Hall of Fame Ballot Announced

[paul]

I can't believe no one has mentioned that the Hall of Fame ballot has been announced.

https://baseballhall.org/discover/co...er-ballot-2023

It will be interesting to see how Curt Schilling does. I'm rooting against the steroid guys -- Bonds, Clemens, and Palmeiro.

[raulus]

Yep. If we ignore it, then it never happened!

[etsmith]

Not ignoring it, but not rewarding it either.

[KCRfan1]

I am good with Clemens, Schilling, Bonds, and Palmero.

[isiahfan]

CONTEMPORARY...Please be clear about that...only need 12/16...taking the juice out the equation....because well I feel it was just part of the era for each

My votes:

Obvious Yes
Bonds - Top 10 ATG OF
Clemens - Top 10 ATG SP

Yes
Palmiero - Look at his #'s...only 4 AS???...IN

Leaning towards Yes
McGriff - Better numbers than those listed below...quiet but stats don't lie
Belle - Man...Feels like a no because of the narrative...but dude had a 10 year run of total domination...right there with Frank and the Kid suring that time. Puckett didn't dominate like this for 10 years...actually not many did.

No
Schilling - wasn't super consistent and total numbers just aren't there for me...great postseason success doesn't equal HOF
Mattingly - Total numbers and lenght of dominant run just don't add up
Murphy - Great guy...but again total numbers just don;t do it for me

[G1911]

Originally Posted by paul

I can't believe no one has mentioned that the Hall of Fame ballot has been announced.

There was a thread in the Sports watercooler.

[Snowman]

Bonds and Clemens both deserve to be in the hall IMO.

[Jim65]

I used to be against Bonds, Clemens and Palmiero getting in the HOF but now that we have a known PED cheater in, its unfair to keep them out.

McGriff should get in, Belle and Schilling are deserving but probably do not get in.

[bxb]

My understanding is that there are 16 voters, who get a maximum of 3 votes each. This leads to a total of 48 votes maximum.

Players must get 75% to get in (i.e. 12 or more of the 16 voters).

So at most 4 players can get in (48 divided by 12).

Somebody double check my math here, I have not had my morning coffee yet.

[ejharrington]

Schilling should get in.

[mrreality68]

All worthy in their own way that is why they are on list
But with doping, politics, and injuries effecting longevity (Mattingly) they all have questions.
McGriff and Shilling should be the Easy in but it will be interesting to see what happens with them and the rest.
Look forward to Dec announcement
Just wish we knew who the voters were and wish all ballots were made public

[Yoda]

McGriff's association with Halle Berry should be worth something.

[jingram058]

I don't see any of them as HOFers. Want another Harold Baines fiasco? The HOF is suffering from credibility as it is. Especially Schilling. He shouldn't get in on the strength of being an all-time moron. Right or wrong, that's how I feel.

[Vintagedeputy]

Don Mattingly was the greatest hitter I ever saw. You could throw loose dimes across the outfield and Donnie Baseball could hit them with a batted ball. All this nonsense about hitting against the shift / ban the shift would have meant nothing to Mattingly. He could put a ball on the field wherever he wanted to.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jingram058

I don't see any of them as HOFers. Want another Harold Baines fiasco? The HOF is suffering from credibility as it is. Especially Schilling. He shouldn't get in on the strength of being an all-time moron. Right or wrong, that's how I feel.

How are these eight like Baines?

3 are obviously statistically HOFers, but have the David Ortiz problem that was just ignored.

2 are punished for personality and/or politics.

2 are questionable but are the opposite of Baines; Mattingly and Murphy are peak players not accumulators.

McGriff comes the closest, but he hardly seems to be a Baines type choice at all.

Schilling, if elected, will be elected for his 79.5 WAR and statistical performance, not for being an “all-time moron”.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by G1911

How are these eight like Baines?

3 are obviously statistically HOFers, but have the David Ortiz problem that was just ignored.

2 are punished for personality and/or politics.

2 are questionable but are the opposite of Baines; Mattingly and Murphy are peak players not accumulators.

McGriff comes the closest, but he hardly seems to be a Baines type choice at all.

Schilling, if elected, will be elected for his 79.5 WAR and statistical performance, not for being an “all-time moron”.

Couldn't agree more, aside from my feeling that Schilling is the only deserving candidate of the lot. Having polarizing opinions is completely separate from your achievements in your career.

How does Ortiz just get in so effortlessly? It pisses me off. I never liked the guy, not that my opinion matters in the equation of his being inducted when all the other users aren't. None of them or all of them. You can't have it both ways. If Ortiz could be revoked, I would be a happy guy.

[Bigdaddy]

So for me the whole steroid thing boils down to this: There is a rule that any player banned from MLB is not eligible for the HOF - think Rose or Shoeless Joe. Bonds, Clemens and Palmiero are not banned from MLB and could in theory play again next year if they could make a roster. If MLB has a problem with them, then make a statement and ban them from the game. That would solve the HOF issue.

But just like the lame Bud Selig who did nothing when steroids were raging, MLB continues to turn a blind eye and not take a strong stance. Yes, I know there are now stronger penalties, but it took a congressional hearing to push the league to do something.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by BillyCox3

Couldn't agree more, aside from my feeling that Schilling is the only deserving candidate of the lot. Having polarizing opinions is completely separate from your achievements in your career.

How does Ortiz just get in so effortlessly? It pisses me off. I never liked the guy, not that my opinion matters in the equation of his being inducted when all the other users aren't. None of them or all of them. You can't have it both ways. If Ortiz could be revoked, I would be a happy guy.

There is no longer even a pretense of objectivity. A political enemy is to be kept out for that reason, a steroid user who failed tests is to be kept out only if the media doesn’t like them or doesn’t care about them. A user who they salivate over is to be forgiven. Actually not even forgiven, the crime (treated as such for everyone else) is simply ignored. The blatant corruption and cronyism of the writers today is as bad as the Frisch days VC’s.

I am agnostic on if roiders should go in, I think it just be, ya know, logically consistent. Yes for Ortiz and no for Bonds and Clemens is nothing but an absolute joke.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by G1911

There is no longer even a pretense of objectivity. A political enemy is to be kept out for that reason, a steroid user who failed tests is to be kept out only if the media doesn’t like them or doesn’t care about them. A user who they salivate over is to be forgiven. Actually not even forgiven, the crime (treated as such for everyone else) is simply ignored. The blatant corruption and cronyism of the writers today is as bad as the Frisch days VC’s.

I am agnostic on if roiders should go in, I think it just be, ya know, logically consistent. Yes for Ortiz and no for Bonds and Clemens is nothing but an absolute joke.

Is Ortiz the only one who is in who had some chemical enhancement?

I thought Rickey was accused of also being on the sauce. And probably my paisan Piazza too.

But maybe the case for Ortiz being on something is a bit more obvious?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by raulus

Is Ortiz the only one who is in who had some chemical enhancement?

I thought Rickey was accused of also being on the sauce. And probably my paisan Piazza too.

But maybe the case for Ortiz being on something is a bit more obvious?

Question 1 is, of course, impossible for me to know. I can’t divine or know every action every player has taken in their life. I use a reasonable evidentiary basis as any reasonable person would.

Piazza has been accused. I don’t know about Rickey. Pudge I suspect probably did use. Bagwell has had suspicion. Ortiz though, failed a test unlike Bonds (who the evidence is for is common sense compelling) that the media got their hands on. That would seem to be reasonable evidence. He was the first one with real direct evidence to get in, and that event was just memory holed in the press as his much more accomplished peers were barred from admittance for the media darling to be shoveled in without any regard for consistency.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by G1911

Question 1 is, of course, impossible for me to know. I can’t divine or know every action every player has taken in their life. I use a reasonable evidentiary basis as any reasonable person would.

Piazza has been accused. I don’t know about Rickey. Pudge I suspect probably did use. Bagwell has had suspicion. Ortiz though, failed a test unlike Bonds (who the evidence is for is common sense compelling) that the media got their hands on. That would seem to be reasonable evidence. He was the first one with real direct evidence to get in, and that event was just memory holed in the press as his much more accomplished peers were barred from admittance for the media darling to be shoveled in without any regard for consistency.

I thought Canseco had accused Rickey in his book. Of course, we can debate how much weight to give to this source. But it's not nothing.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by raulus

I thought Canseco had accused Rickey in his book. Of course, we can debate how much weight to give to this source. But it's not nothing.

I don’t know, I think I read one of his books half way and threw it out for being nauseating gossip. Only Ortiz falls into this category, of material evidence and it being ignored. There is no evidence the writers have instituted a gossip standard, where any player someone has said something about are excluded. They have for guys for which there is compelling evidence like failed tests, their plugs testimony in court, order records, etc. That is what has kept a long list of names out, and for which this clear standard was ignored to induct a person they liked.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by G1911

I don’t know, I think I read one of his books half way and threw it out for being nauseating gossip. Only Ortiz falls into this category, of material evidence and it being ignored. There is no evidence the writers have instituted a gossip standard, where any player someone has said something about are excluded. They have for guys for which there is compelling evidence like failed tests, their plugs testimony in court, order records, etc. That is what has kept a long list of names out, and for which this clear standard was ignored to induct a person they liked.

Gotcha.

I guess there's also some question about the list that Ortiz was on, since it was never made public, right? And his being on that list was in some ways a bit of gossip?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by raulus

Gotcha.

I guess there's also some question about the list that Ortiz was on, since it was never made public, right? And his being on that list was in some ways a bit of gossip?

It wasn't supposed to be public, but as these things usually go, the media got their hands on the list.

If we adopted a standard where this doesn't count because it wasn't intended to be public, well, most things that happen and get caught wouldn't be admissible. Clemens order receipts and Bonds' private dealings with his trainer/drug supplier weren't supposed to be public either. And yet here we are.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Yoda

McGriff's association with Halle Berry should be worth something.

I thought that was Dave Justice.

[darwinbulldog]

Yes for Bonds (best player since Ruth)
Yes for Clemens (best pitcher since WaJo)
Yes for Schilling (top 25 pitcher)

I'm basically neutral on everybody else in that group.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Because of favoritism along with being the three without any baggage, I see the M & M & M boys getting in, that's it.

These would definitely not be my choices, I would go with Bonds & Clemens as no doubters.

[shagrotn77]

I'm not saying he should or shouldn't be in, but where is Sammy Sosa? If other (suspected) PED users are on the ballot, where is Sammy? Or McGwire?

[fkm_bky]

I know it will never happen, but I would love to see Dale Murphy get in. He was hands down my favorite player growing up (even over Kent Hrbek and Kirby Puckett!). I collected as many of his cards as I could. Just an all around great guy, and an above average player. I don't think his stats will get him in, but I'm happy he's on the ballot.

Bill

[GeoPoto]

This is the way I lean -- if baseball (and the union) didn't feel that PEDs were sufficiently identified as unacceptable that banning was appropriate, then it falls in the "I'll do anything I can to help my team win (and make myself money)" category. In 1998, Bonds (likely without PEDs) became the first player in MLB history to get 400 HRs and 400 SBs. Everybody was too busy celebrating the McGuire/Sosa assault on 61 HRs to notice Bonds. La Rusa was shaming sports writers for violating the sanctity of the clubhouse and writing about McGuire's cream. Bonds, not unreasonably, decided he could do what they were being lauded for.

Originally Posted by Bigdaddy

So for me the whole steroid thing boils down to this: There is a rule that any player banned from MLB is not eligible for the HOF - think Rose or Shoeless Joe. Bonds, Clemens and Palmiero are not banned from MLB and could in theory play again next year if they could make a roster. If MLB has a problem with them, then make a statement and ban them from the game.

[GeoPoto]

It not only wasn't intended to be public, but Manfred has also said it likely wasn't entirely accurate, because it wasn't fully vetted. It served its purpose as anecdotal information but wasn't managed and adjudicated the way it would have been if it was expected to be used as evidence against a specific player.

Originally Posted by G1911

It wasn't supposed to be public, but as these things usually go, the media got their hands on the list.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by GeoPoto

It not only wasn't intended to be public, but Manfred has also said it likely wasn't entirely accurate, because it wasn't fully vetted. It served its purpose as anecdotal information but wasn't managed and adjudicated the way it would have been if it was expected to be used as evidence against a specific player.

Of course Manfred said that, he had too because that was the deal that was agreed to and got the Players to take tests in the first place. MLB cannot "fully vet" and certify them without breaking the agreement. It's an appeal to an impossibility, like when classified intel is leaked and the CIA won't confirm it.

If this test is anecdotal, then so is the case against Clemens that relies mostly on others testimony without any failed test or direct evidence. This argument just shifts the double standard to be a different double standard, not a not double standard.

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I thought that was Dave Justice.

And now Fred McGriff is getting robbed of being wrongly accused of being Halle Berry's partner in crime, dog. There's no Justice in that.

Brian

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by isiahfan

CONTEMPORARY...Please be clear about that...only need 12/16...taking the juice out the equation....because well I feel it was just part of the era for each

My votes:

Obvious Yes
Bonds - Top 10 ATG OF
Clemens - Top 10 ATG SP

Yes
Palmiero - Look at his #'s...only 4 AS???...IN

Leaning towards Yes
McGriff - Better numbers than those listed below...quiet but stats don't lie
Belle - Man...Feels like a no because of the narrative...but dude had a 10 year run of total domination...right there with Frank and the Kid suring that time. Puckett didn't dominate like this for 10 years...actually not many did.

No
Schilling - wasn't super consistent and total numbers just aren't there for me...great postseason success doesn't equal HOF
Mattingly - Total numbers and lenght of dominant run just don't add up
Murphy - Great guy...but again total numbers just don;t do it for me

good recap just depends on the opinion the voters have on steriods. to me Schilling should be in

[insidethewrapper]

Was Lou Whitaker not eligible for this committee since he started in 1977 ? What was the cut off year ?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by insidethewrapper

Was Lou Whitaker not eligible for this committee since he started in 1977 ? What was the cut off year ?

It’s for players whose “primary contribution” was after 1980, so I think Whitaker would have qualified to be considered for this final ballot. That he started in 1977 shouldn’t put him into the pre-1980 primary contribution group.

[Jason19th]

I will never understand the outrage about Shilling not being in and the assumption that it is because of his politics. Look at his numbers- the vast majority of guys with those numbers are not in and most have not been controversial exclusions- see Lew Burdette, Ron Guidry, Vida Blue, Kevin Brown, Orel Hershisrer, Mel Harder, Kenny Rodgers, David Wells, Luis Tiante, Wilbur Cooper, Mickey Lolich, Billy Pierce, Bob Welch, Dave Stewart, Denny McClain, Freddie Fitzimmons

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Jason19th

I will never understand the outrage about Shilling not being in and the assumption that it is because of his politics. Look at his numbers- the vast majority of guys with those numbers are not in and most have not been controversial exclusions- see Lew Burdette, Ron Guidry, Vida Blue, Kevin Brown, Orel Hershisrer, Mel Harder, Kenny Rodgers, David Wells, Luis Tiante, Wilbur Cooper, Mickey Lolich, Billy Pierce, Bob Welch, Dave Stewart, Denny McClain, Freddie Fitzimmons

Somewhat amazingly, the writers gave Curt 71.1% of the vote in 2021, which seems high based on the comps that you mentioned. Particularly for the writers, who seem to be pretty picky of late.

[scotgreb]

Originally Posted by G1911

It’s for players whose “primary contribution” was after 1980, so I think Whitaker would have qualified to be considered for this final ballot. That he started in 1977 shouldn’t put him into the pre-1980 primary contribution group.

Whitaker was on the last ballot (2020) and received 6 votes -- more than Murphy and Mattingly combined. My advice is to not try to make sense of the process or the decisions. There is no logic to piece together.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Mel Harder and Billy Pierce were friends of mine. Both were salt of the earth-caliber humble. While I often looked at Mel's numbers and all those years with just one club, I'm reminded what that writer said about Early Wynn in the "Worst HOFers" article recently posted in another thread. It was something akin to longevity does not always equal greatness. I think Mel's numbers do come close and are certainly comparable to some HOF pitchers. Bob Feller told me he thought Mel should be inducted, but there's no way to account for a bit of bias there. But, as we know, Feller was as outspoken as they come, and called things as he saw them, so it's hard to say. Just remember that he did personally witness the majority of Harder's pitching career.

On a personal level, I'd be thrilled for my old friends if they were enshrined, but realistically, it would make no sense. I was completely floored when Billy's name came up for serious consideration in a recent voting. Really? Billy Pierce? Like I said, a complete sweetheart of a human being, but I've never associated him as having anywhere near a HOF-caliber career.

[frankbmd]

What if 75% of the voters (the dirty dozen) are on steroids? Will anyone care if these dudes are in the HOF in fifty years?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by scotgreb

Whitaker was on the last ballot (2020) and received 6 votes -- more than Murphy and Mattingly combined. My advice is to not try to make sense of the process or the decisions. There is no logic to piece together.

The 2020 ballot used a different era system than the ‘reconstituted for like the 20th time’ new committees.

I’m not really a Whitaker advocate but I have a very hard time seeing how he’s out if Trammell is in. Whitaker has to get in at some point… maybe…

[G1911]

Schillings 79.5 WAR is pretty deep into obvious Hall territory.

Some voters were writing opinion pieces specifically stating they weren’t voting for him for social politics, as I recall.

I find it difficult to pretend he got a fair shake and is kept out on statistical grounds.

[rand1com]

None of them get in IMO.

[Frank A]

I hope clemens and bonds never get in.

[kkkkandp]

Originally Posted by raulus

I thought Canseco had accused Rickey in his book. Of course, we can debate how much weight to give to this source. But it's not nothing.

Jose was never the same after that ball bounced off his noggin over the fence.

[kkkkandp]

BTW - I would like to see Rickey Henderson get in because he is the King of Stolen Bases....and just so he can give his entire acceptance speech in the third person.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by kkkkandp

BTW - I would like to see Rickey Henderson get in because he is the King of Stolen Bases....and just so he can give his entire acceptance speech in the third person.

You're joking, right?

Check out YouTube for his acceptance speech. It's a thing of beauty.

"I would like to thanks the member of the Halls of Fame..."

"...and 33 steal!"

"...the San Diego Padre!"

"I guess Moms do knows best!"

Just remember, this guy is somehow in possession of one of the most brilliant baseball minds in history! No wonder he kept playing into his 50's; it's the only world where he felt comfortable.

[kkkkandp]

Yes, joking. He dropped character.

He was way more entertaining when he spoke in the third person!

[G1911]

facepalm.jpg