Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Page 4 of 5 pages
Well, again, what is the evidence that voters care about postseason performance? Is it Jack Morris, a player who hasn't gotten in? Is it Bernie Williams, a player who just fell off the ballot?
Your dogmatic insistence that the only way to show it matters is if they cross the line of in/out is ridiculous. The fact that Don Larsen stayed on the ballot for 15 years proves that it matters to some.(roughly about 5% of the voters) It's not going to singlehandedly put anyone in the hof, but it can help it out. And as pointed out, many of the voters pushing for Morris routinely point out three things. 1. Winning percentage 2. game 7 of the world series 3. 14 opening day starts. Is also enough evidence to show that it matters to a handful of voters.
So the only real "problem" is that the voters didn't vote the way you would have.
WTF does winning percentage and opening day starts have to do with the postseason?
As for the voters citing Game 7, it's pretty clear that they generally cite things after the fact to justify their vote, but that they didn't base their vote on it.
This year the average voter filled up two-thirds of his ballot. Many of them are very wedded to maintaining the facade of "Guardians of the Hall Gates", so will never cast a full ballot. These voters can maintain this same facade by voting for 10 on a 15-limit ballot, and some of them would.
the way of Jay Mariotti
...he argued with his former girlfriend...He allegedly pulled a chunk of her hair-extensions out, grabbed her cellphone, shouted at her, and ordered that she get plastic surgery because she was not satisfactory to his demands as a high profile sports writer and general celebrity...
But, again, that's only a "problem" if you adopt the position that amps are equivalent to steroids. That's wrong, but more importantly, it's a distinctly minority view.
If the Hall of Fame expanded the limit to 15 with an announcement that they were doing so because there are twice as many teams and players nowadays, I think face would be saved all the way around. And it has the benefit of being true.
What "fix" is possible to resolve the "problem" of writers who "wrongly" think amps weren't as bad as steroids?
The steroids players won't be getting in any time soon. Does anyone feel otherwise?
At this point I think the following contenders will still probably be on the ballot going forward:
Based on the remaining pool above, however, here is how I see the next few years after that:
Jan 2019 - Mussina, Raines, maybe Mariano Rivera(if he retires after 2013?)
Jan 2020 - Bagwell, Piazza (some "suspicions" start to relent)
Jan 2021 - Chipper, Vlad (funny how I've never heard anyone mention suspecting Vlad although all of him including his hat size was twice as big on the Angels as when he was in Montreal)
Jan 2022 - T. Hoffman
Jan 2023 - Bonds, Clemens - a decade after first appearing on ballot!
I don't think Ivan is going right in. Anyone holding votes for suspicion is going to hold his vote.
You're forgetting Thome, Jeter, Ichiro, possibly ARod, and probably a few others.
What is the evidence against Piazza, again? Is it just Chass's bacne, or is there more?
I wouldn't be surprised if most writers view A-Rod as "A-Roid" so he'll have to wait a long time before he has any chance to get in.
I don't know if this would fix it or not, but one potential rule change that I could see having an effect: After the vote, publish all the ballots, including who submitted which.
5. And I've also said that if a current HoF member should either confess to or be outed about steroid use, I'd consider the entire steroid question to be over and done with. Such a confession / revelation would both sadden and disgust me, but once the horse has escaped there's no point in keeping the barn door locked.
cfb, just for the record, I've always been 100% consistent on five major points WRT steroids and the HoF:
...looks like a roider but no suspicion guys (Thomas, Thome and maybe even Vlad and Irod)...
BBWAA.com: No Players Elected for First Time Since 1996
3. That said, I've always respected the POV that says that while steroids are cheating, cheating of all types has always been a part of the game, and that the HoF has never taken any other type of cheating into consideration. I don't accept this POV any more than I accept the idea that shoplifting is equivalent to grand larceny
Is McGriff a tactical vote there?
Bonds got 206 votes and Sosa got 71. So there are 135 people who were willing to vote for the most highly suspected juicer of them all, but were not willing to vote for Sammy Sosa. I guess that, like everything else in this mess, this result reflects a complex combination of factors. But am I the only one who thinks that's just a little bit whacky?
6 of the top 8 eventually got in
Steroid suspicions aside, their vote totals might be just this far apart.
- Maddux goes no higher than 82% in 2014. The ballot is too crowded and enough voters are dumb enough to forget who he was. He's not remotely sniffing 90%.
I'm wondering why Don Sutton and Phil Niekro had to wait.
From Cooperstown's standpoint there's no benefit in letting this drag out an extra five or ten years so the writers can get on their individual soapboxes each January.
Football writer here! What’s that? You say some of these players took performance-enhancing substances? Well, all of those suspensions they received for violating league policy should show up as blemishes on their record.
What’s that? You say there were no suspensions, no tests, and for most of these players’ careers, baseball’s so-called “policy” was a series of memos which treated steroids no differently than a bag of weed, and included no specified guidelines or procedures? Well, you should have had a better policy, even an imperfect one like the NFL’s. The temptation to use performance-enhancing drugs is an unfortunate, inescapable by-product of big-time professional athletics, and a measured system of deterrents and punishments appropriate to the infraction is a must. At least you are sure that these are the only players who used them.
What’s that? You say that untold hundreds of players at all levels of minor and major league competition may have used them? Well, gosh, that figures, since there was no real policy, and some players would start taking them just to remain competitive with other abusers. But at least there has been a comprehensive investigation and we now know for certain that the accomplishments of these players, some of the biggest stars in sports history, should be discounted.
What’s that? You say that even after congressional hearings and long circus trials, no one is entirely sure who did what when, and when one of these players admitted to using steroids, you assumed he was lying because he did not admit to doing them as often or as maliciously as you think he did? Well, I suppose if you want to write off an entire period of your sport’s history as The Steroid Era, cast a pall of suspicion and disgust over a decade’s worth of sports memories, and basically say that everything exciting and delightful that happened in baseball from about 1988 to 2002 was squirted from a syringe into the bloodstream of some villainous cad, you can keep a generation’s worth of all-time greats out of the Hall of Fame for being maybe-slightly guiltier than everyone else of a crime no one bothered to accurately define or enforce.
What’s that? You say that’s what many voters are perfectly willing to do? O-kay. Well, let me just concentrate on the Pro Football Hall of Fame and cast all my votes for Cris Carter.
Because they weren't viewed as truly great while they were playing.
And despite what you hear, there aren't any automatic numbers.
This is baloney, and there aren't many better examples than Don Sutton. Yes, if Adam Eaton had somehow pitched for a hundred years and compiled 300 wins, then he wouldn't be in the Hall of Fame. No, the electorate won't literally behave like a line of code that says IF WIN_TOTAL(PLAYER_ID)>=300 THEN HOF(PLAYER_ID)=.T., but, steroids and game-throwing aside, in our universe it's true that 300 wins gets you into the Hall of Fame. The two year or three year wait accomplishes nothing except to make the voters look both irrational and spineless.
I think it's more likely than not that at least one of Biggio, Glavine, Thomas, Bagwell joins Maddux next year. That's in roughly descending order of likelihood.
3. That said, I've always respected the POV that says that while steroids are cheating, cheating of all types has always been a part of the game, and that the HoF has never taken any other type of cheating into consideration. I don't accept this POV any more than I accept the idea that shoplifting is equivalent to grand larceny,** but I do understand the point that's being made.
- Bonds and Clemens each gain no more than 10% in 2014. The "first ballot penalty" is wishful thinking on our parts. The voters are going to be just as sanctimonious next year as this.
I just don't get that. I mean I get the sadden part etc, but I don't get why that would all the sudden change your view on who should go in. If it's revealed a significant number of people goes in, then I would understand why it would change your view, but as I compared it to, one confirmed user in the hof, is like using Jim Rice as the hof standard. Mistakes happen.
I see the argument, but at that point I don't think it would be right to retain the honor for a player who made it in by lying while denying it to someone who got caught before the vote.
Frank Thomas is the first steroid era slugger with the numbers and reputation to be on the ballot. Not sure if it will be enough for first ballot induction, but I think he gets in second or third.
He also said: "Pettitte wasn't allowed to say that Clemens used steroids."
And the shoplifting vs. grand larceny thing is just saying that both spitballs and steroids are cheating, but you're only going to penalize the steroids user because he happened to find a more effective way of cheating. Makes no sense.
Every pitcher with 300 wins is in the HoM.
Sam Rice got in on the 14th ballot, but he had 2987 hits.
Somebody should have fudged that for him
Given the record keeping of the day it's entirely possible he didn't know he was within spitting distance of a milestone.
In 1982, Hank Aaron joined the ballot, and was elected with 97.6% of the vote. Fine, you say, but Maddux isn't Hank Aaron. And you're right.
Frank Robinson also joined the ballot in 1982, and was elected with 89.2% of the vote. Again, this is the most-supported set of returning candidates in 30 years, plus Hank Aaron, and Robinson sailed in anyway. Maddux may not be Aaron, but he's roughly Frank Robinson, and there's no Aaron joining the ballot next year.
I will take this bet for just about any amount you want that doesn't require a second mortgage. Larkin pulled 86% last year, Alomar 90% the year before.
- Nobody reaches 90% before Jeter.
After Maddux, Griffey will.
There's no freaking way he [Piazza] can possibly pick up the votes he needs to jump that much. This would be true under these circumstances whether there were roids or whether they understood how good he is. But, really, stop freaking out
I also agree with the rest, though I think Schilling's uninspiring showing kind of takes the air out of the "loves the story" angle.
Schilling had a great showing. How many other pitchers open at 38% with under 220 wins? He's already ahead of Morris's path, in a vastly more crowded and noisy ballot environment. He'll go in by 2020.
This really is getting absurd. Many voters aren't voting for "roiders". That does not mean the voting process has become an irrational, random grab bag.
He belongs in. He got 38 percent of the vote. It's not embarrassing, but neither is it a sign the writers are drooling over him and his story.
Not drooling, but getting him noticed and visible. It's Schilling's story that separates him from Mussina and Brown and Cone and Saberhagen.
In the coverage on MLB Network the past few days -- which I admittedly did not consume whole, lest I end up on a three-state killing spree -- there was at least one reference made to steroids as "nuclear weapons" that changed the capability of players. I wonder if Jorge Piedra feels that way. I wonder if Matt Lawton and Eliezer Alfonzo share that opinion. The people who have the largest audiences are the ones getting the issue most wrong, and that's inordinately frustrating. They're reducing the question of the efficacy of these substances to a handful of data points, ignoring all of the evidence that those data points were influenced by a dozen factors specific to the era, not to mention everything we know about variance and outliers in baseball statistics. They're treating steroid use as qualitatively and quantitatively different from amphetamine use, for no reason other than they want to do so.
They're going to win. There is, at this point, no way to turn the tide on this issue. The bad math and the bad analysis is going to carry the day, because the people providing it are completely invested, in one way or another, in the narrative of the "steroid era", a specific period of time in which specific drugs were used to alter the game's record books, and they simply will not listen to reason nor allow more datacentric approaches into the room.
...The voters are wrong. There's simply no other way to put it. They're applying a standard that is not just inconsistent with that applied for 75 years of Hall elections, but one that is inconsistent with the one MLB applied both throughout the era in which these events happened and on to today. It's time for the Hall to stop cowering behind the bullies with ballots and lead, not with a cosmetic move for publicity's sake, but with a real one that serves the institution, the people who care about it, and the players who deserve to be in it.
Griffey's probably going to have to wait a year.
My recollection of Griffey is he played about 80 games per season on a mediocre team for the last 18 or 19 years of his career. If he gets into the Hall of Fame in the first couple years on the ballot, it's going to be very close. Also true of Frank Thomas. And anyone else except Maddux and Jeter. There are too many people on the ballot and even with 6.6 names per ballot this year nobody got in and only one somewhat worthy person even got 60%.
Greg Maddux is a lock for induction.
The inductees aren't supposed to be jammed down the throats of the game's various factions
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (3 members)
Page rendered in 1.0392 seconds, 74 querie(s) executed