Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa and Roger Clemens don’t have the integrity, sportsmanship or
 

From someone who gets to vote.
https://torontosun.com/sports/baseba...e-hall-of-fame

He should lose his voting privilege. Regardless, It isnt the hall of character, it's the hall of FAME.

Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character and contributions to the teams on which the player played.

Isn't his point that the actual ballot mentions character and integrity??

So Ortiz..among all he did for baseball, aside from anonymous 2003 claim, keeps him out of this guys vote?

I guess its a matter if opinion, but if you kept all the classless characters out of the hall, and added the watered down names because they were stand up guys, it's not a true representation.

It least not to me. I guess he has a holier than thou approach.

If taking greenies, using ethnic slurs, being a womanizing alcoholic etc would have kept people out, youd have half the members now enshired. Now its convenient to hold your ground having a moral compass.

Pedro Martinez "let the bambino come to the plate, I'll drill him in the A$$"

Countless others.

It's hypocrisy to the highest degree. The Hall of Fame has enshrined people that have done far worse than take PED's. Not to mention the fact it's very likely there are PED users already in the Hall of Fame. Cap Anson was a detestable human being, but a great player and he's in the Hall, I'd argue that's infinitely worse than anything that Bonds ever did.

Notice how those attributes come LAST in the description.

If the voters never let in anyone with a character issue, then the entire Hall would be an exhibit about Christy Mathewson.

Wikipedia is a great read on this guy. Clearly need the ratings, and should lose his vote. Mostly for his Ortiz comments.



The column attracted the attention of ESPN personality Keith Olbermann, who awarded Simmons the title of "Worst Person In The Sports World".[11


Simmons was referenced in a spoof letter supposedly written by Phil Kessel after Kessel had won the Stanley Cup with the Pittsburgh Penguins in 2016. The post script of the letter reads thus: "How did the country that produced literary giants like Margaret Atwood and Alice Munro also crap out Steve Simmons?"

I occasionally write about baseball and/or baseball cards on the internet. Whenever I start to get “imposter syndrome”, thinking maybe I’m not worthy (I’m no Peter Gammons or Bill James, after all), I go read material from so called “professional” writers out there, and the feeling goes away in a hurray.

In a world where Dan Shanessy has a job that doesn’t involve making French fries, I can feel ok about sharing my thoughts in print. I read an article on mlb.com recently where a professional writer argued both that Billy Wagner didn’t belong in the hall of fame both because of his low career IP total (900+) and because of his playoff performance (career postseason IP - 11.2). :rolleyes:

I tend to think that the biggest problem with HOF voting is that the people who are competent and actually care and the actual people who get a vote barely overlap.

"...I take the responsibility, as almost all of us do, very seriously. I pour (sic) over pages and pages..."

Hopefully, he takes his voting responsibility more seriously than his writing.

Full disclosure:

I stopped reading after that.

I can think of a few more in there with Matty:

Walter, Hank, Brooks, Ernie B., Harmon, Buck O'N. Mariano, etc, etc



.

I definitely think changes need to be made, in terms of whose allowed to keep their vote, and who exactly gets a vote. I think if you submit a blank ballot, as a form of "Protest" that should be grounds to lose your vote. You're just clogging up the system, and strikes me as an attempt to garner attention.

Also, I have no issue if a voter believes in a "Small Hall" mentality. But the idea of leaving a guy off your ballot, whose a surefire Hall of Famer, with no links to PED's, for an asinine reason of "he played during x time period" pisses me off to no end. The most prominent example of this, in recent memory at least, was when Ken Gurnick voted for Jack Morris, but not Greg Maddux in 2014. His rationale behind it was "Maddux played during the steroid era, but Morris didn't" which makes no sense considering PED's were being used in the 80's as well! Still fires me up, just typing it out! He thankfully has abstained from voting in future elections, but there are more like him out there.

It is interesting how in the article, Simmons talks about integrity, sportsmanship, and character as the three HOF qualifications that he can't vote for certain people because of. Then he goes on about how Schilling is not so great a person either, but because his issues are off the field issues, that's okay and he votes for him. But then he brings up Vizquel, and his "off the field" allegations, and how he will no longer vote for him now. So, why are some "off the field" issues okay and others aren't, especially when at this point I believe in Vizquel's case there have been no formal charges ever filed or final determinations made?

Now if Vizquel is ever proven to be to guilty of all that was alleged, well that is a discussion for another day. But it goes back to what one poster mentioned about unproven PED allegations relating to some former players, like Ortiz. Nothing has to be proven for someone to still be considered unworthy for election to the HOF apparently.

Well, if they can decide to exclude someone for simple allegations, what would/should they do if someone is elected to the HOF, and then subsequently does (and is proven to have done) something despicable? Should they go back and remove that person from the HOF then, because if not, it shows their system for determining eligibility for enshrinement can be quite arbitrary and totally dependent on timing. Though not the baseball HOF, the primary example of this type of dilemma would be O.J. Simpson. He's in Canton still, but had he done some of the things he's done prior to getting elected to the HOF, do you really think he would have still been enshrined? And if not, why should he be be left in now? I believe Cooperstown would do about the same as Canton does.

And why do we still leave it up to a small group of sport media personnel to decide who is worthy for election to Cooperstown anyway? Beginning back in 1936 I can understand the baseball writers being given the task, because there was no TV and games were played during the day, when most normal people worked during the week. The sport writers were the one known independent group that was able to attend all the games and actually see all these players play, in person, so as to better judge who was worthy of enshrinement. With night games, TV coverage, streaming services and such the norm now, pretty much everyone can watch all the games and players they want. Since the HOF is really more for the fans than anyone else, why not figure out a way to let the fans decide who should or shouldn't get in. Would make a lot more sense.

On the surface, that makes sense to me. However, I can envision unintended consequences. For example, a few "social media influencers" could drastically impact voting results.

"...so-and-so wouldn't sign my jersey years ago, and I've always hated him. Everyone get together and vote for other players so this clown doesn't get in the Hall. Who cares if he got 3,000 hits, 500 HR, and 3 rings; his (hand-picked stat) was horrible..."

I'm pretty sure letting any random person vote wouldn't make it better. What you want is people who actually care, are educated on the HOF and the candidates, and will vote in a defensible and consistent manner.

How you do that, I don't know.

Agree, the problem is how do you limit/stop that kind of disingenuous activity. Don't know a perfect, correct answer, but there's got to be a better way.

And even baseball writers/media members that currently vote can have grievances and grudges against players for supposed personal affronts, like from a player treating them rudely, blowing them off for an interview, or who knows what.

Maybe you do something like have a designated period during the season in which people who buy a ticket and actually attend games during that designated time get a ballot and vote for who they think belongs in the HOF. The ballots have to be collected and count only if submitted that same day of the game at the ballparks. You have the counting done for every MLB team over the same number of home games. This would help keep any one city from trying to stuff the ballot box for a favorite son player. And only allowing attending and paying customers/fans to vote would help to insure the voters do have some interest in the game since they are, in effect, paying for the right to vote (which should please owners as it would likely increase ticket sales during the designated voting period). And it would likely also deter trolls and agitators from trying to sway people for or against certain players. Certainly not a perfect solution, but maybe at least a place to start out and work from?

See my previous post about possibly limiting the voting to attendees at the ballparks. Would mean those voting would likely have some knowledge and passion for the game since they're willing to pay money to actually go watch teams play. And for those trying to stuff the ballot box for or against a certain player, would think them having to pay money for the chance to vote a certain way would discourage such trolls who wouldn't want to spend their own cash just to do something like that. And you could possibly even keep the games that ended up being selected as voting games confidential up till just before the gates open. This would help to prevent trolls from trying to organize people in advance so as to sway them and affect the voting.

You could have the baseball writers/media people still involved and maybe take part in selecting the players to go on the ballot. You just don't leave it entirely up to them alone then to select the actual inductees to Cooperstown. Again, just some thoughts to use as a possible starting place to change/improve this process.

We did that for the All Star games in the 70's....

Have you looked at those lineups? Usually 6 players from 2 teams, a couple guys you just couldn't keep out, and some random pitcher who wasn't chosen by the fans.

I tried to be fair, but anyone from the Yankees would have to be incredible to get my vote. Just as I'm sure most Yankee fans really didn't vote for the Red Sox players.

It basically came down to whose team drew the most fans, and which players were popular.

I didn't used to feel this way, but I think now that to try to say no to PED users and to distinguish everyone else with other issues just gets you onto very slippery and unsatisfying slopes.

Amphetamines and other drugs.
Domestic violence and abuse.
Racism.
To name a few.

Maybe, but do we even know really? It's a fairly recent trend that the world learns about people's every bad action.

Not sure about the ballpark attendees either. Many is the time I have seen a random camera shot and the people in question, well they probably don’t have their reasoning faculties at that moment.

To keep someone out who has the numbers is illogical at minimum. Unless we are playing the moral high ground game , in which ultimately no one can win. Newsflash for some, many athletes are buttheads.That “chip”,if you will, helped them overcome sometimes marginal skills. $.02

Never said my suggestion was great, just someplace to maybe start from.

One big difference from the All-Star selections back then was that everyone was on the ballot, right? If you tried this for the HOF, there would only be a limited number of players considered worthy of selection, and thus listed on the ballot to be voted on. There wouldn't be write-ins for the fan vote. Something to maybe think about and kick around though.

Getting 75% of the public to agree on anything is hard enough, without bringing team loyalty and bias into it, would make it extremely hard to get anyone elected. Probably only the likable, true greats of the game would get elected.

Voters are allowed to consider a player's character, I didn't hear anyone complain when Albert Belle didn't get elected.

Reminds me of Kirby Puckett. He was a beloved angel…until he wasn’t. Lucky for him he got into the HOF before scandal hit.

Respected journalists/media personnel/sports authors with a strong reputation, in the industry, should be the requirement. People like:

Peter Gammons
Joe Posnanski
Ken Rosenthal
Tom Verducci
Buster Onley
Jane Leavy
Bill James

Just to list a few

Maybe it’s the residual Platonist in me, but I tend to think the answer is fewer, better qualified voters, not more.

Maybe not quite the 12-16 voters of the various veterans committees (too small has its issues too), but not hundreds or thousands.

And you want a qualified writer, analyst, TV or web writer, or even former player or fan…someone who understands, cares, and will do the research and analysis required.

Completely agree, Mike. I think a smaller panel would be better. The inaugural class had 226 voters, that should be the cap, I think.

Maybe it should be that the players do the voting. Who should know more than those that actually played the game.
Or maybe a point system. Earn the number of points needed to qualify and your in.

Too many players would probably just vote for their friends.

I think they should contact people on baseball card websites to vote for the HOF, because obviously we are interested in baseball and highly intelligent. ;)

If the results on the ballot tracker hold, this year's class will be Bonds, Clemens and Ortiz.

LOL, nice they make Clemens and Bonds wait 10 years and Ortiz gets in the first year.:confused::(

When you're likable, its ok to cheat. :)

Bologna. Every one of the fake stat drug users should be banned from the HOF forever. Frank

I'm fairly agnostic on the steroid issue, but not voting for a player for cheating on the field is reasonable, even if I don't agree with it. Taking away voting rights for any voter that wants to punish cheating seems rather absurd to me. I suppose one's own point of view would be better carried out if all dissenting views were silenced and eliminated from voting, but this doesn't seem a rational basis for voting.

Ortiz never failed a test, other than "one anonymous test".


I'm all for dissenting views, but not when they are not rooted in science..I mean facts!

I have no skin in the game either way, but feel players accomplishments in the field should be the #1 factor.

Unless they spcifically bet on baseball, which i believe would disqualify someone based on the HOFs own rules. Aka mlbs "ineligible list". You want to add peds to this list, then go ahead it will have them ineligible for the hall.

There's usually a pretty solid drop off from what is listed on the tracker vs. what actually comes to be. I wouldn't be surprised if we end up seeing zero players from the traditional ballot, and the only players that end up going in are the ones from the Golden Era.

I guess then , that is OK with you that they keep all the records they broke by cheating. These guys knew what they were doing. let them pay the price for it.

But where do you draw the line? What about the players that are already in the Hall of Fame that used Amphetamines or other types of drug concoctions during their playing days?

Ruth experimented with Sheep Testicle Extract. Pud Galvin did something similar. Hank Aaron took Amphetamines once, is he disqualified? Mike Schmidt and Goose Gossage have admitted to amphetamines, and this is just the players we know. I don't treat Canseco's word as gospel, but he's been pretty reliable on the players that he's named, and according to him there's already players from the "Steroid Era" that have managed to make it into the Hall of Fame, that took drugs. Not to mention Bud Selig sure as hell didn't care about his players juicing when he was the owner of the Brewers.

Cap Anson was one of the major factors in keeping the game segregated, Kennesaw Mountain Landis, upheld segregation, Tris Speaker was in the KKK, all three of those things are sufficiently worse, in my opinion, then taking PED's yet we don't blink an eye, and there's no campaign to kick any of those three men out of the Hall.

You can't cite a "character clause" for one set of guys, but not the other. The Hall of Fame is rapidly turning into the "Hall of Hypocrisy."

Not my rule, mlb should place them on the ineligible list if they are not HOF worthy. However, the list seems to be specific to gambling.

If in the 70s, players heard drinking whale sperm would help you got home runs, they'd be lined up at sea world.

Voters are allowed to have opinions as to who took steroids and vote accordingly. Nothing about the voting process is based on science, its all opinions.

That is true today, yesterday, and every other day. That line would have included EVERY player and many would try to get in line multiple times.

Yes, I’m not sure what the average drop off is, but it happens.

It makes sense…not to generalize, but those that don’t make their votes public typically aren’t still active writers (for working writers, it’s basically one or more “easy” columns a year talking about your ballot). And these writers (again, in general are less likely to appreciate modern stats, have seen the players regularly, etc.).

Also, the modern players aren’t as good as the stars from when they were 12 years old. :p

But the stats dont lie, and that is the first base for any and all HOF election per their own description. Anything else is more of a popularity contest

You could argue some were forced to get in line. either by management, or because everyone else was doing it

Stats are facts but whether those stats overcome a players bad character is still the voters opinion.

Albert Belle should be in the HOF, if character didn't matter.

It should be the last consideration. based on their own description. Maybe for a Slider candidate, it might sway an opinion. Any writer who could leave out Ortiz based on character , never watched him play.

Character aside, Belle was also a known cheat, remember his infamous corked bat incident? And what about someone like Gaylord Perry throwing spitballs during his career, and he's in the HOF? Those are both instances of cheating, but you never hear much about it in those forms, but the PEDs yes. Why is one form of cheating so much worse than the other? Cheating is cheating, right?

And speaking of cheats, what about what the Astros did a few years ago? I felt what they did was way more reprehensible than any PED user. Yet they did virtually nothing to the players involved. If I had a say, I'd tell each one of them that was in on it that they are now and forever banned from ever getting into the HOF. And I probably would have banned them all for at least a year. Problem is it is all about the money, as usual, and they couldn't afford to alienate an entire city and team. Had it only been a player or two involved, I bet there was would have been some significant punishment after all. But when it turned it to be to so many players, they couldn't punish them all without alienating the entire city and region.