This guy should take writing performance enhancing drugs.

Lemme have it.

Mom used to tell me not to pick on the slow kids.

So Jack Morris, Pete Rose, and Biggio and McGriff.

It may well be that nobody is getting in this year, despite all the qualified candidates, due to the faux steroids outrage. Maybe Biggio, but maybe not.

I'm sure the Hall isn't worried at all. I'm sure the Hall totally believes that people are going to come to Cooperstown in droves this summer to see Deacon White's induction ceremony. And if the Hall forgets that, Andy will surely remind them.

They're out to get Bonds, but oh look, they're inducting a White. You don't need a singing telegram to get that message, maaaan.

Does he not realize that Rose had more and closer connections with steroid dealers than anybody actually on the ballot this year?

If he is going to refuse to vote for a candidate because of suspicions based on circumstantial evidence, then Rose should be top of that list.

Oh, and again, despite the incredibly rare bad ballot here or there, we can and we must respect the consensus.

I'm sure the Hall isn't worried at all. I'm sure the Hall totally believes that people are going to come to Cooperstown in droves this summer to see Deacon White's induction ceremony.

No, the HoF would obviously prefer that a living player be inducted.

But ... this happens every once in a while. It hasn't happened since 1996. There's no serious chance it will happen again until 2023 or so. If the HoF and the town of Cooperstown are so f'ing fragile that one lousy induction weekend every 15-20 years is going to send them into a tizzy then they're doomed regardless.

And, Ray, what is the usual attendance for a non-exciting induction? What's the usual attendance for a no-living-player induction? Did people turn out in droves when Sutter was the only one inducted? Or Gossage alone in 2008? Or Dawson in 2010? How many people were driving hundreds of miles to see Blyleven and Alomar for that matter? Do you have any idea? Because I sure don't.

The HoF is about to see one of the longest runs of all-time great inductions in its history starting next year. Why should the HoF be worried that Biggio might not squeak over the line this year?

Don Sutton, 1998: 7,000 estimate, according to Chicago Tribune
Gossage, 2008: 14,000 according to Hall of Fame, much less according to NY Times
Dawson, 2010: 10,000, according to HoF
Blyleven/Alomar, 2012: 17,500, according to HoF

Oh, yeah. I wrote in Rose. Same as every year. Never charged with betting on games as a player

According to the Dowd report, Rose was deemed to have bet on games from 1985 to 1987. Rose was a player/manager from 1984-86. Shall I draw a Venn diagram for Daugherty to help explain his ignorance?

I do agree that arguing that the HOF needs to induct certain players for the sake of business is both simply incorrect, and disingenous insofar as it's almost surely not the arguer's true motivation -- please show me somebody who seriously believes that, although the character clause is properly interpreted to exclude all steroid users, they should be elected anyway because it'll mean a bigger induction weekend.

But, paraphrasing what I said in another thread (sorry for the repetition):

this happens every once in a while. It hasn't happened since 1996. There's no serious chance it will happen again until 2023 or so... The HoF is about to see one of the longest runs of all-time great inductions in its history starting next year.

Are you sure? If Biggio doesn't get elected this year, how can you say it's certain that Maddux will be elected in 2014, or, well, anyone else? I realize that Maddux and some others were even better players than Biggio, but Biggio is still normally a first-ballot no-brainer -- a second baseman with 3,000 hits, Gold Gloves, speed, and no PED or other "character" issue other than the wholly imaginary.

And as this farce goes on, the ballot only becomes more of a mess. If no one gets elected this year and Maddux/Thomas/Glavine join them in '14, that makes nine guys on the ballot who have the traditional "automatic milestones" of 500 HR/3000 hits/300 wins, plus at least another dozen extremely plausible candidates. And the writers don't average 10 names per ballot, or anything close to it. I think that state of affairs makes it difficult for anyone to be named on 75% of all ballots, no matter how qualified.

Won't vote for players 'suspected' of steroids. Will vote for Rose. Uh-huh.

It's not as if the upcoming votes are going to wreck the Hall of Fame or poison the water in Otsego Lake. But the idea that Greg Maddux and Ken Griffey are going to keep everyone from caring about the ballot lunacy is a wish. One of the longest runs of all-time great inductions is going to coincide with the all-time era of bad feeling and imbecilic overreactions. People are capable of noticing both.

Rose retired in 1986, he's not even in the BBWAA jursidiction anymore. Plus, he was friends with a steroid dealer. I like the response in #2.

Maddux will get more than 90 percent of the vote next year; I thought that was obvious to anyone who follows this stuff, but if not - there's your newsflash.

Thomas should get in easily and was an outspoken critic of PED users, but he was built like a Mack truck and I won't claim to predict how many voters add 2 and 2 to get 5 there. Glavine won 300, but was not always dominant. I think he would get in on the first try, but I won't say that boldly.

But Maddux? He's more likely to break the record for first-ballot pct election than he is to not get elected.

What Howie said.

Can the BBWAA please take this writer's vote away? He has apparently broken the rule about no write-in votes repeatedly. If you cannot follow simple rules about filling out a ballot, the vote should be taken away.

Furthermore, giving Pete Rose a write-in vote does nothing. It's not going to convince Major League Baseball to reinstate him. It is a pointless exercise that has nothing to do with the people who are actually on the ballot.

Are you sure? If Biggio doesn't get elected this year, how can you say it's certain that Maddux will be elected in 2014, or, well, anyone else? I realize that Maddux and some others were even better players than Biggio, but Biggio is still normally a first-ballot no-brainer -- a second baseman with 3,000 hits, Gold Gloves, speed, and no PED or other "character" issue other than the wholly imaginary.

To paraphrase my response from the other thread: Yes, I'm sure. Biggio never came close to winning an MVP; he has some black ink, but it's in categories people don't care about (runs, doubles, HBP, and steals once), and he's perceived as a compiler because he hung on to get 3000 hits. Despite that, and the loaded ballot, Repoz's tally has him around 70%; he still might squeeze in, and he'll at least be close.

Maddux, Unit, and Pedro combined for 12 Cy Young awards. Griffey won an MVP, led the league in homers 4 times, won 10 Gold Gloves, and made the All-Century team. You don't think they'll manage the extra 5% Biggio might be missing?

Can the BBWAA please take this writer's vote away? He has apparently broken the rule about no write-in votes repeatedly. If you cannot follow simple rules about filling out a ballot, the vote should be taken away.

If I were allowed to make one change to the Hall of Fame voting process... OK, I'd remove the 10-vote limit. But my second one would be to invalidate the entire ballot of anyone who writes in a candidate (especially one who's on the permanently ineligible list), and to stop sending ballots to people who do it more than once.

I don't think he'll break the record. You'll get the usual couple who don't vote for anybody in their first year, you'll get a couple of blank ballots, you'll get a few who figure he'll sail in and want to vote for 10 other people (strategic voters), and you could even start getting a lunatic fringe who'll only vote for steroid suspects in the hope that completely clogging things and blocking anyone from getting in might force change (unlikely, but it could happen). Best guess is that Maddux ends up with somewhere in the 87-92% range.

Thomas will get a few idiots who will just dismiss any power hitter from the "steroid era" no matter what (except maybe, for some unknown reason, Griffey). He'll get the blank ballots, the no first year guys, a decent sized block of guys who won't vote for a DH, and another decent sized block who only remember the late career injuries and lessened performance but somehow forget just how impressive he was for the '90s. My bet is that in his first year, The Big Hurt comes in with somewhere around 60-70%.

Just my $.02, and very likely worth less than that.

Great ballot.

Thomas should get in easily and was an outspoken critic of PED users, but he was built like a Mack truck and I won't claim to predict how many voters add 2 and 2 to get 5 there.

I have no idea if Frank Thomas took steroids, and I don't care if he did. But any broad assumption that he is "clean" seems to require a rather large leap of faith.

Frank Thomas was huge. Red flag. Frank Thomas hit a lot of home runs. Red flag. Frank Thomas had MVP-type years at age 35 and age 38. Red flag. Frank Thomas played football at an SEC school. Multiple red flags.

Yes, he was an outspoken critic of PED users, but Ted Haggard was an outspoken critic of homosexuality and look what we found out about him. Rafael Palmeiro seemed pretty anti-PED when he pointed his finger at that congressional hearing, then a few years later he tested positive for something.

If people are placing Jeff Bagwell and Mike Piazza in the "suspected user" pile, it seems perfectly reasonable that they would put Frank Thomas there as well.

Well, his MVP-type years at 35 and 38 were his 9th and 10th best full seasons, so that's a little bit disingenuous. Frank Thomas with a 140 OPS+ was Frank Thomas in decline.

Hmm... what could a voter use against Maddux, if you assume steroids won't be mixed in somehow (sure didn't expect them to be mentioned against Biggio).

1) Just 2 20 win seasons, both dead on 20 (ignores great years during 94/95 when he didn't get a full years starts)
2) Not a dominating pitcher like Nolan Ryan as he never K'd 8+ per 9 innings and never had a no hitter.
3) Hung on too long, last 5 years all had 4+ ERA's
4) Good but not great in postseason, did worse than regular season at 11-14 3.27 ERA thus not a 'winner' like Jack Morris
5) Just one WS ring, and was just 1-1 in that World Series and 2-3 in all World Series (2.09 ERA, but that means he pitched good enough to lose)
6) Only pitched in the NL, the weaker league

Hey, never said they were good points to use against him, just I could imagine some writer using them as why he wouldn't vote Maddux in as a first ballot guy.

If Biggio doesn't get elected this year, how can you say it's certain that Maddux will be elected in 2014, or, well, anyone else?

Mostly dealt with. Biggio may get in this year anyway -- I'm guessing 3000 hits goes farther with the political cartoonist, non-Repoz brigade, but I don't know that for sure. Somebody posted in the HoF thread that Biggio only needs to average 76% in the non-Repoz ballots to hit the magic number.

If Biggio is not elected, it sure looks like he's going to finish around 70%. That will virtually guarantee him election in 2014, granted at the expense of some Thomas, Glavine, etc. votes. So Biggio might take 2 years -- Alomar took 2, Larkin took 3, Sandberg took 3 so there's nothing unusual about it. At most this means that 3000 hits is not the guarantee we thought.*

Bagwell is currently tracking 12% ahead of where he was last year, maybe he drops back to 65% or something when the counting is done, that's still a big jump. There's little evidence that anti-steroidism is going to keep Bagwell out of the HoF -- there are some not voting him for that reason but it doesn't seem like it's a very big bunch. His vote totals are tracking quite nicely with the Larkin/Sandberg crowd -- yes, we know he was better but, as I've pointed out before, the man has fewer hits, HRs and RBIs than McGriff. We're lucky the BBWAA isn't confused about which of those two was the better player.

It's 5 players -- Bonds, Clemens, Sosa, McGwire and Palmeiro. Three of those guys are tracking at Dave Parker level and will have zero real impact on future elections.

Again, from a ballot perspective, Bonds and Clemens are not all-time superstars, they're guys who've debuted in the 50% range. They are 2 Lee Smiths or 2 Tony Perezes, nothing more. Do you know what this year would have looked like without steroids? Bonds and Clemens sailing in ... and a race among Biggio, Bagwell, Piazza, Sosa, Morris and maybe Raines for a third slot with a very good chance nobody would get it. It would be 1999 all over again. Meaning that we would be entering 2014 with all the new studs entering the ballot and those 6 guys in the 60-70% range. Instead, we're entering 2014 with those same big names coming on and only 5 guys in the 60-70% range. From the front-runners perspective the ballot is actually less crowded thanks to steroid blackballers because they've gotten Sosa out of the way; it's from Larry Walker's perspective that Bonds and Clemens eating up 50% of the vote causes big problems.

It is gonna get crowded, no doubt. Some guys will get into the 60s then stall out or fall back. But everybody who votes B/C will vote Maddux. Everybody who voted Bagwell but not B/C will vote Maddux. Everybody who voted Morris will vote Maddux. Everybody who voted Mattingly, Murphy, Edgar, Walker, McGriff, McGwire, Palmeiro will drop them in favor of Maddux if they need to. The only way Maddux (and the studs coming after him) doesn't get in is if there is a big gang of "pro-roid blackballers" -- i.e. vote only B/C(S/P/M) to intentionally break down the system. In the quite unlikely event that should happen, I wouldn't bet on those guys winning the ensuing battle.

I will agree that the non-election of Maddux would probably break the system and lead to immediate (but possibly only short-term) changes in the process. But they're not going off that cliff.

* Most of the guys who squeaked over the 3000 hit line did it by hanging on. Brock was atrocious, even Carew and Boggs weren't very good. Biggio's last two seasons are right down there with Brock's last 3 (Brock was pretty good in his last season but atrocious the two before) but they're not really far out of line and at least he wasn't eating up a corner/DH spot to do it.

I'll go with the chorus that doesn't think the Hall and Cooperstown are in any real danger. The Hall doesn't need the six guys a year who are worthy to all get in (in fact they would prefer they didn't) and the pitchers/Griffey/Thomas maybe/et. al coming up can hold them over until the writers finish up their steroid penalties. We probably shouldn't yet be convinced that no one's going in this year either - the ballots we're seeing are from guys who want to be noticed, who would seem more likely to have some kind of message ballot.

That being said Biggio was probably an 80-85% guy regardless, so it wouldn't take much to make him wait a year.

If I were allowed to make one change to the Hall of Fame voting process... OK, I'd remove the 10-vote limit. But my second one would be to invalidate the entire ballot of anyone who writes in a candidate (especially one who's on the permanently ineligible list), and to stop sending ballots to people who do it more than once.

It's odd. The writers publicize that they are multiply breaking the rules... and no action is taken.

20. J.R. Wolf Posted: January 02, 2013 at 10:02 PM (#4337433)

Great ballot.

Shocking.

Don't know how you can claim that Pete Rose without a doubt didn't bet on baseball as a player. Guy was a hustler, he would have done anything for money.

Well, his MVP-type years at 35 and 38 were his 9th and 10th best full seasons, so that's a little bit disingenuous. Frank Thomas with a 140 OPS+ was Frank Thomas in decline.

But that age-35 season was much better than his age-34 season (also age-30, age-31, and age-33). In similar playing time, he added 14 home runs. And then he hit 39 HR at age 38 while playing in a pitchers' park. That's not normal.

However, I was simply making a devil's advocate post -- I'm not actually trying to argue that Frank Thomas took steroids, just that no one should be free of suspicion (if you're into casting suspicion). We don't know.

I've seen people mention Frank Thomas as some sort of "definitely clean" candidate, and that doesn't make sense to me. Maybe he never touched a PED in his life. But I don't see why he's any more obviously clean than Jeff Bagwell or Mike Piazza. Or even Sammy Sosa.

20. J.R. Wolf Posted: January 02, 2013 at 10:02 PM (#4337433)

Great ballot.


Shocking.

That wasn't sarcasm?

How could it not be?

Greg Maddux had performance-enhancing eye surgery. Can't vote for him.

Biggio 62.1 WAR
Randolph 63.0 WAR - HOF 1 and done
Whitaker 71.4 WAR - HOF 1 and done


Biggio's doing just fine at ~70%.

When the writers selected no one in 1996, the Vets Committee put in Earl and Jim Bunning. In 1971, Satchel Paige received special induction. Is 1965 (Pud Galvin) the last time when there were no living inductees? As I said elsewhere, if no one gets the 75%, it's maybe time for Sadaharu Oh's special induction.

First off, this guy is an #######. Secondly, Rose but not steroid guys is nuts to me.

For one there is "Never charged with betting on games as a player". Are you ####### kidding me? You literally just said you had no problem not voting for "suspected" steroid guys (like Bagwell, Piazza) who were never charged either. Go to hell you ####### dickwad ####### piece of #### ##### Mi Krop.

Secondly, how in the world do you justify betting over steroids? At least with steroids the player is trying to help is team win. With betting who the #### knows? Go #### yourself paul duagherty.

Go to hell you ####### dickwad ####### piece of #### ##### Mi Krop

What did Thai noodles ever do to you?

Does he not realize that Rose had more and closer connections with steroid dealers than anybody actually on the ballot this year?If he is going to refuse to vote for a candidate because of suspicions based on circumstantial evidence, then Rose should be top of that list.

Man, Pete Rose retired long before Jose Canseco invented steroids in 1996.

Also, Mr. Hustle. And steroids doesn't help with running. Unless you're in the Olympics and then it does.

The real problem I have with this type of thinking, that somehow suspected steroid use should invalidate anyone's career, is that baseball itself has made no move to do such things. There's no asterisk next to Bonds' records, or Clemens, or Mark McGwire, or Rafael Palmeiro. So there's basically no justification for saying that these guys don't get credit for the very Hall of Fame-like things that they did.

I could see if track didn't want to put Ben Johnson in a Hall of Fame. The world cycling body, whatever it's called, has wiped the slate clean of Lance Armstrong's feats. Fine.

The powers that be in baseball have made no such move. No one has ever suggested that MVPs or pennants or World Series titles should be forfeited. The record shows there were games played and won, trophies awarded. Everything counts.

You can't fix stupid.

That wasn't sarcasm?

How could it not be?

Have you familiarized yourself with the intellectual stylings of our new friend JR Wolf?

if you have no other means to understand the worst traits of cincinnati this writer does a pretty good job of capturing them

Have you familiarized yourself with the intellectual stylings of our new friend JR Wolf?

Based on the past couple of weeks, he's for homophobia, against steroids, and for FIP. A very interesting combo.

I wish the people that voted on the baseball Hall of Fame were people that knew something about baseball.

Walt, you were pretty sure Biggio was getting in this year. I think Maddux and Randy Johnson gets in, but I'm not sure I'd bet on anyone else getting in. The ballot is only getting crazier over the next 3-4 years. Too many great candidates and not enough ballot spots.

At most this means that 3000 hits is not the guarantee we thought.*

Not all of us thought that.

That wasn't sarcasm?

How could it not be?

Well, there's this from the Ryan Freel concussion thread!

5. J.R. Wolf Posted: December 31, 2012 at 04:00 PM (#4335498)
<snip>
Disclosure: I have been hospitalized for sports concussions.

Biggio 62.1 WAR
Randolph 63.0 WAR - HOF 1 and done
Whitaker 71.4 WAR - HOF 1 and done

When was WAR invented? Those guys surely deserved a closer look than they got, but applying a metric retroactively is a little unfair. Maybe Randolph can get in with managerial credit.

There have been career value calculators since Pete Palmer, if not before that. They've been re-invented (VORP, WARP, Win Shares) repeatedly. I think the question you're really asking is "When was WAR added to Baseball Reference?".

Sooo... assuming we disqualify the silly "I'm not voting for ANYONE because... TANTRUM!" ballots -

Is this the worst one of the season?

if you have no other means to understand the worst traits of cincinnati this writer does a pretty good job of capturing them

My observation, albeit from afar, is that pretty much everybody who writes about baseball in Cincinnati resides at the intersection of cranky and stupid.

Too many great candidates and not enough ballot spots.

Thinking about our own HOF results, I guess we're all a hive mind or something; I still don't think the ballot spots are the problem, the voters are the problem.