2022 Baseball Hall of Fame - tracker

[Dead-Ball-Hitter]

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

[shagrotn77]

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.

[OldOriole]

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.

[jayshum]

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.

[jiw98]

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

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by jiw98

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

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by OldOriole

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.

+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

[BCauley]

Originally Posted by jiw98

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

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.

[jimtodd]

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.

[53toppscollector]

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.

[Lucas00]

Originally Posted by 53toppscollector

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

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by 53toppscollector

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.

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

[53toppscollector]

Originally Posted by Lucas00

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

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

[Lucas00]

Originally Posted by 53toppscollector

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 🤣

[z28jd]

Originally Posted by 53toppscollector

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.

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.

[dmats33312]

Originally Posted by 53toppscollector

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.

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.

[53toppscollector]

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.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by 53toppscollector

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

[sycks22]

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by 53toppscollector

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.

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

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by sycks22

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.

Lower standard statistically for third basemen, no?

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

[Mike D.]

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.

[Mike D.]

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

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jayshum

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.

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.

[jayshum]

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.

[jimtodd]

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?

[sycks22]

Originally Posted by jimtodd

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?

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by sycks22

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).

[Tabe]

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jayshum

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.

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

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Tabe

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.

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.

[FrankWakefield]

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.

[Bobsbats]

Originally Posted by sycks22

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.

Peter,

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

[Peter_Spaeth]

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.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

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?

[GeoPoto]

Originally Posted by Jim65

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.

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.

[SAllen2556]

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.

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by SAllen2556

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

[Dead-Ball-Hitter]

Originally Posted by Jim65

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.

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?

[SyrNy1960]

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

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by SAllen2556

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.

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.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by GeoPoto

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.

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.

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Originally Posted by Lucas00

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

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

[skelly423]

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

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

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.

[nat]

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.

[SyrNy1960]

Originally Posted by skelly423

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.

Well said!!!!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

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

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

[skelly423]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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?

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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

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