2021 HOF Ballot

[GeoPoto]

Originally Posted by Throttlesteer

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.

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.

[Seven]

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.

[todeen]

Originally Posted by GeoPoto

.



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.

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

[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.

[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).

[packs]

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

[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

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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

[bxb]

Originally Posted by 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

I see Schilling has just topped 75% on the tracker, and is the only one so far.

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by bxb

I see Schilling has just topped 75% on the tracker, and is the only one so far.

Looking at the list of SP sorted by career WAR, it’s kind of surprising it’s taken Schilling this long.

He’s 26th all-time (BB-R WAR) and of the 25 pitchers ahead of him, only Clemens isn’t in the HOF.

The average WAR for a HOF SP is 73.3, and that average includes Young and Johnson over 160.

BTW, lovers of old time baseball will know that Jim McCormick is next on the list and also not in the Hall.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.