I'm now convinced that the BBWAA HOF voters are further away from the intellectual mainstream than the birthers. 9/11 truthers and the "moon landing was faked" contingent.

Oh, c'mon. He says he'll very likely vote for Bagwell next year. (I don't know why, but who cares.) He voted for Trammell. He didn't vote for Morris (and he's from Detroit). YAY!, I say.

Bob; you left out the grassy knoll folks; Iraqi weapons of mass destruction folks, to say nothing of the "Pete Rose is just mis-understood" folks

The mix of good and stupid makes my head hurt. Oh well.

Also FTFA:

Lou Whitaker should have been retained on the ballot and deserves to make the Hall of Fame

vote for Bagwell next year. (I don't know why

Because then he can go in with Biggio.

I'm now convinced that the BBWAA HOF voters are further away from the intellectual mainstream than the birthers. 9/11 truthers and the "moon landing was faked" contingent.

I have mostly stayed out of PED and/or HOF discussions so I guess I haven't been bombarded with as much unfair slandering of Bagwell as others, but isn't it about a million times more likely that ANY weight-lifter baseball player from the 90's did steroids than that the moon landing was faked? I don't think it requires some outlandish paranoia to think that Bagwell was juicing...

Yeah - I like this guy's ballot. He recognized that Trammell and Whitaker were the stars of that team. He can decipher which guys deserve it, he just wants to wait a little while longer to gain more confidence that the players were clean.

Its funny that people have suspicions with Bagwell, but not with Martinez, another guy who looked like a body builder by mid-career.

This is one of the best ballots I've seen. Really surprised he didn't pick Morris. Didn't he see Morris pitch to the score all those years?

I think his stance on Bagwell is fairly reasonable (I think Pos had a good column last year saying the "wait and see" approach was justifiable), however, what evidence is going to come out to exonerate him? And how long do you wait before you finally say "well, there's nothing on the guy, let's let him in." You also have to wonder why Larkin and Edgar don't get the same treatment. Heck, Alan Tramell played the tail end of his career in the PED years, and we've seen there really isn't a profile of a PED user. If baby-faced Mormon good guy Wally Joyner can use PEDs, anyone can.

Also, the comments on his article are bashing him for not voting for Morris. I wonder if I should write a counter to them or just ignore them.

he just wants to wait a little while longer to gain more confidence that the players were clean.

As said below the exceprt "So in other words, even though there’s no evidence Bagwell used PEDs, he’s waiting for more evidence….that he didn’t do PEDs."

How do your prove a negative from almost twenty years ago in the absence of tests? With seances, tarot cards and divining rods? The only outlandish paranoia in this case is coming from the BBWAA HOF voters, who obviously fear that they will induct a 'roider (and who says that they have not already?) and have decided to keep out people that have not used just to make their point.

Hey, there's no evidence Barry Larkin used PEDs either. That's pretty suspicious.

How do your prove a negative from almost twenty years ago in the absence of tests? With seances, tarot cards and divining rods?

Exactly.

It's not really about proving a negative, as much as avoiding a positive after the fact. It's not the way I would do it of course, but it's somewhat defensible as long as Bagwell is retained on the ballot(although the influx of upcoming names may end up hurting him massively because of the wait and see approach) 15 years is a good amount of time for something to come out, or for a persons view to soften/harden on an issue.

I don't like the fact that he's not (yet) voting for Bagwell, and I like even less the fact that as a steroid discounter, he's going to vote for Bonds and Clemens next year. But I do like his four choices for this year, and I particularly dmire any Detroit writer who sees through the Morris hype.

And what I like even more is that even though I disagree with much of what he writes, he spells out his reasons and clearly has given it a lot of thought. I only wish I could say the same about every writer.

But why Bagwell? As I pointed out in an email I sent, is he going to give the pitchers of the era the same "guilty until proven innocent" treatment - after all, more pitchers have tested positive than hitters.

it's somewhat defensible as long as Bagwell is retained on the ballot

No. Is it right to slander someone with baseless charges for two years and defend it by saying say "it's OK, he has thirteen more years of crappy BBWAA votes to go through" when these voters still demand proof that Bagwell didn't use illegal PED's?

Now you're 35 years away from the supposed scene of the crime looking for clues.

But why Bagwell? As I pointed out in an email I sent, is he going to give the pitchers of the era the same "guilty until proven innocent" treatment - after all, more pitchers have tested positive than hitters.

Yeah, that's one thing that makes no sense. But perhaps if the dog doesn't bark in the coming year he'll vote for him the next time around and give him a shot at going in with Biggio.

No. Is it right to slander someone with baseless charges for two years and defend it by saying say "it's OK, he has thirteen more years of crappy BBWAA votes to go through" when these voters still demand proof that Bagwell didn't use illegal PED's?

But he also says that "a year from now [Bagwell] very likely will get [my] vote," so even if it's not what we'd like to hear, at least he's not pulling a Bryant Gumbel.

How do your prove a negative from almost twenty years ago in the absence of tests? With seances, tarot cards and divining rods?

As said in the post you quoted, he's looking for confidence, not "proof." What form might this take? I don't know, people naming names while saying Bagwell wasn't a user? A better understanding of just how many players were actually using during his career?

If one believes that electing a user is worse than making a non-user wait a few years, putting a moratorium on the induction of all players from the generation is the perfectly sensible approach to take. (Not that Henning is doing exactly that.)

I don't like the fact that he's not (yet) voting for Bagwell, and I like even less the fact that as a steroid discounter, he's going to vote for Bonds and Clemens next year

That kind of gets at the heart of the problem, doesn't it? Bonds and Clemens are tainted with real evidence of steroid use, but the silly "discounters" will vote for them anyway. Bagwell is NOT tainted with any real evidence, yet the discounters will count him as a user anyway and will NOT vote for him.

So you have a non-tainted player getting hurt more than the tainted players.

The argument seems to be "I think Bagwell's a HOFer on the merits, but I want to take a little time to investigate things personally before inducting him into an institution that doesn't ever kick anyone out, and he'll still be there next year."

As these things go, that's not really all that bad.

I think Bags is an obvious HOFer, but another year won't hurt, and if it gives them the "Killer B's" narrative then hey, that's cool.

It would be a better story for Bagwell to get 60% this year. Then they can induct Bagwell and Biggio together. These are writers after all.

If one believes that electing a user is worse than making a non-user wait a few years, putting a moratorium on the induction of all players from the generation is the perfectly sensible approach to take. (Not that Henning is doing exactly that.)

Exactly. You can't take someone out of the HoF, so unless the person is in their last year or in danger of slipping past 5% you should vote no if you're unsure.

It was perhaps one thing for people to be bothered about steroids use years ago. But given all that we have learned about this issue in the past decade -- how many players were users, what they were using, when, how they obtained it, what the culture was -- to still be bothered by it now, or to still be trying to sort through users and clean players and steroids discounts, is, to use Bob's reference, craziness on the order of the birthers and 9/11 truthers.

To even care anymore about whether a player was a user seems to be evidence of a mental disorder.

Exactly. You can't take someone out of the HoF, so unless the person is in their last year or in danger of slipping past 5% you should vote no if you're unsure.

Also, the players could have helped clear up this mess by having the courage to name names (and by not obstructing efforts to curb use at the time), which they've refused to do. It might be impractical to expect them to do this, and I'm not going to sanctimoniously say they should have because I don't know that I would. But don't complain when we don't build a statue in your honor.

No. Is it right to slander someone with baseless charges for two years and defend it by saying say "it's OK, he has thirteen more years of crappy BBWAA votes to go through" when these voters still demand proof that Bagwell didn't use illegal PED's?

Now you're 35 years away from the supposed scene of the crime looking for clues.

It's not slander.

I do not agree with him, but his point of view is not as horrible as some are making it out. I think he's 100% wrong here, but at the same time he's being open about stating that he is willing to change his mind, that he's not saying that Bagwell used, just saying that a bodybuilder baseball player in the 80's and 90's, is probably going to have some suspicion attached to their name, and that he wants a little more time to see if any whispers come out in the open.

But no one is saying "I heard ( ) and I want to check it out", or "I'm not sure he's a HOFer, so another year to reflect on it is warranted". Henning said there's "one guy who deserved to be there has been, perhaps wrongly, suspected of having had some help". And, "Bagwell’s case is particularly troubling, because of timing and lack of evidence, and a year from now he very likely will get a vote. It’s a matter of discussing, researching, thinking."

He thinks Bagwell's deserving; he also apparently has no information that makes him think Bagwell did use. What more "researching" does he need to do? Is he going to dig until he does find something, then say "See, I was right!"?

I have mostly stayed out of PED and/or HOF discussions so I guess I haven't been bombarded with as much unfair slandering of Bagwell as others, but isn't it about a million times more likely that ANY weight-lifter baseball player from the 90's did steroids than that the moon landing was faked? I

Yes. Probably most of the players in the late 90s and early 2000s were using steroids. What's stupid is holding that against some of them and not others. The brew ha ha over saying Bagwell probably used is dumb - of course I think he probably used, just like I think about every other MLB player from that era. I also think everyone hear probably jaywalks, speeds, and so forth. Maybe someone doesn't, but most do, and if you take offence about it you're nuts.

Yes, his reasoning is unfortunate at best. He's basically waiting to see if real evidence of use emerges. He doesn't have any now.

And next year he won't vote for Sosa, either.

Why doesn't anyone suspect Edgar ?

Why doesn't anyone suspect Edgar ?

Because this entire thing is insane and has no reason to it?

Bagwell is NOT tainted with any real evidence, yet the discounters will count him as a user anyway and will NOT vote for him.

By the vast majority of no voters who are impacted by suspicions of steroid use, Bagwell is getting "bright lined" out, not discounted out.(**) Few if any are saying, "I suspect his numbers"; they're saying "I suspect him."

(**) And that's why bright lining is so insidious -- its "mission" has engulfed mere "suspects." He won't admit it, but that's in large part why Andy's been so vocal about the smears against Bagwell (which isn't to say there isn't a lot of pure good faith there as well). Because their sanction -- automatic bar -- is so severe and unforgiving, bright liners have to be extra showy about their need for "proof" and so theatrical when it doesn't meet their standards.

I don't like the fact that he's not (yet) voting for Bagwell, and I like even less the fact that as a steroid discounter, he's going to vote for Bonds and Clemens next year

That kind of gets at the heart of the problem, doesn't it? Bonds and Clemens are tainted with real evidence of steroid use, but the silly "discounters" will vote for them anyway. Bagwell is NOT tainted with any real evidence, yet the discounters will count him as a user anyway and will NOT vote for him.

So you have a non-tainted player getting hurt more than the tainted players.

Yeah, though in Henning's case he'll likely come around about Bagwell, and better late than never. But that said, the idiocy of "steroid discounting" is perhaps the one thing about steroids we agree on.

-------------------------------------

By the vast majority of no voters who are impacted by suspicions of steroid use, Bagwell is getting "bright lined" out, not discounted out.(**) Few if any are saying, "I suspect his numbers"; they're saying "I suspect him."

(**) And that's why bright lining is so insidious -- its "mission" has engulfed mere "suspects." He won't admit it, but that's in large part why Andy's been so vocal about the smears against Bagwell (which isn't to say there isn't a lot of pure good faith there as well). Because their sanction -- automatic bar -- is so severe and unforgiving, bright liners have to be extra showy about their need for "proof" and so theatrical when it doesn't meet their standards.

What you call showy and theatrical might more simply be described as wanting to see evidence that goes beyond speculation and false accusations that later get recanted. Which is what the "case" against Bagwell has amounted to up to now. I'm not sure what's so terrible about supporting a form of "punishment" for a crime against baseball, but at the same time wanting to make sure you're "punishing" the right people.

And I'll say this again: If either "your" side by persuasion, or the passage of time by itself, succeeds in shifting the consensus on steroid use to the point that it's seen in a less transgressive light, then I'll be perfectly fine with accepting that shift in opinion, even if I haven't been persuaded myself. So what you call "bright line" may very well turn out to mean nothing more than a delay, to the point in time when honoring a Bonds / Clemens / A-Rod wouldn't split the baseball community right down the middle, as it would today.

That kind of gets at the heart of the problem, doesn't it? Bonds and Clemens are tainted with real evidence of steroid use, but the silly "discounters" will vote for them anyway. Bagwell is NOT tainted with any real evidence, yet the discounters will count him as a user anyway and will NOT vote for him. So you have a non-tainted player getting hurt more than the tainted players.

The last statement here is true but I don't see how "discounting" is to blame. He's not discounting Bags. What's hurting Bags is the wait and see attitude. Just 'cuz it's the same voter, it's still a different argument.

OK, let's take Henning at his word.

Has he done any research into whether Bagwell used illegal PED's - or is he merely being passive/aggressive and waiting for others to do so.

If his strategy is to sit on his posterior and wait for news, it's an incredibly disingenuous position.

The last statement here is true but I don't see how "discounting" is to blame. He's not discounting Bags. What's hurting Bags is the wait and see attitude. Just 'cuz it's the same voter, it's still a different argument.

But it's not that Henning's internal consistency isn't defensible (if you're a steroid discounter), it's the irony of a writer who obviously cares about steroids saying that he's not going to vote against a player with zero credible evidence against him, while at the same time saying that he will vote for two players where the evidence is far more concrete. It just goes to demonstrate the lethal mix of "steroid discounting" combined with giving credence to speculation and dubious "evidence".

OK, let's take Henning at his word.

Has he done any research into whether Bagwell used illegal PED's - or is he merely being passive/aggressive and waiting for others to do so.

If his strategy is to sit on his posterior and wait for news, it's an incredibly disingenuous position.

That it is, though its one (somewhat) saving grace is that his position appears to have an expiration date of January 2013.

I don't get why waiting 7 years to vote for Bagwell is massively worse than waiting the minimum 5 years to vote for him. All he is doing is just giving a little more time to see if something pops up. If nothing does, then he votes for Bagwell, why is that such a big deal?

I would have a problem if every writer thought this way of course, because it would lead to Bagwell being removed from the ballot. But as pointed out, nearly every player who has made 40% in his first ballot eventually goes into the hof, the reasons that people wait to vote for the second, third, or 15th year is varied. Henning has his reason, I may not agree with them, but at least it's nothing as silly as thinking that Morris/Rice/Sutter actually belong in the hof.

I love that he says Bags case is particularly troubling because of the lack of evidence. I mean, what does tat mean? You'd think they'd be troubled by guys who used, buy, no, we're troubled by guys who didn't. They're so tied up in knots, it's laughable.

I don't get why waiting 7 years to vote for Bagwell is massively worse than waiting the minimum 5 years to vote for him. All he is doing is just giving a little more time to see if something pops up. If nothing does, then he votes for Bagwell, why is that such a big deal?

It's (probably) not a big deal in terms of Bagwell's HoF fate. But it's not a logical stance, it's not being universally applied and he's not making clear what the standards are. In short, it's not "fair" and that annoys people.

In theory, there's no problem with the "I'd like to wait and gather as much information as I can." But, c'mon, Bagwell's been retired for 7 years now. The Mitchell Report was, what, 8 years ago? Baseball's got its testing program, Congress got its time in the limelight, tne NYT apparently got tired of calling lawyers and getting them to "not say no" when reading a list of names, and even with Bonds and Clemens on trial, they're on trial for technical lying stuff.

In short, nobody is investigating this now. Nobody's been investigating it for 5 years. Nobody is looking into Bagwell, nobody has the right to.

Ironically, about the only way we might find out more about Bagwell's use is if he does get elected -- then the roaches will come out of the woodwork to tell their stories (true or not).

Neyer:

You might not believe this, but in some quarters one is actually mocked for taking more time for discussion, research, and thought.

Drugs are hard, man. Cheating is hard. Circumstantial evidence is hard.

It's hard, so most people just don't bother with any of it. It's either all good, or all bad. Seems like most Hall of Fame voters simply will not vote, no matter the circumstances, for any player who's been attached to steroids. Seems like most bloggers and fans of bloggers, no matter the circumstances, give a free pass to every player who's ever cheated.

Well, you know. That's one way to live your life. The easiest way, probably.

I remain unconvinced that it's the best way, or the most interesting way.

You wrote:

But it's not that Henning's internal consistency isn't defensible (if you're a steroid discounter), it's the irony of a writer who obviously cares about steroids saying that he's not going to vote against a player wiounting" combined with giving credence to speculation and dubious "evidence".th zero credible evidence against him, while at the same time saying that he will vote for two players where the evidence is far more concrete. It just goes to demonstrate the lethal mix of "steroid disc

To which I reply:

1) Yes, internaL consistency is lacking.

2) The "irony" you speak of is the same issue...of Henning using one argument here and another there.

3) So the POINT is as SugarBear and others say, that bright lining in itself is problematic--at least as practiced--in the demand for proof of a negative. Prove that you don't beat your wife. There's a reason this sort of evidence can't be required in a court of law. It can't be done. It presumes guilt. This is not the American way. It's the Salem witch trials. I heard a rumor that you did X, prove that the rumor is false.

So, granted, it's not bright-lining per se, it's the extremes that its practitioners go to. Henning's action re. Bags would be no less objectionable in the absence of his intentions re. Clemens or Bonds. Hennings is not a "discounter" per se, he is a voter who sometimes discounts. I could just as easily say he is a "bright liner" who sometimes discounts as you saying he is a discounter who sometimes applies a bright line. Thje irony runs both ways.

(Head, meet wall.)

Henning isn't even saying he isn't going to vote for Bagwell if evidence comes out, all he is doing is staying in a holding pattern and collecting his thoughts on the matter. This month he isn't comfortable voting for Bagwell, in the future he thinks he will eventually be ready to vote for him. Even though he says the numbers are good enough for the hall, it's possible that he just doesn't "feel" like a hofer to Henning or a lot of other things that is making him hold off on the vote. He's an AL writer, and it wouldn't surprise me if writers in one league consistently undervalue the impact guys had in the other league(you know how many people on these boards seem to think Biggio wasn't regarded as a future hofer until his 3000th hit. That is just an absurd concept to me, a fan of the NL Central, but at the same time, I also thought Sandberg was massively ahead of Alomar/Whittaker by the feel criteria, because I never really saw much of the others---turns out that isn't the case, but it's still sometimes difficult for me to accept that Alomar and Whitaker are clearly ahead of Ryne)

Bagwell is NOT tainted with any real evidence, yet the discounters will count him as a user anyway and will NOT vote for him.

It's the exact opposite -- and, again, Bagwell isn't getting discounted out by suspicious voters, he's getting bright lined out.

There's one simple way to a bright liner and a discounter. If someone says they don't want to make a "mistake" by voting a user in, they're a bright liner. Why? Because a discounter wouldn't care about "wrongly" voting a user in; they'd care only about wrongly voting in someone whose use meant that their numbers weren't really Hall of Fame worthy..

And basically no one is saying the latter, and everyone who's "troubled" about Bagwell's steroid use is saying the former.

I'm now convinced that the BBWAA HOF voters are further away from the intellectual mainstream than the birthers. 9/11 truthers and the "moon landing was faked" contingent.

Er, those are "intellectual mainstream" positions.

What puzzles me about people declining to vote for Bagwell is that of the players you might suspect, an obsessive weightlifter isn't one of them. Bagwell looks like a guy who lifts a lot of weights. He doesn't look like some weird, roid-fueled freak with his entire vascular system visible beneath tissue-paper thin skin, if that's what roid-fueled freaks indeed look like. He looks like a power hitter who hit the weights and added a bunch of home runs by becoming stronger.

I don't get why waiting 7 years to vote for Bagwell is massively worse than waiting the minimum 5 years to vote for him. All he is doing is just giving a little more time to see if something pops up. If nothing does, then he votes for Bagwell, why is that such a big deal?

Because voters are supposed to be voting for players they think are qualified. What this writer is doing is basically "I would vote for him now, but I suspect he's a wife beater. Let me wait a year or two to see whether evidence surfaces showing that he's a wife beater. At that point, he'll fail the character clause."

It's one thing to all of a sudden think the character clause is relevant, and to refuse to vote yes on the basis of something the player has done that goes to character. But this is the writer refusing to vote yes based on the character clause despite conceding that Bagwell has not failed the character clause.

And I agree with SugarBear: Andy will loudly scream that what this writer is doing is wrong -- but this is where the Andys of the world have brought us.

And I agree with SugarBear: Andy will loudly scream that what this writer is doing is wrong -- but this is where the Andys of the world have brought us.

To elaborate: If one feels that "juicers" have no place in the Hall of Fame, then a natural extension of that is to withhold votes for players you suspect are juicers even though you concede there is no evidence -- because you know that once a player is in the Hall of Fame he can't be kicked out, and you don't want to make the mistake of putting someone in who you feel may later be proven to be a juicer.

It's a natural extension of Andy's position. And is why it's so ridiculous to listen to Andy complain about writers such as Henning, and for Andy to complain that the crusade he led didn't stop where he wanted it to stop.

It's as silly as the co-conspirator who says "Hey, were were just supposed to rob the bank. Nobody was supposed to get hurt!"

And I agree with SugarBear: Andy will loudly scream that what this writer is doing is wrong -- but this is where the Andys of the world have brought us.

You forgot to mention my causing the market to crash in 2008. Your master will not be pleased.