2021 HOF Ballot

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by GeoPoto

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.

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.

[todeen]

Originally Posted by G1911

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.

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

[AGuinness]

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.

[kmac32]

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.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by todeen

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

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.

[Mike D.]

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...

[clydepepper]

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

[darwinbulldog]

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

[mainemule]

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).

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by todeen

I agree. I actually support PED users for entry, not because I like them, but because nobody IN POWER cared for 20 years

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

[packs]

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

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cardsagain74

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

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.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by G1911

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.

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...

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by G1911

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.

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

[T206BrownHindu]

Originally Posted by doug.goodman

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...

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

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cardsagain74

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

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

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by T206BrownHindu

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

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

[MacDice]

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?

[Seven]

Originally Posted by MacDice

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.

[Wildfireschulte]

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.

[bounce]

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

[Rich Klein]

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

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by Wildfireschulte

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.

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

[stlcardsfan]

I laughed out loud at LaTroy Hawkins.

[Ricky]

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.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by cardsagain74

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. 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.

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by stlcardsfan

I laughed out loud at LaTroy Hawkins.

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

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by brianp-beme

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.

[Mike D.]

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.

[Jason19th]

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

[bbcard1]

Originally Posted by G1911

Dahlen is one of the best players not in, I would vote for him.

While understanding that's a lot of haters, I like using WAR as my quick "should we talk about this guy anymore" indicator, especially on batters...around 50 is where you can start talking about it. Dahlen is clearly in the conversation using that metric. Here's what troubles me about him. A lot of his biggest stats were accumulated in the pre-1900 days and the game was different then. He only led his league in one meaningful statistic (RBI with 80) and that only once. His WAR tips me toward him, but I would have thought he would have gone in when the Tinkers and Bresnahans were chosen ... but things in the hall are not easy to figure. Schilling should have been in long ago.

[Neal]

No one is inducted in 2021

[Bcwcardz]

Originally Posted by G1911

Hard to see that in the math.

Cause it’s not there, Buehrle never once won 20 games nor had an era below 3. If someone is picking him over Schilling then it’s personal, not numbers based.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[shagrotn77]

Schilling will be the only player elected in 2021. That much I'm certain of. Bonds and Clemens will likely climb a percentage point or 2, like they've done in recent years, but that won't be enough to get them elected. Will they get in in 2022 in their final year on the modern ballot? Not likely, but it will be interesting with Big Papi and Arod on the ballot for the first time. Will some PED players be treated differently than others by the voters? We shall see.

I do think that the charges of domestic violence against Vizquel may hurt him in the voting. He wasn't getting in in 2021 anyway, but now his chances at induction are murky. He had been on a steady climb.

Speaking of steady climbs, Rolen should take a very deserved nice leap forward next year. He went from 17% in 2019 to 35% in 2020. He was Nolan Arenado before Nolan Arenado. Great hitter and generational talent in the field. Let's get this man in the HOF!

Billy Wagner is another player I'm pulling for. He went from 16% in 2019 to 31% in 2020. Again, absolutely deserving. There are less dominant closers already enshrined in Cooperstown.

Lastly, Jeff Kent by all accounts was/is an absolute jerk. And there may be some PED suspicion there. But, from a statistical standpoint, he's beyond deserving of a spot in Cooperstown. He holds the all-time mark for HR by a 2B, had eight 100+ RBI seasons, won an MVP, and finished with a lifetime .290 BA. Outstanding stats for a traditionally weak position.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

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

Nolan Ryan, Tony Gwynn, and Ricky Henderson in case you want a few more for the list.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Jeff Kent always felt to me like a player who wasn't as good as his counting numbers. An unscientific observation for sure. But I think a lot of people feel that way, he isn't getting in I don't think.

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Nolan Ryan, Tony Gwynn, and Ricky Henderson in case you want a few more for the list.

I don't ever remember Tony being lumped into this group before.

Brian

[Throttlesteer]

Originally Posted by brianp-beme

I don't ever remember Tony being lumped into this group before.

Brian

Yes, I struggle with Gwynn for sure. Nothing about his performance or physique screams PEDs to me.

[mr2686]

Tony Gwynn using PED's? C'mon, that's just plain silly. PED's don't make you magically stronger or better. They allow you to work out more and recover faster from those workouts. Tony wasn't a workout kinda guy, as you can tell by his physique for many years. Tony's gift was eye/hand coordination and videotape study of his swing.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Throttlesteer

Yes, I struggle with Gwynn for sure. Nothing about his performance or physique screams PEDs to me.

He went from a guy hitting under .320 three consecutive seasons with no power from age 30-32 to winning four straight batting titles and challenging .400 while ALSO increasing power. He went from 4 homers in 134 games at age 31 to 16 in 127 seven years later at age 38.

He absolutely fits the profile of a PED guy - significant performance improvement with added power at the really late stages of his career instead of a decline.

[nat]

The context changed. League average slugging percentage was .368 in 1992, .398 in 1993, and .415 in 1994. Rising tides lift all boats, and it lifted Gwynn's.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by nat

The context changed. League average slugging percentage was .368 in 1992, .398 in 1993, and .415 in 1994. Rising tides lift all boats, and it lifted Gwynn's.

If that is true them the rising tide lifted Barry Bonds also and no PEDS were involved. Tony Gwynns numbers are just as silly and Barry Bonds numbers.

[Throttlesteer]

Originally Posted by Tabe

He went from a guy hitting under .320 three consecutive seasons with no power from age 30-32 to winning four straight batting titles and challenging .400 while ALSO increasing power. He went from 4 homers in 134 games at age 31 to 16 in 127 seven years later at age 38.

He absolutely fits the profile of a PED guy - significant performance improvement with added power at the really late stages of his career instead of a decline.

That's very shaky deductive reasoning and the performance benefits really don't add up. PEDs don't help you get the bat on the ball; The do help put the ball over the wall. Gwynn and Ted Williams relationship blossomed in the mid-90's, when the two discussed the art of hitting. Ted's biggest criticism of Tony was his lack of driving the inside pitch for power. Gwynn attributes his additional power (if you consider mid-double digits impressive) to the various ideas Williams provided.

Gwynn had antithesis of the typical PED physique. He was a very large man with lots of belly fat. The body does naturally have to build some muscle to effectively carry around more weight. But, I think it's a MASSIVE stretch to assume Gwynn was on PEDs. There's plenty of interviews of him speaking on the matter and taking ownership of knowing it was going on, but not saying anything. But I would bet a hearty sum he was clean.

Adding a pic of his 1997 Donruss card. Very different appearance from a Bonds or McGwire. The problem with this era is, we'll call any great performances into question because it was out there. What's next, Cal Ripken? Jesus?

[kevtermeg]

I am more interested to see who get in from the BWAAA Golden Days and Early Baseball era's. The next induction I am any interest in is Ichiro in 2023.

Golden Days: December of 2021 for inclusion in the Class of 2022
Early Baseball: December of 2021 for inclusion in the Class of 2022

Since you are asking for my opinion I would vote for Schilling, Bonds and Clemens to get the issue of ped's over with once and for all.

When you think of who has made a big impact on baseball I think of Sy Berger from Topps. Without him who knows what the bb card industry would be like without his influence. If you let him in then Mr Goudey would be next.

Go Tigers!!

[triwak]

Originally Posted by kevtermeg

I am more interested to see who get in from the BWAAA Golden Days and Early Baseball era's. The next induction I am any interest in is Ichiro in 2023.

Golden Days: December of 2021 for inclusion in the Class of 2022
Early Baseball: December of 2021 for inclusion in the Class of 2022

Agreed about having huge interest in these two Era's committee votes. I still don't really understand why they were delayed (due to Covid). Could they not have been held virtually? The committees are only 16 members, each?

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by triwak

Agreed about having huge interest in these two Era's committee votes. I still don't really understand why they were delayed (due to Covid). Could they not have been held virtually? The committees are only 16 members, each?

They have to meet in person so that the dominant members can strong-arm the other voters into electing non-deserving, pet candidates to the Hall (See Tony LaRussa and Harold Baines).

[cardsagain74]

The entire league has been hitting HRs at an unprecedented rate since 1994. It's still happening, well after the steroid crackdown.

There are two other related major changes that haven't even been mentioned:

The baseball itself. I highly doubt it's a coincidence that power numbers permanently went up from the moment the '94-'95 strike was putting the future of the game in big trouble.

And the culture change (throughout baseball, basketball, and football) of modern dietary focus and working out more religiously that started around time. Obviously athletes in general have been more extra bulked up with ridiculously low body fat in the last 25 years.

Stanton hit 59 just three years ago. Not that far from the biggest HR accomplishments (by only three players, no less) during the steroid craze.

Sure, steroids clearly help. But there's a lot more to the "video game" numbers of the last 25 years than that

[GeoPoto]

I agree that steroid users woke everybody up to the advantages of strength training, which has continued (presumably) without steroids. It's off topic, but everybody laments the reduced action caused by swinging for the fences, talks about limiting shifts, etc. Why don't they move back the fences? I realize it is not feasible everywhere, but do it where possible, and create requirements that see to it that new parks comply when built. Golf did it. I think the Mets actually moved the fences in recently. When most players can no longer hit home runs despite strength training, they will go back to hitting line drives.

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

[Misunderestimated]

I think Schilling might be one and only who gets in... His problem isn't really just his politics per se... Since his retirement he has picked fights with the baseball media (see Pedro Gomez) and those are in fact the voters . Alot of voters might not want to hear him speak his mind from the Cooperstown podium about baseball and politics especially when he would be the only inductee.
On the other hand, the increasing number of younger analytics people voting may provide enough votes to offset the people who really don't like him and would invoke the "character clause" against him. Not getting along with media (or the other players) has kept out many players over the years. Look at Santo or Dick Allen. Santo was more (over) qualified than Schilling... Dick Allen also comes to mind.

I think that if you let Manny or Papi in (they are 100% PED guilty) you have to let in the guys we "know" are PED users who also measure up. We can't just let them in because they are "lovable" and keep out less liked guys like Bonds, Clemens, Sosa (who was lovable until he wasn't) etc.

My ballot would be (in order of priority) Bonds Clemens Manny, Sosa, Schilling, Sheffield, Jones and Kent.

[conor912]

There is zero way Papi doesn’t get in. Zero.