great dsiscussion right now on mlb tv
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
These voters are taking themselves way too seriously imho. Craig Biggio, for example, should be a no-doubter first ballot hall-of-famer imho. One of the most versatile players ever and his 3,000 + hits speaks for itself. The 3,000 hit club is a very short list.
Nobody in the class of 2013...are you kidding me! These HOF voters are embarrassing the sport they are supposed to be representing. Ridiculous, and disappointing at the same time.
Another example of how and why football dominates the American sports psyche, because baseball people (writers in this case) can't get it together.
Another example of how and why football dominates the American sports psyche, because baseball people (writers in this case) can't get it together.
They've strangled themselves with the rule prohibiting voters from voting for more than ten players will also requiring 75% of the votes for enshrinement.
As long as 25% of the voters refuse to vote for suspected steroids users and a different 25% expend their votes on those same suspects, no one will get in for quite a while. And the backlog will get worse until all the steroid era players are no longer eligible.
I propose a remedy, which I call the "Group W" solution, named after the bench in "Alice's Restaurant."
Permit voters to mark their ballots with up to 10 X's (for non-suspects meeting all criteria for the HOF, including character) and up to 10 W's (for suspects whose numbers are HOF worthy but who are under some sort of character-related cloud).
Anyone who gets an "X" on 75% of the ballots gets in as a normal inductee. Anyone who gets a "W" on 75% of the ballots that have at least five players marked with a "W" gets a plaque in a new wing or trailer or Waffle House restroom called "Group W." It's "where you go if you might not be moral enough to join" the regular hall.
End the stalemate!
As long as 25% of the voters refuse to vote for suspected steroids users and a different 25% expend their votes on those same suspects, no one will get in for quite a while. And the backlog will get worse until all the steroid era players are no longer eligible.
I propose a remedy, which I call the "Group W" solution, named after the bench in "Alice's Restaurant."
Permit voters to mark their ballots with up to 10 X's (for non-suspects meeting all criteria for the HOF, including character) and up to 10 W's (for suspects whose numbers are HOF worthy but who are under some sort of character-related cloud).
Anyone who gets an "X" on 75% of the ballots gets in as a normal inductee. Anyone who gets a "W" on 75% of the ballots that have at least five players marked with a "W" gets a plaque in a new wing or trailer or Waffle House restroom called "Group W." It's "where you go if you might not be moral enough to join" the regular hall.
End the stalemate!
I saw somebody (I think it was Will Leitch) on MLB TV the other day saying Hall of Fame debates have become increasingly political, and it is an apt comparison. This debate - just like the AL MVP debate was - has become increasingly polarized and entrenched, and about as much fun to watch as Congress is. That’s sad - particularly for a guy like me, who *relishes* a good Hall of Fame debate.
To me, the structural dynamic of the vote is such that it is hard to see how all but the most obvious candidates (next year: Maddux, maybe one or two others) get much more than 65%. THIRTEEN guys on this ballot got at least 20% of the vote, and ELEVEN got at least one-third. Add to that Maddux-Thomas-Mussina-Glavine (I leave off Jeff Kent and Luis Gonzalez, because as much as I’d like them to stay on the ballot and get a full discussion, I have a hard time seeing how they avoid going the way of Kenny Lofton on that ballot), and you have **** close to 20-25 players with legitimate cases to be made for the Hall. Then in 2015, add RJ, Pedro, Smoltz, and maybe even Sheff...oh, my.
Look at the voting “blocs”: you’ve got the absolute PED deniers; you’ve got those who will vote for some PED users, but not others; you’ve got those who won’t vote for *anybody* on the first ballot; you’ve got the Murray Chass-type anti-sabermetric crowd, who will *only* vote for their old-school Jack Morris/Don Mattingly/Dale Murphy type candidates, as a way of “punishing” the sabermetrics community in a “if my guy can’t get in, then NOBODY can” kind of way; you’ve got the Chass-type subgroup who doesn’t want to vote, but likes the attention they get by actually *returning* their blank ballot rather than abstaining, thereby effectively raising the 75% threshold for election. Then there are the strategic voters, leaving off the obvious guys because they want to make sure some of the borderline guys stay on the ballot.... There are probably some other identifiable voting blocs I’m missing. These blocs don’t have to be very big before they collectively keep even the obvious Hall of Famers off of 25-40% of the ballots.
As my screen name implies, I am a huge Edgar Martinez fan, and while I recognize he is legitimately borderline because of the discount the vast majority believes should be applied to a guy who spent the majority of his time as a DH, I’ve always thought he fairly comfortably cleared that raised bar, and easily fits within the establised standards of the Hall. How does a guy like Edgar survive the next two years, if BOTH the average number of votes per voter (6.6) AND the 10-vote limit are not raised? He’s held steady at about 36% for his first 4 years, but I have to believe that he disproportionately appears mostly on full ballots, and probably is no higher than 6th in order of preference on anybody’s ballot. If you add four guys with better cases next year, and another three or so the following year, how does he (or Larry Walker, or Fred McGriff, or Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, Alan Trammell - choose your preferred 10-35% candidate) survive the next two ballots? Forget about being *elected*, how do they even stay on the ballot?
What a shame.
The only way out of this mess that I can see is a HUGE portion of the electorate having some huge “dose of reality” epiphany: There is no way Morris is going in, why waste a vote. There is no way anybody who got below 20% this year is ever going to get in, why waste a vote, leave that to the veteran’s committee. Maybe a significant bloc of voters will throw the entire PED-caught/tried/admitted crowd to the Vet’s Committee, as well (something I would oppose, though I think it is preferable to allowing them to hang around an overcrowded ballot and bump off guys with legitimate candidacies). The writers will have to abandon some entrenched voting positions, and will have to stop the “no first ballot” idiocy and make a legitimate attempt to determine who deserves to be in or out VERY early in a player’s 15-year period, rather than wait and see what the cool kids are doing.
Even then, it’s just an absolute logjam. It’s increasingly difficult to see how anybody could expect 75% consensus on ANYBODY with that kind of ballot. Some kind of reform is really necessary.
To me, the structural dynamic of the vote is such that it is hard to see how all but the most obvious candidates (next year: Maddux, maybe one or two others) get much more than 65%. THIRTEEN guys on this ballot got at least 20% of the vote, and ELEVEN got at least one-third. Add to that Maddux-Thomas-Mussina-Glavine (I leave off Jeff Kent and Luis Gonzalez, because as much as I’d like them to stay on the ballot and get a full discussion, I have a hard time seeing how they avoid going the way of Kenny Lofton on that ballot), and you have **** close to 20-25 players with legitimate cases to be made for the Hall. Then in 2015, add RJ, Pedro, Smoltz, and maybe even Sheff...oh, my.
Look at the voting “blocs”: you’ve got the absolute PED deniers; you’ve got those who will vote for some PED users, but not others; you’ve got those who won’t vote for *anybody* on the first ballot; you’ve got the Murray Chass-type anti-sabermetric crowd, who will *only* vote for their old-school Jack Morris/Don Mattingly/Dale Murphy type candidates, as a way of “punishing” the sabermetrics community in a “if my guy can’t get in, then NOBODY can” kind of way; you’ve got the Chass-type subgroup who doesn’t want to vote, but likes the attention they get by actually *returning* their blank ballot rather than abstaining, thereby effectively raising the 75% threshold for election. Then there are the strategic voters, leaving off the obvious guys because they want to make sure some of the borderline guys stay on the ballot.... There are probably some other identifiable voting blocs I’m missing. These blocs don’t have to be very big before they collectively keep even the obvious Hall of Famers off of 25-40% of the ballots.
As my screen name implies, I am a huge Edgar Martinez fan, and while I recognize he is legitimately borderline because of the discount the vast majority believes should be applied to a guy who spent the majority of his time as a DH, I’ve always thought he fairly comfortably cleared that raised bar, and easily fits within the establised standards of the Hall. How does a guy like Edgar survive the next two years, if BOTH the average number of votes per voter (6.6) AND the 10-vote limit are not raised? He’s held steady at about 36% for his first 4 years, but I have to believe that he disproportionately appears mostly on full ballots, and probably is no higher than 6th in order of preference on anybody’s ballot. If you add four guys with better cases next year, and another three or so the following year, how does he (or Larry Walker, or Fred McGriff, or Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, Alan Trammell - choose your preferred 10-35% candidate) survive the next two ballots? Forget about being *elected*, how do they even stay on the ballot?
What a shame.
The only way out of this mess that I can see is a HUGE portion of the electorate having some huge “dose of reality” epiphany: There is no way Morris is going in, why waste a vote. There is no way anybody who got below 20% this year is ever going to get in, why waste a vote, leave that to the veteran’s committee. Maybe a significant bloc of voters will throw the entire PED-caught/tried/admitted crowd to the Vet’s Committee, as well (something I would oppose, though I think it is preferable to allowing them to hang around an overcrowded ballot and bump off guys with legitimate candidacies). The writers will have to abandon some entrenched voting positions, and will have to stop the “no first ballot” idiocy and make a legitimate attempt to determine who deserves to be in or out VERY early in a player’s 15-year period, rather than wait and see what the cool kids are doing.
Even then, it’s just an absolute logjam. It’s increasingly difficult to see how anybody could expect 75% consensus on ANYBODY with that kind of ballot. Some kind of reform is really necessary.
My other remedy is the "Puff of White Smoke" solution, which is based on papal elections, with one important twist.
Lock all eligible voters into a meeting hall. Let them debate and cast repeated ballots. Ply them with lots of liquid refreshments. Keep them there until 2/3 of the voters agree on a list with at least four inductees on it.
Any voters who leave the room to go to the bathroom can't get back in and can't vote on subsequent ballots. Any voters who fall asleep or who relieve themselves in the meeting hall get forcibly removed and aren't allowed back, either.
Lock all eligible voters into a meeting hall. Let them debate and cast repeated ballots. Ply them with lots of liquid refreshments. Keep them there until 2/3 of the voters agree on a list with at least four inductees on it.
Any voters who leave the room to go to the bathroom can't get back in and can't vote on subsequent ballots. Any voters who fall asleep or who relieve themselves in the meeting hall get forcibly removed and aren't allowed back, either.
It has always been a little strange. The first year Willie Mays was eligible, he got in but it wasn't unanimous. How in the world could anyone not vote for Willie Mays for the Baseball Hall of Fame?
Those that didn't vote for him should have lost their voting rights on the spot.
Those that didn't vote for him should have lost their voting rights on the spot.
I get tired of the sanctimony of many sportswriters given sportswriting is to journalism as McDonalds is to Mortons Steak House. 3/4 of them can't write a decent paragraph.
I should have seen Swampboy coming with a "beat-me-to-the-punch" reply that makes my point more succinctly than I did.
I don't like the idea of separating the Hall into some kind of "pure" wing, and then the Scarlet Letter wing. There's way too much false precision in determining who goes where, given the level of uncertainty we have not only about the PED era, but also about previous eras.
If I had to propose a solution, I start with these reforms:
(1) Make all ballots public. One of the easiest ways to prevent abuse of any kind of voting system is to increase transparency and accountability. If not public, at least public enough for #2, below.
(2) Establish a "super-committee" of full-time, uber-respected writers who will examine ballots, and have the power to put voters on probation for abuse of their voting privileges, or even outright revocation of voting privileges. They can come up with whatever standards they wish for defining what "abuse" means, but to me, a clear example would be returning a blank ballot.
(3) If there is a 10-year period before you get a vote, during which you need to be covering baseball more or less full-time, you should lose voting privileges after the 10th year after you STOPPED covering baseball.
(4) Continue to increase the electorate beyond the BBWAA, but limit the "new" members to people who more or less cover baseball full-time. Broadcasters, internet writers, maybe even some historians and members of the SABR community. Definitely no fan vote though.
(5) Probably most importantly, I would either eliminate the 10-vote limit, or raise it to 15. The 75% threshold already ensures that only the most deserving candidates get in. As Swampboy notes, the 10-vote limit just creates a logjam that isn't helpful.
(6) While we're at it, I might institute a voting floor: you have to vote for two, and if you don't you lose your vote.
(7) Of course, this (#6 above) means you probably have to tighten up the nominating process, too. Great careers though they may have had, what are players like Todd Walker, Jose Mesa, and Royce Clayton doing on a Hall of Fame ballot? Being placed on a ballot implies (or should) that the nominating committee believes the player is deserving of AT LEAST 5% support. Stop putting guys on the ballot who have no shot of getting at least that level of support.
(8) This is a form of Swampboy's "Puff of White Smoke" solution, but in the past they've had run-off elections. Take everybody who surpasses 25% voting and have a run-off, with an "elect top-2" minimum (+ anybody else who exceeds 75%).
(9) Change the 5% minimum for falling off the ballot to 2% or 3% first year, 5% second year, 10% fifth year, 50% 10th year. You should have to show some significant progress toward election, or fall off so that others can get more serious consideration. Perhaps five years after a player falls off, they should be eligible to be re-nominated, but if placed back on the ballot, they fall off again if they don't clear 25% the first year, and 50% the next. [The corrollary to this change is to seriously re-think an improve the veteran's committe.]
(10) Maybe my favorite: establish different voting options: (A) Yes; (B) No - never; and (C) Not now, ask me next year. If you get more than 50% of (B), you should fall off, regardless of whether you clear 5% of (A) votes. A player whose votes fall that way really has no shot of getting in, and should be cleared from the ballot so he can be considered by the veteran's committee, and others with a realistic shot can be focused on. If a player gets more than the threshold minimum (see #9 above) of (A) votes, and more than 30% of (C) votes, your time on the ballot is extended by a year. If you get more than 50% (C) votes, regardless of how many (A) votes you get, you stay on the ballot, but don't get your time extended.
Of course, none of these have much chance of being considered. Maybe one - I can see them allowing more than 10 votes.
I don't like the idea of separating the Hall into some kind of "pure" wing, and then the Scarlet Letter wing. There's way too much false precision in determining who goes where, given the level of uncertainty we have not only about the PED era, but also about previous eras.
If I had to propose a solution, I start with these reforms:
(1) Make all ballots public. One of the easiest ways to prevent abuse of any kind of voting system is to increase transparency and accountability. If not public, at least public enough for #2, below.
(2) Establish a "super-committee" of full-time, uber-respected writers who will examine ballots, and have the power to put voters on probation for abuse of their voting privileges, or even outright revocation of voting privileges. They can come up with whatever standards they wish for defining what "abuse" means, but to me, a clear example would be returning a blank ballot.
(3) If there is a 10-year period before you get a vote, during which you need to be covering baseball more or less full-time, you should lose voting privileges after the 10th year after you STOPPED covering baseball.
(4) Continue to increase the electorate beyond the BBWAA, but limit the "new" members to people who more or less cover baseball full-time. Broadcasters, internet writers, maybe even some historians and members of the SABR community. Definitely no fan vote though.
(5) Probably most importantly, I would either eliminate the 10-vote limit, or raise it to 15. The 75% threshold already ensures that only the most deserving candidates get in. As Swampboy notes, the 10-vote limit just creates a logjam that isn't helpful.
(6) While we're at it, I might institute a voting floor: you have to vote for two, and if you don't you lose your vote.
(7) Of course, this (#6 above) means you probably have to tighten up the nominating process, too. Great careers though they may have had, what are players like Todd Walker, Jose Mesa, and Royce Clayton doing on a Hall of Fame ballot? Being placed on a ballot implies (or should) that the nominating committee believes the player is deserving of AT LEAST 5% support. Stop putting guys on the ballot who have no shot of getting at least that level of support.
(8) This is a form of Swampboy's "Puff of White Smoke" solution, but in the past they've had run-off elections. Take everybody who surpasses 25% voting and have a run-off, with an "elect top-2" minimum (+ anybody else who exceeds 75%).
(9) Change the 5% minimum for falling off the ballot to 2% or 3% first year, 5% second year, 10% fifth year, 50% 10th year. You should have to show some significant progress toward election, or fall off so that others can get more serious consideration. Perhaps five years after a player falls off, they should be eligible to be re-nominated, but if placed back on the ballot, they fall off again if they don't clear 25% the first year, and 50% the next. [The corrollary to this change is to seriously re-think an improve the veteran's committe.]
(10) Maybe my favorite: establish different voting options: (A) Yes; (B) No - never; and (C) Not now, ask me next year. If you get more than 50% of (B), you should fall off, regardless of whether you clear 5% of (A) votes. A player whose votes fall that way really has no shot of getting in, and should be cleared from the ballot so he can be considered by the veteran's committee, and others with a realistic shot can be focused on. If a player gets more than the threshold minimum (see #9 above) of (A) votes, and more than 30% of (C) votes, your time on the ballot is extended by a year. If you get more than 50% (C) votes, regardless of how many (A) votes you get, you stay on the ballot, but don't get your time extended.
Of course, none of these have much chance of being considered. Maybe one - I can see them allowing more than 10 votes.
Howard Bryant needs to go.
This years vote is a disaster for the Hall of Fame's finances as it depends on the induction day as a huge part of it's financial well being. This year the only people elected by the veterans committee are long dead and the only player was a barehanded catcher. I guess he was supposed to be a better player than Biggio. (SARCASM ALERT). I'm sure the crowds will be quite low this year.
No Electee's this year...??
Are you KIDDING me...??
What on earth is going on here...?
Biggio was a shoe in if there was ONE on the least.
What a sad day.
YGD
Are you KIDDING me...??
What on earth is going on here...?
Biggio was a shoe in if there was ONE on the least.
What a sad day.
YGD
I don't agree with the blanket blackballing of all players in the "steroid era" but even if you threw the obvious guys out (Bonds, Sosa, etc) how is it possible that Craig Biggio is not elected.
That is embarrassing. These writers are idiots.
That is embarrassing. These writers are idiots.
The Baseball Hall of Fame was built on a myth and has made itself irrelevant. Half the guys in the Hall couldn't carry Pete Rose or Shoeless Joe's shoes. Sanctimonious.
Really surprised Biggio didn't make it.The guy was good and represents everything right about the game.That was a huge mistake.
I dont know much about the voting.Does Biggio have a chance to get in there again? Or is it a one time thing?
I dont know much about the voting.Does Biggio have a chance to get in there again? Or is it a one time thing?
quote:Originally posted by fanofgame:
Really surprised Biggio didn't make it.The guy was good and represents everything right about the game.That was a huge mistake.
I dont know much about the voting.Does Biggio have a chance to get in there again? Or is it a one time thing?
Biggio has an excellent chance of making it within the next few years. He appeared on 68% of the ballots and led all vote getters in his first year of eligibility. Nobody who has ever received that many votes that early has failed to eventually make it.
Yes, he's got 15 years to get voted in by the dolt writers.
But here's an interesting theory...if a player isn't worthy in year one, what makes him more worthy in year 2+?
His numbers will be the same. Nothing changes. If he wasn't good enough for the writers in the first place, then he should never be.
But here's an interesting theory...if a player isn't worthy in year one, what makes him more worthy in year 2+?
His numbers will be the same. Nothing changes. If he wasn't good enough for the writers in the first place, then he should never be.
Biggio is on a very short list of those with over 1,000 extra base hits. He also stole over 400 bases. 3,000 hits and he is 2nd all time in hit by pitches.
He is among the all time leaders in doubles. He might be the only player in history to start at 3 up the middle positions. I believe he was an all star at all 3 positions.
You have to wonder how many voters really checked his career accomplishments.
He is among the all time leaders in doubles. He might be the only player in history to start at 3 up the middle positions. I believe he was an all star at all 3 positions.
You have to wonder how many voters really checked his career accomplishments.
quote:Biggio is on a very short list of those with over 1,000 extra base hits. He also stole over 400 bases. 3,000 hits and he is 2nd all time in hit by pitches.
He is among the all time leaders in doubles. He might be the only player in history to start at 3 up the middle positions. I believe he was an all star at all 3 positions.
You have to wonder how many voters really checked his career accomplishments.
Craig Biggio played his entire career in the Houston, Texas market. Had he played in say,Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, Baltimore or Chicago to name a few ,he would have made it easily.
Next year will be very interesting with several guys widely perceived as "clean" eligible--Maddux, Glavine, Frank Thomas. It will be interesting how it all plays out as the logjam gets ever bigger and the votes divided more ways.
Another reason Biggio was not elected was our fascination as fans with HR totals and .300 batting averages. Yet as PGStaff points out, Biggio was extrodinarily valuable and skilled in a multiple of ways. He was a tremendous leadoff batter willing to do anything to get on base. I doubt anyone saw a game where he didn't give 100% the whole 9 innings even when injured. He was what hustle and trying to win was all about. I do believe he will make it in the next couple of years.
There's a list of those who voted and agreed to make their ballot public.
http://bbwaa.com/13-hof-ballots/
I wasn't surprised, and not sure why players deserve to be voted in on their first time on the ballot.
I think it sends a great message. Let this be a lesson to those that think that they are bigger than the game.
http://bbwaa.com/13-hof-ballots/
I wasn't surprised, and not sure why players deserve to be voted in on their first time on the ballot.
I think it sends a great message. Let this be a lesson to those that think that they are bigger than the game.
quote:Originally posted by biggerpapi:
But here's an interesting theory...if a player isn't worthy in year one, what makes him more worthy in year 2+?
His numbers will be the same. Nothing changes. If he wasn't good enough for the writers in the first place, then he should never be.
This is my biggest problem with the voting. Either you are deserving to be in the Hall of Fame the day you retire (after waiting the mandatory 5 years) or you are not.
Edgarfan,
I like your reform ideas especially #1,#2, #3, #4. I would make an adjustment to #4 to not allow broadasters who are employed by an MLB team. Many of today's broadcasters work for the clubs they cover as the teams own their own media outlets.
Clearly Selig needs to do something after he wipes the egg off of his face.
I like your reform ideas especially #1,#2, #3, #4. I would make an adjustment to #4 to not allow broadasters who are employed by an MLB team. Many of today's broadcasters work for the clubs they cover as the teams own their own media outlets.
Clearly Selig needs to do something after he wipes the egg off of his face.
quote:Originally posted by fenwaysouth:
"I like your reform ideas especially #1,#2, #3, #4. I would make an adjustment to #4 to not allow broadasters who are employed by an MLB team. Many of today's broadcasters work for the clubs they cover as the teams own their own media outlets."
I agree that there is at least a potential conflict of interest that ought to be avoided. Keep in mind that the writers have a conflict of interest too (which is why some major papers, including the New York Times and Washington Post, do not allow their eligible writers to participate). Writers are creating the news about which they are reporting - a big no-no in journalistic ethics. There is enormous interest in articles written about the Hall of Fame, and especially about writers' struggles with deciding whom to vote for, or disclosing their decisions and reasons. Particularly in the Internet age, there is a monetary interest in driving people to websites and blogs, so this isn't some theoretical conflict. Not to mention that a fairly sizable portion of BBWAA members who used to work for newspapers are now employed directly by MLB or the clubs themselves, writing on team websites or MLB.com.
I'm not sure that broadcasters employed by clubs (or a subsidiary of the clubs) is a "worse" conflict of interest than those examples. I'd rather have Vin Scully (who has seen more MLB baseball games and players live in his career than most eligible voters can ever hope to, and has an undeniable historical perspective that would be useful.
The key, again, is transparency and accountability so that we can ensure objectivity and integrity in the voting. If we get hard-line on these conflicts of interest, I'm not sure who'll be left to vote.
quote:Originally posted by TPM:
"I wasn't surprised, and not sure why players deserve to be voted in on their first time on the ballot.
"I think it sends a great message. Let this be a lesson to those that think that they are bigger than the game."
TPM, I wasn't surprised either, and I can respect a hard-line stance on PEDs. There are issues associated with this, though. The big one is when you move beyond those who have failed a test or admitted using, and start acting based on rumor and innuendo and what you think you "know." The other big one I already tried to describe earlier in the thread, but it is essentially the gridlock that occurs if you don't clear the ballot of players who should obviously be "in" (or "out"). If a third of voters vote for payers based solely on on-field performance regardless of PED suspicion (or lack thereof) and another third won't vote for anyone even remotely suspected of PED use - which is not to far off of what we're observing in the publicly released ballots - then NOBODY gets elected. The first group has ballots so crowded that deserving down-ballot candidates get pushed off, and the latter group tends to be very "small Hall" oriented with ballots that only name 2-4 candidates.* The result is that NOBODY gets elected, and decisions are deferred to an even MORE crowded ballot.
*By the way, this happens even in the absence of the PED issue on crowded ballots, simply because of the reluctance of some voters to vote for ANYBODY on the first ballot. The last time nobody was elected, in 1996, the ballot included six players who would eventually be elected. A better comparison to the stacked ballots we'll be facing in the next few years is 1946, a year when there ALSO was no one elected, but which included a whopping 46 players on the ballot who would eventually be elected. It is not hard to see that just about ANY voting strategy that delays a decision on a worthy player carries with it the very real potential for knocking down-ballot but still worthy candidates off the ballot.
The other thing that bothers me, and apparently most posters in this thread, is that the so-called "obvious" candidate with NO ties to or suspicions about PED use, Craig Biggio, didn't even reach 70%! I understand (though do not support) questions about Biggio's also Hall-worthy teammate, Jeff Bagwell, but I have a hard time understanding how Craig Biggio doesn't make a 10-deep ballot. Or a number of any other believed-to-be "clean" players. Edgar. Fred McGriff (who wouldn't be in my top 10, but who I think is deserving). Alan Trammell. Tim Raines. Curt Schilling. Even Kenny Lofton...I'm not sure he's a Hall of Famer, but he's at least borderline, and instead he falls off the ballot before he even gets a good look. The point is, even if there was a legitimate message to be sent about PEDs, there ought to have been AT LEAST one or two candidates that some kind of consensus could be built around.
.
for me the solution is simple
divide the hall into eras
divide the hall into eras
quote:for me the solution is simple....divide the hall into eras
Who decides the eras....Ken Burns?
Biggio gets connected with Bagwell and that's why he didn't get the votes...
If you were his brother or dad or son right now i think you'd be shaking your head saying, "C'mon man"
If you were his brother or dad or son right now i think you'd be shaking your head saying, "C'mon man"
quote:Originally posted by trojan-skipper:
"Biggio gets connected with Bagwell and that's why he didn't get the votes..."
Sadly, you may be right. Because of Caminiti, and later Pettitte and Clemens (and to a lesser degree Bagwell), the Astros of the 1990s and early 2000s are viewed with some skepticism. But here's the deal: there's only smoke and no fire with for Bagwell, and there isn't even smoke w/r/t Biggio. I don't have a problem with people deciding for themselves how to handle KNOWN steroid users, but punishing players based only on rumor, suspicion and innuendo is unfair IMO - and punishing the associates of the suspected is an even more unfair stretch.
The only other thing I can think of with Biggio is that there is some feeling that he was a bit of a compiler who hung around a bit too long in pursuit of magic numbers. From 2000-2007 Biggio was no better than a league average player (actually a tad worse - he hit .266/.338/.428 with an OPS+ of 95, or 5% worse than league average), and since a big part of his case for enshrinement rests upon those magic numbers, that tarnishes his case a bit. But, to me, that ignores the narrative of Biggio's career that PGStaff explained so well, and just as importantly, ignores the truly great statistical peak of a uniquely versatile up-the-middle ballplayer. 2000-2007 may not have been so great, but during an 11-year period from 1989-1999 (with the possible exception of his down 1990 season*), Biggio was truly great: he hit .294/.383/.438 with a 125 OPS+ and 54.0 WAR, was a seven-time All Star (once as a catcher, and six times as a 2B, before later moving to CF) and five-time Silver Slugger award winner (at both catcher and second base). He won four Gold Gloves and finished in the top ten in MVP voting three times (and top fifteen two more). Whatever you think of the "compiler" years of the 2000s, Biggio did more than enough before that, in my opinion, to warrant first-ballot enshrinement. And even in the 2000s - a league-average CF is not worth nothing, just sayin' (and he was a fair bit better than that in 2001, 2004, and 2005...).
*If you want to look at Biggio's peak as starting after that down 1990 season, his "peak" stats look even better: a nine-consecutive-year period where Biggio hit .299/.391/.451, with a 129 OPS+ as a Gold Glove, Silver Slugger up-the-middle player with almost 1000 runs scored, 600 RBI, and 300 SB, as well as over 1500 hits - one-third of which went for extra bases. He averaged 5.4 WAR per season during that nine-year period. His five-year peak? .308/.404/.477, with a 136 OPS+ and 31.5 WAR. He is deserving, not just for longevity and "magic numbers" but for a stellar peak as well.
Hey guys did you see the article on espn "Hall of Famers applaud shutout".
I am going to imagine that for the next few years, there is going to be continued speculation regarding who did and who didn't and IMO if anyone has doubts, then DO NOT vote them in, especially on first ballot.
These players come from an era of speculation, and there are those that suspect that many, more than we will ever know, took all sorts of things not permitted, they just didn't get caught.
My contention is that a new set of rules needs to be made for the inductees. You can't use the old standards, if you ever want players to be voted in without doubting if they deserve it or not.
If people think that everyone is clean, even now, that is so wrong.
Watching MLB network this morning, there is a claim that one Hall of Famer used PED's, but no one is sure who it may be.
I am going to imagine that for the next few years, there is going to be continued speculation regarding who did and who didn't and IMO if anyone has doubts, then DO NOT vote them in, especially on first ballot.
These players come from an era of speculation, and there are those that suspect that many, more than we will ever know, took all sorts of things not permitted, they just didn't get caught.
My contention is that a new set of rules needs to be made for the inductees. You can't use the old standards, if you ever want players to be voted in without doubting if they deserve it or not.
If people think that everyone is clean, even now, that is so wrong.
Watching MLB network this morning, there is a claim that one Hall of Famer used PED's, but no one is sure who it may be.
I have my suspicions. Both Whitey Herzog and Tommy Lasorda put on some additonal bulk at the end of their HOF managing careers.quote:TPM posted....Watching MLB network this morning, there is a claim that one Hall of Famer used PED's, but no one is sure who it may be.
quote:Originally posted by TPM:
"Hey guys did you see the article on espn "Hall of Famers applaud shutout".
I didn't read the article, but don't put much stock in those opinions, which to me smack of "I used to walk uphill in three feet of snow to school both ways" and "these kids have it too easy, and don't do it the right way" kind of grumpy old man-isms. The truth is, over the entire history of baseball, players - including many of these players - have looked for whatever edge they could get - including a form of PED (greenies). Some of them (Gibson, Schmidt) have been honest enough to say they are glad they weren't faced with the choice because they think they would have succumbed to the pressure to compete. They do not really occupy any moral high ground.
quote:"I am going to imagine that for the next few years, there is going to be continued speculation regarding who did and who didn't and IMO if anyone has doubts, then DO NOT vote them in, especially on first ballot."
I can't agree with this stance, for one primary reason. You can be relatively sure about some players who've either failed a test, appeared (with sufficient credible evidence against them) in the Mitchell Report, or have admitted using or been implicated with strong evidence (which I don't think needs to be strong enough to justify a conviction in court, but should rise above rumor, innuendo, and speculation). You cannot ever be certain of who DID NOT use. Beyond the obvious ones, when you start trying to figure out who did and who didn't, you're as likely to be wrong as right and the "punishment" you seek to impose is little more than arbitrarily applied.
The other thing - which I have much less problem with, but I still view is a problem - is the delaying of the reward. The backlog is such that we don't have that luxury without many unintended consequences. But I've spilled too many words on that already. I wouldn't do that, but I can respect the position of people who disagree with me.
quote:"These players come from an era of speculation, and there are those that suspect that many, more than we will ever know, took all sorts of things not permitted, they just didn't get caught."
Amen to that. But, I think you're making my point. Since there are many more than we will ever know, how can you punish them without also punishing those who were clean? Is the answer to just punt the whole era? I can see that as a logical alternative, but not a very practical one for a museum dedicated to the history of baseball (warts and all).
quote:"My contention is that a new set of rules needs to be made for the inductees. You can't use the old standards, if you ever want players to be voted in without doubting if they deserve it or not."
I'm not sure what you mean here, unless you're talking about getting some clarification from MLB and the Hall on what the character clause means w/r/t PEDs and player eligibility. I'd support that. I wouldn't support some kind of Scarlet Letter, separate wing though. You'd be back to who's in and who's out, and besides, every era has its issues and unsavory characters. We're not electing the Pope (Swampboy's "puff of white smoke" solution notwithstanding
), we're honoring ballplayers for what they did on the field.quote:"If people think that everyone is clean, even now, that is so wrong.
Watching MLB network this morning, there is a claim that one Hall of Famer used PED's, but no one is sure who it may be."
I saw that too - actually heard Fergie Jenkins talking about it. He said that it was a player who played part of his career in the 1990s, and that he heard a rumor about 4 years ago. Tom Boswell also made that claim in the "Tenth Inning" of Ken Burns' Baseball (Boswell was the first writer to link Jose Canseco to steroids, and he did so in 1988). Read the links if you want to follow the speculation, but the list of possible suspects is less than 15 Hall of Famers, many of whom were first ballot guys (inluding the two most likely suspects, according to the speculation). The cat is very likely already out of the bag. Does that really surprise any of us?
quote:Originally posted by RJM:
I get tired of the sanctimony of many sportswriters given sportswriting is to journalism as McDonalds is to Mortons Steak House. 3/4 of them can't write a decent paragraph.
This is hilarious. I also agree.
Edgarfan,
If you didn't read the article then why are you commenting on it?
Getting into the HOF is supposed to be an almost impossible feat, let's leave it that way. Let's help to bring back and preserve the integrity of the game the way it should be, for the future of MLB and the future players and future HOFers.
Competitive people always will look for an edge, but back then greenies were allowed. You drank all night and then went to the field to get your amphetamines from the pushers waiting at the entrance.
And how do you really know who is/was clean and who isn't? How do you know that?
If this still wasn't an issue than MLB would not have declared today that they are going to begin in season testing for HGH. Why do you suppose that is?
I don't know about you, but many people watch players and they wonder how they accomplish what they do, because they KNOW how difficult the game is to play day to day, year to year.
It makes you wonder doesn't it.
If you didn't read the article then why are you commenting on it?
Getting into the HOF is supposed to be an almost impossible feat, let's leave it that way. Let's help to bring back and preserve the integrity of the game the way it should be, for the future of MLB and the future players and future HOFers.
Competitive people always will look for an edge, but back then greenies were allowed. You drank all night and then went to the field to get your amphetamines from the pushers waiting at the entrance.
And how do you really know who is/was clean and who isn't? How do you know that?
If this still wasn't an issue than MLB would not have declared today that they are going to begin in season testing for HGH. Why do you suppose that is?
I don't know about you, but many people watch players and they wonder how they accomplish what they do, because they KNOW how difficult the game is to play day to day, year to year.
It makes you wonder doesn't it.
quote:Originally posted by TPM:
There's a list of those who voted and agreed to make their ballot public.
http://bbwaa.com/13-hof-ballots/
I wasn't surprised, and not sure why players deserve to be voted in on their first time on the ballot.
I think it sends a great message. Let this be a lesson to those that think that they are bigger than the game.
TPM - I admire your willingness to come here and state your opinion and stand your ground, but I disagree with you on this one frankly.
Craig Biggio deserves to be in the HOF right now becaue he is a HOF'er. There can be no debate about that imho. This first ballot argument is hokey stuff designed by non-important people to feel important about themselves.
God forbid, something happens to him, and I pray it does not, but what if Craig is not around next year to accept the honor? It would be big time shame on all the knuckleheads who did not vote for him this year imho.
Are these the same writers that voted Bonds MVP seven times and gave Clemens seven Cy's?
CD,
Never said he or anyone else didn't belong in the HOF, if he does belong, then he will be.
BTW, he is there, in a way, his arm guard is, for record amount of hit by pitches.
My point being, in an era of speculation and doubt, I can see why he did not make it, despite his accomplishments. Obviously, some weren't 100% convinced all was kosher. I am ok with that on a first time ballot.
JMO
Never said he or anyone else didn't belong in the HOF, if he does belong, then he will be.
BTW, he is there, in a way, his arm guard is, for record amount of hit by pitches.
My point being, in an era of speculation and doubt, I can see why he did not make it, despite his accomplishments. Obviously, some weren't 100% convinced all was kosher. I am ok with that on a first time ballot.
JMO
Speaker, Rose, Cobb, Musial, Biggio.
All time doubles hitters. And Biggio is the only rightie.
Biggio was a remarkable player. Hustled every play, every day. Moved to centerfield (relatively) late in his career to make room for Jeff Kent at second.
The man got the job done. He played with integrity. Over 3000 hits. Stole bases.
The most memorable game I attended was not when the Astros played a World Series game in Houston. It was when Biggio retired.
I had the pleasure of watching Biggio play for many years in Houston. As my son was growing up and we went to games, I said "play the game like Bigg". When given the option, he wears #7.
They got it wrong this year. Sure hope they get it right next year.
All time doubles hitters. And Biggio is the only rightie.
Biggio was a remarkable player. Hustled every play, every day. Moved to centerfield (relatively) late in his career to make room for Jeff Kent at second.
The man got the job done. He played with integrity. Over 3000 hits. Stole bases.
The most memorable game I attended was not when the Astros played a World Series game in Houston. It was when Biggio retired.
I had the pleasure of watching Biggio play for many years in Houston. As my son was growing up and we went to games, I said "play the game like Bigg". When given the option, he wears #7.
They got it wrong this year. Sure hope they get it right next year.