some sense of baseball news during the lockout. I don't think Clemens and Bonds will get in. The vote has fallen for the steroid linked guys at the end of the voting (over 11 percentage points for Bonds and Clemens last year) because the older, more traditional voters don't participate in the tracker. Although the composition of the voters is changing each year, and more young voters are willing to forgive bonds and Clemens of their transgressions, it will be too little too late. I don't think they get in, and they was their final attempt until the Committees start voting on them in a few years.

Ortiz is an interesting case. He's been hovering around 83-84% in the tracker, so even with a decrease at the end he has a good chance. Many traditional voters won't vote for him (at least on the first ballot) because he played so many games a DH. He'll eventually get in. As for this year, I think it comes right down to the wire.

Ortiz might get in, but if he does, it will be close.

Next year will be interesting because with Bonds, Clemens, Schilling and Sosa off the ballot, people who have been voting for them and possibly hitting the 10 vote maximum will have space open up to vote for others so some players like Rolen and Helton could get a boost.

I've often wondered how a guy that don't make the HOF in their first year of eligibility can be elected in future years. Did their stats change after they retired? My thoughts are that either you are good enough for the Hall or your not. How can you vote for a player in say year 4 or 5 but not in year one? If the voters can't see the difference between a great player and good player maybe they aren't qualified to vote. JMO

First-time voters

+1 agreed and if Ortiz misses this year he will be a lock next year.
As for Bonds and Clemens they will miss but probably get in with the next round in the modern players committee or whatever name they have now

This is pretty similar to how I view it as well. I know there is a "thing" where people don't feel some players are first ballot HOF worthy, whatever that's supposed to mean, but get voted for the following year(s). If you think they are a HOF player, then vote for them. I don't understand the reasoning for all the games behind it. Last I knew the HOF doesn't have different wings/corridors for HOFers based on what ballot year they got in.

Right now only 47% of ballots known, so not crazy accurate yet. Looks like the past few years they got 83%-84% of ballots by the end and had pretty close outcomes.
I agree, I never understood if the same voter penalizes a player by not voting for him the first year, but will the second. I understand if you change your mind about a player, but it doesn’t make sense to intentionally do it.

3B is traditionally overlooked by the Hall, and Rolen is a top 10 3B all-time in WAR. I hope he gets in. According to this he’s close again.

Its insane to me that Bonds is not going to get voted in on the regular ballot. There are a lot of guys in the HoF who have transgressions as bad or worse than what Bonds allegedly did. And even if you subtract everything Bonds did in SF, the first part of career would have made him HoF worthy. The greatest player I've ever seen, and I don't think its really all that close.

Have to disagree on the best ever. Hank Aaron is better in almost every stat except a handful of home runs. I think Hank is often overshadow by Willie as well who he also had superior stats to.
Conclusion, buy Hank Aaron rookie cards

If Mantle had taken steroids he could have played til he was 42 and hit 1,100 HRs. Just saying.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I said that I've ever seen. I'm maybe younger than you and never saw Aaron play

Ah, sorry I actually am also too young to have seen Hank play. Guess I glazed over the post a bit quick. But I still wanted to share that 🤣

I completely agree here. Todd Helton is a habitual drunk driver, who has served jail time for it and he's left the scene of an accident. You're telling me that someone who did steroids is a worse person than that? Not on the planet I live on. Helton put people in danger who knows how many times in his life. If he ever makes it to Cooperstown, I hope he uses an Uber to get there. It's insane to me that Helton is picking up votes in the same year that Vizquel is (deservedly) losing votes by the boatload for what he did off of the field. Imagine Wade Boggs, who lost his mom to a drunk driver, having to sit on the stage while they celebrate Helton...that alone should make voters think twice about him.

Like David Ortiz, who actually tested positive when Bonds was just on the Mitchell report (not to say Bonds didn't use, he did but Ortiz tested positive.). And Ortiz is a fringe HoFer with 55.3 WAR (regardless for who believe in it as a stat or not). I have no clue how Ortiz will get votes and not Bonds and others already got in like Bagwell, Rodriguez, Piazza and more while Clemens, Palmeiro, Sosa, McGwire and Bonds were superior players and need the veterans committee.

Bonds drew 688 intentional walks in his career. He drew 120 intentional walks in 2004 alone. That 120 total would have been good enough for the 94th highest career total in history. And he did that in one season. At age 39. Steroids or no, he was an unbelievable hitter, and I don't think the steroids helped him hit the ball further or swing faster. Recover more quickly? Maybe. But he was an absolutely freakishly good hitter. One of the best to ever do it.

So he magically got even better in his late 30's but 'roids didn't help his performance. RIIIIIIGHHHHT

I'll never understand how Scott Rolen might get in at some point. He was a decent player and only was in the top 13 of MVP voting once in his career. He was never great in any category and was average in most of them. I guess he's better than Harold Baines, so there's that.

I guess they should not be called performance enhancing drugs then, wonder why people call them that?

Lower standard statistically for third basemen, no?

Third base is one of the least represented positions in the Hall so I think standards have generally been higher for third basemen not lower.

Looking at BB-R WAR:

Rolen ranks 10th in WAR among third basemen all time. The average WAR of the 15 Hall of Fame 3B is 68.4. Rolen put up 70.

And it’s not like he wasn’t recognized during his career…7 time all star, 8 gold gloves, etc.

MLB.com had an article today on the players who got elected in their last year on the ballot (well, last year of eligibility - technically every player elected gets elected on their last year on the ballot):

https://www.mlb.com/news/hall-of-fam...lot-c302974298

I don't think so. I think you'll find statistically that the 3B who have been elected are in a somewhat lower range than outfielders and first basemen.

Average career WAR for third basemen is 68.4 and for first basemen it's 66, for LF it's 65.2, RF it's 71.1 and CF it's 71.6 (from Jay Jaffe HoF write ups) so they're all pretty close. By position, I know there used to be less third basemen than other positions. Chipper Jones and Ron Santo have gone in somewhat recently, but I still think the position overall is underrepresented.

3B have the least HOF inductees of any position (only 17).

Here are 4 different 3rd basemen:
1.) .277/.362/.464, 342 HR, 62.1 WAR, 9 AS, 5 GG
2.) .306/.369/.448, 234 HR, 75.7 WAR, 7 AS, 0 GG
3.) .312/.418/.515, 309 HR, 68.4 WAR, 7 AS, 0 GG
4.) .281/.364/.490, 316 HR, 70.1 WAR, 7 AS, 8 GG

Santo, Molitor, Edgar, Rolen. All fairly similar mid-tier HOFers. And Rolen is the best glove of the group.

Schmidt, Mathews, Boggs, Brett, Chipper and Robinson would likely be top tier 3B for most in no particular order.

Then, also in no particular order, probably come these 4, plus Baker, Collins and now Beltre.

Who else would you guys put in the conversation?

Molitor and Rolen aren't in the same stadium. 3319 hits, .306 Avg, 504 sb for Molitor. Rolen had 2077 hits and 316 hrs in 17 seasons. Explain to me how those are similar players?

I don't know that they're similar...they went about things differently.

I found this pretty interesting, though...they both had a career OPS+ of 122.

I also thought it was interesting that Molitor actually DH'ed more than he played 3B...1,174 games to 791. The BB-R WAR lists are imperfect that way, maybe because they don't have one for DH (for example, Edgar Martinez appears on the 3B WAR list just after Rolen).

I will never understand voters who vote for Ortiz but not Bonds or Clemens or Rodriguez. Bonds and Clemens didn't even fail tests - Ortiz did*. Rodriguez did - and paid for it. Ortiz did and received no punishment.

Maybe if those three had given a profane speech and been historically awful defensively they, too, could get elected.

* - Ortiz and Rob Manfred have both confirmed he failed a test. It's not speculation, unlike anything surrounding Bonds and Clemens.

Yeah that was one of the rationales being articulated for Ken Boyer but I guess it was unavailing.

Last I read Manfred was spinning a story about how it could have been a false positive.

I'm fuzzy on the Bonds story now. Didn't he acknowledge using the "clear" but claimed his trainer told him it was a lawful supplement?

Anyhow there is no good answer to this once you make an exception for anyone. Even if you don't make an overt exception, you've almost certainly already let in people who used but managed to keep the lid on suspicions.

I saw Aaron play. More than once. He was a gentleman, and a Hall of Fame baseball player.

Ortiz. He hit .280 something and hit 540 something home runs. I think he played less than 300 games in the field. He can kinda border line (in my mind) get into the Hall. I'd not consider him 1st year eligible material. For folks who get hung up on positive tests, please consider being a bit consistent with that. Don't keep Bonds out if you're ok with Ortiz getting in. McGwire and Clemmons the same. Put 'em in (I lean towards that) or keep all of them out.

I'm a lifelong Cardinals fan. They may well vote Rolen in... but I think that he and Edmonds are just on the edge of not getting in. Seeing them on the field was nice, I was glad when a ball was hit anywhere near them, I was confident that they could play tight defense. But it wasn't quite like watching Ozzie at short. That was just about perfection. I saw Clemente and Mays play, and they could beat you with their gloves, their bats, their baserunning... Aaron was a great fielder, strong arm, he could fly like the wind out there in the outfield. I mention this because Ortiz didn't do that stuff. What's the next evolution, putting base coaches into the Hall for base coaching? And think who'll get in there for that, they'll start with a clean slate so no telling where they decide to set starting standards. Next they'll add pitching coaches, gotta have those.

I liked the Baines comment back there. And I'm sitting here shaking my head about Puckett getting in. And a few others. So maybe Ortiz and Rolen and Bonds and McGwire and the rest get in.

I'm not a Yankees fan, and I don't like the consequences (as I see them) from ARod getting the huge Texas contract that got players' salaries into a higher altitude orbit of outrageousness. I don't fault ARod, the owners did it to themselves and put paying the price of it, in the long run, on people going to ball games and people buying modern ball cards. (Those doing both take two hits on the burden.) MLB imposed a 1 year suspension on ARod, and he still had game for that year he missed. He had a great, HOF career, even after they took a year from him. 117 WAR, 3115 hits, 696 HRs. 17 players have a WAR rating above that. Ortiz' is about half that. ARod was a DH just under 300 games, about the number Ortiz was in the field. And ARod was in the field about 2400 games, about the number Ortiz was DHing.

ARod was a real ball player.

Peter,

I couldn't agree with you more. Rolen was a fantastic defensive 3Bman, but this hype over him is ridiculous.

Frank, I think it's inevitable that once MLB said OK to the designated hitter, the best designated hitters are going to make the Hall, despite obvious holes in their resumes relative to how we traditionally have viewed a baseball player.

Peter, by Manfred saying there might be a false positive on Ortiz, he's admitting there was a positive, right? So Ortiz lied when he said he never failed a test.

You are correct about Bonds, admited in Grand Jury, he "unknowingly" took the Clear and the Cream but that it had no affect on him.

There are Steroid cheaters in the HOF, Pudge Rodriguez, just to name one. Does that mean they should make more mistakes? Just an analogy, because Jack the Ripper and the Zodiac were never caught, do we stop arresting people for murder?

I think Manfred's point is that many (I think he said 10-15) players who tested positive had explanations that would have negated the test results. Ortiz could have been one of them, but the adjudication process was truncated since, in theory, obtaining definitive results by player was never intended and would never be revealed or used for any purpose.

The use of steroids was (and maybe still is) way more widespread than we'll ever know. It's pointless to try to figure out who did and who didn't. Why not just assume everyone did and take the best players from that era and put them in the hall of fame. Isn't that how hall of famers are typically determined, by how they compare to others of their own era?

Shouldn't Bonds and Clemens be in just because they were better than everyone else during their era?

Think back to the 80's and remember all the cocaine users in baseball: Willie Wilson, Gooden, Strawberry. Different era, different drugs. Amphetamines in the 70's were widespread.

Cheaters shouldn't be in the Hall. They lessen the accomplishments of all the players who played fair. They set a terrible example for everyone who looked up to them and they influenced countless teenagers to take steroids too. It is the most important factor anyone should consider when voting. Their actions should never be normalized.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

What was the banned substance that Ortiz took? I don't believe we even know. Some banned substance, not necessarily steriods. Where do you draw the line?

If Barry Bonds isn't a Hall of Famer by the end of the day, it's a failure by the Hall of Fame

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/...lure-hall-fame

This is exactly my thought process. Every era has its "thing". If the MLB let's something affect results, then it's part of the game during the era it's allowed. They let roids save baseball.

Understood but the point I was trying to make was, whether the test was questionable or not, Ortiz claimed he never failed a drug test and thats a lie.

2022 Baseball Hall of Fame - tracker
 

No chance Aaron is better than Bonds. Not even close. It's more than stats.

I think there's an interesting conversation around the purpose of the Hall of Fame. If you subscribe to the idea that it's to honor the best and most virtuous of the players, your point is valid. That being said, there is a long list of guys racists, cheaters, abusers, and awful executives who should not be honored that are currently enshrined. (Anson, Landis, Yawkey, Perry, Ford, Puckett, Alomar, Piazza, Pudge, Selig)

If you think the purpose of the Hall of Fame is to tell the history of the game of baseball, warts and all, you simply can't tell that story without Bonds and Clemens (and Rose and Shoeless Joe).

For what my two cents are worth, the Hall has clearly failed to establish itself as a place honoring the virtuous. It should accept that, and try to tell the best, most complete history of the game. Bonds and Clemens belong in Cooperstown.

Rolen's defense is what makes him a HOF caliber player. Rfield measures expected runs saved defensively, numbers to follow are based on Rfield. Now, at 3B, nobody touches Brooks, but Rolen stacks up well against the next tier. He saved 35 more runs across his career than did Graig Nettles - to take one great defensive third baseman. He did this, moreover, in 700 fewer games than did Nettles. So, he was saving far more runs per-game than was Nettles. And his best season is equal to Nettles' best season (30 runs saved).

Nettles, of course, isn't a hall of famer. But Rolen hit like Paul Molitor (as noted above, both have career 122 OPS+), and fielded BETTER than Nettles. It's that combination that will get him into the hall.

Given historical voting patterns, he'll probably get in next year, maybe the year after. He's at 69% on the tracker, and vote percentages for most players go down some when the final vote tally is in. So Rolen will probably end up in the mid-to-high 60s. Players with vote percentages in the mid-to-high 60s, and no steroid taint, usually get in pretty quickly.

Well said!!!!

Would you put throwing illegal pitches in the same category of cheating or is that different? Genuine question, not arguing.

How about guys with too much pine tar on their bats? :D

I put throwing illegal pitches in the same category as corking a bat, steroids are different, IMO.

Long live the Mick, but I don't think mixing vodka and steroids is such a wise choice.

I am genuinely curious as to why you make this distinction. In all 3 cases, an unnatural foreign substance is added to try and gain an edge on the field of play. The choice was available for all players, and made by some.

I guess we need a card...
 

Here's one of Ortiz' best cards, his rookie year signature card... get 'em while they are hot. Wait, probably too late to buy one now...

Notice how Papi didn't know where he was supposed to sign these.

OTOH, although Molitor's plaque says third base, he spent more of his career as a DH. I am certainly not arguing Molitor is not legit as a HOFer as he certainly is, but I don't think he became a DH because he was an asset in the field.

This whole PED thing is a bit crazy. Look at the number of HOF eligible 500HR hitters not enshrined. 500HRs used to be the bar to reach to be enshrined.

Bonds (762 - Last year: 2007)
Sosa (609 - 2007)
McGwire (583 - 2001)
Palmeiro (569 - 2005)
Ramirez (555 - 2011)
Sheffield (509 - 2009)

Perhaps the voters are considering the players that "denied" the accusations of PEDs. On that list, the only one that admitted to using PEDs is McGwire, well at least until they were caught.

Clemens (354W - 2007) is somewhat similar in that he reached the 300W plateau but he also claimed he never used PEDs and was caught and continued to deny it. Maybe, just maybe the voters are looking at that.

The last year for Bonds, Sosa and Clemens was 2007. That would have been one hell of a HOF class to enshrine, but none are in.

We'll see what happens with A-Rod and Ortiz. I think being likable helps so Ortiz may stand a better chance than A-Rod, even though A-Rod clearly had the best offensive numbers (3K hits, 2K Runs, 2K RBIs and almost 700HRs).

PEDs and gambling. What a mess...

He did an excellent job of disguising the identity of the signer though.:eek:

It's a better chicken scratch than many.

I finally found a player that everyone can agree was always a "good boy" and deserves to be in the hall. Not the greatest hitter in the game, but always ran down the balls in the outfield with the best of them.

I never have the opportunity to add a card, since I don't collect vintage, so I'll post my favorite Arod signed card, as it fits in this debate. A sloppy signer, so I really like the signature on this card.

This debate will go on for a long time, as we all think differently. I hope they all get in.

Let's talk about The Big Papi for a minute. Why is the decision to put him in or not so hard? Designated Hitter is a legitimate position in the American League, is it not? Can anyone name another person who filled that position any better? And these questions are from a lifetime Yankees fan.

All the questions will not be answered but soon we will know the results.

Great thread and conversation

Mainly because they are keeping some players out for PED use. Why is a beyond obvious PED user getting in when others are not? That is my only problem with him getting in. If you seriously question if he ever done PEDs look at the year he had at 40 years old and tell me that is normal.

50% of the ballots are in !!
 

50% of the ballots published. So Far:

Ortiz 83.7%
Bonds 78.1%
Clemens 77.0%

Let's go Big Papi... Love to sell your signed cards for some $$... Daddy needs a new pair of Red Hindu's!

Last year both Bonds and Clemens dropped by over 11% from public tally to the final. Ortiz is making it very close, but if the private votes have the same trend he will just miss.

That's the whole point of it, isn't it? Frank Robinson had 586 home runs. He was a great player and a tremendous slugger. Now if you didn't know better you'd think he was comparable to Rafael friggin Palmeiro.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Voters
 

Voters can place up to 10 votes:

Nick Canepa, San Diego Tribune, voted for..... no one!
Michael Hunt submits a blank ballot (again)!
Dan Shaughnessy, grumpiest writer in BBWAA, votes for Jeff Kent only
Steve Simmons votes only for Andruw Jones and Curt (take me off the ballot) Shilling
Mark Purdy, Mercury News, votes only for Billy Wagner


Interesting....

Steve Simmons is a well known troll in Canadian media. He isn't qualified to vote for American Idol, much less the Hall of Fame. If they want to clean up the Hall of Fame, maybe they should start with better vetting of the voters.

On not voting for players on the first ballot, but voting for them later. people view voting differently. Observers want it to be an exercise in objectivity. Who should be in, who shouldn't be, mark your ballot accordingly. But when voters themselves, when they get behind the ballot, so to speak (and we know this from Federal level elections), approach it in a variety of ways. In this particular situation where voting changes from year to year, depending in part on the length of time a player is on the ballot, I think some voters don't view a non-yes vote as a no vote. They aren't ready to vote yes, but that doesn't mean they think they don't belong. They either aren't sure yet, or just aren't ready to be sure.

On steroid era PED cheating. Some say, so many cheated, you can't sort em out, accept those things as context and vote as if it doesn't matter. Sure, but why not say, so many cheated, you can't sort em out, accept those things as context and vote against the whole era? It is just as valid an argument. Or sort em out as best you can. Or sort em out as lazily and inconsistently as you can. It is voting, not a logarithmic computer program.

A constant line of arguing about these matters is an appeal to consistency (or inconsistency). If players in other eras did x and got in, shouldn't players in this era that did y get in? Or, player A did bad thing X and got in, player B who did bad thing Y ought to get in. Or player A got away with it, so it isn't fair that player B is left in the cold. It is fun to argue about these things, but the HOF isn't a board of consistency management. Players enter based on votes from voters. Voters today didn't vote on amphetamine users in the 60s. They aren't responsible for being consistent with voter results from 40 years ago. They aren't even responsible for being consistent with votes they may have cast 5 or 10 years ago themselves. People change their minds. They aren't and shouldn't be beholden to consistency to a previous vote. What the collective group of voters did in past years has very little bearing on what an individual voter is voting on in the present. And we shouldn't want that. Do we want the veterans committee electing everyone as good as Harold Baines because we demand consistency? I am happy for Harold. He is legit a HOFer now. But I also think it would be a mistake for Harold Baines' career stats to become the measure of HOFness. Because a steroid user is in is irrelevant to if another steroid user should get in. Because a bad guy is in is irrelevant to if another bad guy should get in. Because 60s stars used PEDs is irrelevant to if 2000s PED using stars should get in. It is fun to argue about and make comparisons and conjectures but should is not part of it.

That being said, Lou Whitaker should be a HOFer.

What? There is no other way to decide who's a better player than using stats. What is beyond stats that makes bonds come anywhere close to being a better player than Hank? I can't find it.

Cause unlike Clemens, McGwire, Bonds, Palmeiro and others, Ortiz actually tested positive for steroids and not just had accusations. Thats not to say the others didn't use but they never tested positive. Add on top Ortiz is a fringe HoFer anyway that clearly had add from gear seems weird that he would get in and the others wouldn't. But hey, Bagwell, Piazza, Ivan Rodriguez and others are already in so it's not like the voters have any consistency as is.

Agree 100%. It makes no sense that Ortiz gets a pass and other linked players don't. How can anyone vote for Ortiz and not Bonds or Clemens, who were infinitely better players. Like we used to say, "Ortiz couldn't carry their jocks."
It is absolutely hypocritical and inconsistent.

Ortiz gets in, I am okay with it. Okay with those other guys too. I could not care any less about steroids, or corked bats.

Everyone else who has tested positive or has significant evidence of use is being kept out. McGwire, Sosa, Palmeiro, Ramirez, Bonds, Clemens. It’s not that he’s a DH, it’s that the general ‘steroid policy’ look like it’s going to be waived for Ortiz, and only for Ortiz. Bonds denied for the 10th time while Ortiz, who tested positive, is elected the same year will be a complete joke.

2022 Baseball Hall of Fame - tracker
 

Sure, let's talk about base running, stealing, defense and arm. Bonds hands down. Not even close. Aaron had negative dWar. Have you ever watched baseball? Then you should know there's more than just stats to impact a game and the individual/teams success.

Just saw the headline that Bonds and Clemens didn't get in on their final year of eligibility. It's nice to see some good news for a change.

So do you think all the Astros players who cheated should have been ruled ineligible and permanently banned from the HOF?

No brainer for Ortiz.. He IS Boston!!

BOSTON - Commissioner Rob Manfred says it’s unfair for Red Sox slugger David Ortiz’s legacy to be tarnished by his positive drug test in Major League Baseball’s 2003 anonymous drug testing survey, since it’s unknown whether Ortiz actually used a performance-enhancing drug.

There were at least 10 false positives in the survey testing, Manfred said Sunday before Ortiz’s final regular-season game at Fenway Park, and it’s possible that Ortiz was one of the false tests.
Manfred confirmed that Ortiz also has never failed a drug test since MLB implemented its drug policy in 2004 and strengthened it numerous times in the decade-plus since.
“Even if your name was on that (anonymous) list,’’ Manfred said, “it’s entirely possible that you were not a positive.

Voting results